do you think animal testing is wrong?

Question

I think it's wrong. People who test on animals should test on themselevs to see what it feels like.

"Unseen They Suffer
Unheard They Cry
In Agony They Linger
In Lonliness They Die"
-Peta
stopanimaltests.com

Answer 1

Not only is testing on our fellow animals, who have the same central nervous system as us, and feel exactly the same pain as we do, unconscionably cruel, it's also not scientifically sound. Have you heard of thalidomide? It was a drug which was thought to cure morning sickness, and considered safe for humans because it had been tested on monkeys. Well, thousands of women took it while they were pregnant, and their children were born with no arms and no legs. Testing on animals is not even good science, because just because something is proven safe on another species, it doesn't mean it's safe for humans.

Progressive companies are now using a much preferable way of testing chemicals and products - on human cells in a test tube. It's not only much more humane to animals, it's also more scientific, and gives us information on how products actually interact with humans, which of course makes more sense than testing things on any animal who doesn't even share our biology!
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/alternatives.html

Check out these links. If it's not on this list, then it might probably be tested on animals - these are the only products that you can trust are NOT tested on animals -
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/list.html
There are so many good cosmetics that are NOT EVER tested on animals (Innoxa, Starlet, Australis, Lush, Yardley), there's no excuse for using the others, unless you don't care about animals having their eyes burnt out with shampoo, being force fed lipstick until their stomachs burst. It's unconscionable.

And anyone who says it's okay, have a look here - a warning, these sites will show you the truth about animal testing, so please don't click if you are sensitive and have already made the decision to care in your choices of products -
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/tests.html
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/animals.html
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/index.html

Answer 2

Thank you for reminding me.

I've always been against animal testing, but I've forgotten how terrible it is. It all became kind of abstract to me. Now you've made it personal again.

I cried while reading through some of the websites you guys hotlinked. Let's get active. Anyone know of any Animal Rights groups in Singapore? And don't tell me SPCA, cause those guys are a bloody business and have been euthanising the animals they couldn't get adopted up till only a few years ago when the public found out. The volunteers there didn't even know how to care for the rats that had been put up for adoption.

Is there a PETA equivalent in Singapore?

EDIT: Scratch that. I did further research and discovered that PETA is no different from SPCA in its policies.

Answer 3

It is very wrong to test on animals. It's also pretty stupid, being that animals don't always have the same reactions that humans will have because they're NOT HUMANS! There have been several instances where animal testing did not discover problems that humans ended up having with products once they were on the market. So the animal is suffering for no reason at all.

Answer 4

For me, it depends on the test. If an animal is going to be force fed lipstick to see how toxic it is, don't bother. That's human vanity at its worst. Now for medical research I have less problems with it. I still don't like it, but at least the research can both help vets and humans understand how diseases work. If it wasn't for dogs, we wouldn't have insulin. If it wasn't for Guinea Pigs, we wouldn't understand the effects of vitamin c on the body. If it wasn't for rats and mice we wouldn't have most of the medications we have now. It's not pretty, but it does have its uses. Plus not all scientific research can be done without the aid of animals.

I'm glad, though, that animals are being used less and less in research. Those that are used usually get decent care. I try to avoid companies like proctor and gamble, who have a long history of testing their health care products (toothpaste, shampoo, etc) on animals. They have one test that restrains rats in a device. The rats are then force fed toothpaste and later killed to see what the toothpaste has done to their teeth. Bleck. About the only item I buy from proctor and gamble is Iams.

Regarding the coment 'people should test themselves to see what it feels like' - I know many people who willingly use themselves as test subjects. You can make decent money doing it, too ^.^ .

Answer 5

I think it's very wrong. I've done many research papers on the subject and if you knew half the things I knew you'd be horrified.

For the people who said they don't think it's wrong to test shampoo or pop tarts on an animal... I mean no personal offense, but I don't think you understand.

They don't lather these animals up with shampoo and rinse it off like a human would do it his/herself they put shampoo in rabbits eyes (because rabbits have no tear ducts and can't wash it out ) and let it sit there to see what the effects are (redness, infection, blindness). Or they put it on an animals skin and leave it there to see what happens. And animals aren't given pop tarts to eat... the chemicals in pop tarts may be forced down thier throats to see if it kills them and make sure it's not toxic, but they certainly don't eat them.

I've seen pictures of dogs who were attached to facemasks which puffed out cigarrette smoke constantly, to see what the effects are. We already know cigarette smoke causes cancer, what's the point? And i've seen MUCH worse.

I've done my homework. I know exactly what animal testing is about. It's not pretty, it's not 'nice', and in many cases, there's no point to it. It's just sick, and the animals certainly don't deserve it.

I don't believe animals were put here for us. And I certainly don't think we should be torturing animals like that.

Answer 6

i don't think it's wrong. animals are here for US, they're not here for themselves. we should take care of them and treat them well, but testing shampoo on an animal really doesn't seem bad to me.

now, if you are testing what happens when you put something alive in a microwave, that's wrong. but if it's to help people and it probably won't hurt the animals, no big deal. even if it might hurt the animals but it's to find a cure for cancer, it isn't wrong. people are more important than animals. i love animals very very much, they are my favorite things on the this planet, but people are more important.

by the way, your poem sounds like it would fit some soldiers somewhere fighting to save your skin, not some animals in a lab testing pantene 2 in 1 conditioner or poptarts.

Answer 7

Well or u want to do Human testing? Which 1 u prefer?
If the scientist do not do any experiment, there won't be any new discoveries and the improvement in the science, agree?
This world is just so very contradicting, there gons to be sarcrificing, it's just to see who u will sarcrifice...
So, what's your answer?

Answer 8

I am a complete animal lover and i disapprove of anything that is harmful toward any creature! animals may not be as intelligent as humans but that doesn't give us the right to torture them with dangerous substances! and not everyone feels the need to eat meat and those who do, eat for nurishment and hopefully not just for fun or to simply show that they are superior to lil animals! because that is already a proven fact!(incase you didnt know)

Answer 9

i agreee completely!!
animals can die from having to test a human made product of some sort....
what people think is that ," O well, if one animal dies, another one will be born soon right?"

that is true, but soon they might wipe out a whole species!!

i am so against it!!the humans dont wanna poison themselves by testing something, so they give it to poor little cute animals!!

Answer 10

Yes, I do. There are so many other ways to test products other than on animals.