Where do you stand on animal testing for vaccines?
Do you think it should be outlawed and that that there should be other methods for vaccine testing?
I say: test on animals. they have immune systems and have similar reactions to our diseases.
i want to know what people involved in PETA say about this issue.
2006-07-28 08:06:51 · 10 answers · asked by Doris_15 2 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
if we do thest on humans.....
a human might get infected vith the virus,
most viruses are passed on quickly which means that more people might get infected and then they might continue to pass it on...
if an animal is tested and gets infected, it can easily be put down to stop the disease from spreading.
AND not many humans would like to be tested with a new vaccine that is not completely guaranteed.
2006-07-28 08:41:43 · update #1
medical testing (diseases, immunizationsis, etc.) ok in my book...testing on animals for simple things like soap or shampoo's burining your eyes is not ok..
2006-07-28 08:12:09 · answer #1 · answered by irishmomof3 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Though I am not a PETA member, anybody who is a member of PETA would say that ANY kind of animal testing is inhumane, not just because the animals can get sick, but usually because of how the animals are treated in the labs. Obviously they don't get the same attention and love as pet animals and they are often neglected since the researchers only care about how their drug is going to affect the animals.
Personally, I am for animal testing, but only when it is necessary, and I do believe that there are much more humane ways of testing than are currently being practiced today.
The only other way we could test vaccines are on people, and not many people are going to subject themselves to scientific testing. Also, often the animals are euthanized and dissected after the test is given, so the affects on the organs can be seen firsthand.
2006-07-28 16:08:21 · answer #2 · answered by Robin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As with any group, there is variation.
Many PETA members are against the wanton senseless
victimization of animals but have no problem with the
well considered use of them.
That is, flinging cats from a car to get a laugh in a movie
would be a problem. Testing a vaccine on a cat would be
justified.
Some are far more willing to state "hurting animals is wrong"
and its easier to get them into inconsistancies in their
arguments when you talk about shoes, fly swatters and
chlorine.
My brother is a member of PETA - and he doesn't senselessly
injure animals (he has become a vegetarian, won't wear fur,
etc.), but has no problem using them in science.
He doesn't throw blood on people wearing fur either and
he doesn't sermonize.
Well, OK, he does, but not on that issue.
2006-07-28 15:15:07 · answer #3 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a huge fan of PETA, but am against animal cruelty.
I say...test them on the rapists, child molestors, and murderers who are sitting on death row or have life in prison eating up our tax dollars.
What better way to test a human vaccine/soap/make-up etc, but on a human?
2006-07-28 17:19:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not a member, but I think that it is wrong to test animals. If you really need to test something, test a human. What happens if the animal gets deathly ill from the test? You never know. I am against it.
2006-07-28 15:34:24 · answer #5 · answered by anacacia2002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am NOT a "PETA" member, but am all for humane treatment of animals. So, if testing can be done humanely, I'm all for that to, since it can benefit mankind! :)
2006-07-28 15:11:09 · answer #6 · answered by Life after 45 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
PETA supporters are not capable of higher thinking. Why did you even bother?
2006-07-28 15:08:37 · answer #7 · answered by Legend 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People for Eating Tasty Animals say - Go For It!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-07-28 15:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
test them, it can be dangerous if they arent
2006-07-28 15:09:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats mean
2006-07-28 15:08:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