what are you views on animal testing?

Question

I'm totally against it and support animal rights and i'm with a few anti vivisection orginasations. I do not understand why they test on poor innocent defencless animals no matter what the reason is. How can they say if something is fine for the animal its fine for humans we don't have the same genetics. surely it would make more sense and probebly reduce crime if they tested on pedophiles, murders, rapists, child abusers etc. and at the end of the day who gave humans the right to experiment on these poor animals.

Billy K you freak did i say human testing or testing on pedos, rapists, murders etc they are hardly human are they you dick.

for all you people who think its fine to do this just go to this website and see if you still agree.
www.uncaged.co.uk

J W thank u hun I watched that too its the saddest and evilest thing i have ever seen. all these sickos who thinks its ok to harm animals in this way are seriously very evil people.

Answer 1

I am totally against it. As far as Im concerned PPL who are pr-animal testing should take a look at the undercover video from Huntingdon Life Sciences that was filmed.
I watched not even 1 min 30 and the rage and anger I felt will never ever leave me. Sometimes I close my eyes and I can hear the way the animals screamed.
Put simply, science has come far enough that I think we shouldnt need to test on poor animals. Personally I would rather get cancer and die, then know I lived because a poor animal died to have my sure tested on it. Thats the way I feel - sorry if it upsets some people.

Answer 2

Everyday a human being will talk about his or her rights. If a person feels their rights have been taken away from them they will fight back. Therefore is it not hypercritical for humans -who are generally obsessed with their own rights- to torment and kill, innocent and defenseless animals? Why shouldn't animals recieve the same rights as humans?
Hundreds of animals die daily for scientific research. People seem to find this acceptable and turn a blind eye, but if the same number of humans were to die at the same time, wouldn't it be considered tragic? It can argued that animal experimentation can be beneficial and has helped find cures for some diseases. However the number of successes are very small. This could be due to differences between species, or due to the fact that these illnesses have been placed in the animals deliberatly.
Humans don't catch diseases in this way! Therefore would it not be more logical to use alternatives such as laboratory tests or computer simulators? These will do the job without any slaughter of innocent animals and it will stop inaccuracies caused by differences between species.
So why are animals used when the more logical solution would be to use alternative methods? the answer is simple - money. Animal experimantation is much cheaper - and what is the cruel destruction of animals compared to a pile of cash?
Imagine if this were happening to your own pets, to your cat or dog. Is the scientific benefits still the top priority?
What would happen if I were to deliberatley give another human a fatal disease, if i were to electrocute, shoot or poison them? This would be considered immorally wrong and I would be labeled as a psycho, and I would most certainly be jailed for it. Yet scientists can do this on a daily basis and no one thinks twice. Are these scientist labeled in this way? No - if they do manage to get lucky and create something beneficial from the torture, then they are seen as heroes.
We need to put an end to this cruelty!

Answer 3

Frankly, as long as they feed the animal well and it has I full life, I don't mind the testing. But when they cram them in cages and make the animals suffer, I definitely think it's wrong. I don't do anything about it, though, because I don't know how animals are tested on. The reason animals are good test subjects is because genetics doesn't always matter. The main concern is the products safety. Animals can be replaced in science, but humans can't.

And no way can they start testing it on humans. Since when were mice and flies more important then humans? Would you rather have your brother or sister die than a mouse due to testing on people?

Answer 4

anyone who doesn't believe in animal testing is ignorant and needs a science lesson or two. I'm no genius but I do know that I have a grandmother and two really good friends that are diabetic that wouldn't be alive today without animal testing. Not only do you sound ignorant but also ungrateful. You have no Idea how many lives animal testing saves, the lives of fathers, mothers and other loved ones. Its people like you that wont let the world go on with stem cell research while thousands could be cured of their disabilities. As for researching on Humans (criminals). Humans, no matter who they are have a right to not die or suffer from cruel and unusual punishment, this is 2006, most people don't believe in eye for an eye anymore. If we need to pick one or the other it is and always will be animal. There is no use in getting your panties in a twist because scientists will never listen to a winy girl who's only defense is "its mean". By the way, our blood and DNA is almost exactly the same as pigs DNA, so don't tell me Scientists don't know what will work on animals wont work on humans.

