what do you think about vivisection????

Question

(animal testing ) whether it's for cosmetics or scientific research

Answer 1

Completely unacceptable. I did a GIANT research project on animal testing in my junior year and learned that animal testing is mostly unreliable because animals are so different from humans.
What is the point of doing tests on, say a rat, if rats are so anatomically different? They can handle arsenic...we can't. They can handle other things that would harm humans, and we can handle some substances that would harm rats. So even if you said it would be okay to test animals for medical purposes, whats the point if the data only shows us how a rat reacts to a substance and not how a human would react?
We also have a superiority problem. We beleive only in bettering our own species at the expense and suffering of other species...it really makes me sick.
And anybody who tests cosmetics on animals needs to die.

Animals experience pain; they suffer. cutting open an animal while its living can only be seen as torture. Dropping powerful chemicals in rabbit's eyes to see how badly they burn can only be seen as torture. Isolating these animals, poking them, prodding them, shocking them, and burning them - all this is torture.

Torture is immoral and unethical, and thus, animal testing and vivsection are immoral and unethical. In my mind its pretty simple.

Answer 2

I'm against it for so many reasons.
Humans differ from animals in so many ways that animal experimentation is actually harmful to us. Remember the six volunteers who almost died after participating trials for drugs which had already passed animal tests?

Vivisection results are misleading - we rule out treatments which failed when tested on animals and introduce harmful drugs to humans because they were safe for animals. If vivisectioon was not an option, new and more effective alternatives which currently get little funding would advance medicine even further.

The majority of experiements are unneccessary, recently animals have been tortured and killed in experiments on heat stroke or exercise during pregnacy - things we already know about. The truth is that new experiments attract funding, awards and articles in journals and scientists are prepared to sacrifice these animals lives to achieve these.

The part of the brain that feels pain in humans is no more advanced than in animals so when electrodes are attached to their brains, their muscles are cut into, chunks of their brains are cut out or they are deliberately given a terminal disease, they feel every second of it, just as we would. Suffering has nothing to do with the ability to think or reason so how can we justify vivisection on animals when we would be outraged if the same things were done to people? Especially when evidence shows that it is not effective. It doesn't make any sense.





I

Answer 3

I'm not against it if it serves a worthy purpose.
Medical progress is a worthy purpose, to me cosmetics is not.
For medical purposes vivisection may be justified by the fact that the suffering of some animals can and will (hopefully) lead to less suffering by humans.
It would be ideal if the animals would be able to volunteer, like sometimes humans indeed do. Unfortunately they can not and the ethical decision must be made by others that the animals themselves, namely humans. Let's hope they always do this in a responsible, ethical and "humane" way.
To change the subject a little bit: Human stem cell research serves a very worthy purpose. It is much more effective than try-outs on animals en may therefore limit the need of animal vivisection. This is not a question, but a certainty. Politicians who are against stem cell research are not thinking in the benefit of humanity or of the animals.

Answer 4

I think animal testing for scientific and medicinal reasons is somewhat ok, but for cosmetics, it's dispicable...
I don't like animals to be tested for anything, but I do know when it comes to medicine, they aren't going to find someone to test on when there is a possibility they will die...

Answer 5

the considered some undesirable animal being made to conflict through for a beauty sickens me and may were stopped years in the past. at the same time as it includes medical analyze I conform to three yet no longer each and each of the exams. plenty i comprehend are trialed on human guinea-pigs so why no longer even extra. on the accurate of the day i'd like all of it stopped, yet I understand the choose for analyze.

Answer 6

I personally think any testing at all (if for humans benefit) should be tested on humans i mean they suffer and feel pain right .

Answer 7

Acceptable if you substitute Politicians and traffic wardens for the animals

Answer 8

I find it acceptable for scientific research as long as it's to help a general cause, and I find it unacceptable when it's for vanity.

Answer 9

nothing's really wrong with that..scientists or researchers needed to do that in order to test wether a product may cause harm to humans or not..

Answer 10

I dont think its ok. Stop it!