Answer 5

I would much rather see animal testing done than not done. It is evident from the poster's attitude that she has no idea what she's talking about. What are you even talking about with the 'same genetics'? Genetics is not a factor in all tests. Most medicines and products are not based on our DNA code. If testing is done on a few animals, and done with restrictions and regulations (which there are), it is not a big thing. A few animals lost in order to ensure the safety of test pilots, of astronauts, of hospital patients, and similar people is an acceptable risk. Try telling the children of the men and women who have died or would have died because of improper testing about your views. Tell them that their parent died because you didn't want to hurt some little white mice.

We hunt animals for food, and use their fur for products. I don't see why we cannot test on them.

The problem with testing on criminals is that our justice system isn't guaranteed. There are many false convictions. There is no sure way to tell if the person you're sending for a stem cell test is innocent or not. It's akin to the death penalty. Why you would support such a penalty and be against killing animals is beyond me.

Answer 6

Animal testing is very cruel. People seem to have the misconception that most animal testing is to find cures for diseases and other medical testing. This is not true. For instance, Tazer paid the University of Wisconsin to test tazers on pigs recently eventually killing the pigs with the tazers. There was no need for those tests. Results of tazers are already known. Reviewing human statistics would have been more valuable. Animals suffer greatly in testing labs behind closed doors. Rats, mice, and birds are not even covered by the Animal Welfare Act, so they can be tested on without any considerations for their care or pain.

A good organization to go to for more information is NEAVS (www.neavs.org). NEAVS first's efforts were to stop the testing on humans last century. Now, they are fighting for the other species too. NAVS (www.navs.org) is another good organization with information on animal testing. Lastly, PETA's got a site at http://www.stopanimaltests.com.

Answer 7

You are going to lose your sympathetic audience on the second part of your question. It is fascistic to forcibly test on humans, even if you hate them; its what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. You cannot claim to be a better human and more morally responsible while holding those views.

It is a fact that Thalidomide was tested on animals before being released as safe for humans.
Penicillin is lethal to guinea pigs.
Aspirin is lethal to cats.

There are now computer programs that can mimic the behaviour of most molecules in human cells, but a human is more complex than a bundle of cells.
There was a recent case where drugs testing volunteers died, others were seriously ill. This drug was first tested on animals before being released for human tests. But animals and humans are not isentical so its risky however you do it.
Stick to the facts and drop the anti human ideology and you may convince more people to consider the issue.
Stop deciding who is human and who is not in your opinion; that's what the Nazis did.

Answer 8

It would depend on the test and why it is being conducted. While I do NOT condone burning a pig with a blow torch to test a new burn ointment, or injecting a lab rat with 80x the lethal dose of radiation to see what happen; however, if strapping a monkey into a car seat and testing it real time makes my little girl even the slightest bit safer, then it's Bedtime For Bonzo.
However, instances where I support it are rare, and just as drastic as the example I gave, and very far between the acceptable cases.

Answer 9

I think this question is so complicated and to answer it really depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on.

I think everyone who is right minded agrees that animal testing for cosmetics etc is wrong and unnecessary. Although I dont understand people who agree with this but wear fur coats.

I however see a distinction between animals and people. This is not based on any religious beliefs as I am athesist, but more on the fact that an animal cannot and does not think on the level we do.

Because of the distinction that exists between humans and animals I think it would be wrong to experiment on paedophiles etc as this would basically be torture.

I believe that some animal testing is necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum, and the type of animal used should be as low on the evolutionary ladder as possible.

Contrary to what is said about our genes and that of animals, we are very close to all mammals, sharing over 90 percent of the same genes as a mouse.

I am a conservationist and adore all kinds of animals from insects to whales. One of my dogs which is like a child to me has had to have drugs for an arthritic condition he has. Without those drugs he would not be able to walk.

Those drugs were tested on animals.

Answer 10

It's a necessary evil. I use to be completely against it till I had a discussion with a scientist who has to use mice and rats in his research. I can't explain it as well as he did, but they have to use rats because their genetic makeup is similar enough to ours that it helps a lot with preliminary development of medicines, plus they have a very fast reproduction rate. If we didn't test on animals we wouldn't have pretty much most of the medical products we see on shelves today. They can't test on humans because it would take numerous generations just to get the test results.

So basically our options are animal testing or no new medicines. I love animals, but I value the lives of humans more.