i do i think animal testing is the cruelest thing ever even when it comes to medical treatment... why cant they use the people in prison that have to a a lifetime in there..
2007-02-27 09:22:04 · 16 answers · asked by crazygirl898989 1 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
Nope. You've got serious issues if you think that testing on prisoners would be a better alternative.
2007-02-27 09:26:58 · answer #1 · answered by stickymongoose 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No....If they were testing something that could have saved my Mom I would have done it myself!!! I am for both animals & people so I can't approve of testing on prisoners either - about one of the answers above me - I was raped & I still wouldn't want prisoners to suffer
Most animal activists only pick cute animals to defend anyway...I've never heard one defend roaches, leeches or spiders & most won't even defend rats even tho they make wonderful pets & are more intelligent than ANY beagle!!!
2007-02-27 09:52:52 · answer #2 · answered by Catcanscratch 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My cat hates animal testing. Flunked algebra twice. Did ok in physics, though.
Actually - the answer is because the same people who think it's mean to save a life by killing a rat also think it's mean to experiment on a serial rapist or mass murderer. Rats and rapists have rights... victims of disease and crime do not.
2007-02-27 09:30:51 · answer #3 · answered by LungHD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do agree. for one thing animals Chemistry is different from ours so just because a vaccine prevents Fido from getting the common cold doesn't mean it'll protect you or me!
Not all the prisoners but how about the ones already on death row. You know the violent ones. especially the rapest and child molesters. I say they do deserve to suffer.
2007-02-27 09:35:54 · answer #4 · answered by poetm18 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i imagine you're lacking the point. the objective of animal testing isn't to assist ANIMALS, it really is to assist human beings. i do not assume you to study by this, as many human beings affiliated with Peta are not to any extent further conventional for his or her objectivity at the same time as reasoning this stuff out. in case you would absolutely pick to halt the type of medical technology, then pass proper on ahead and prevent animal testing. there'll be no extra awesome new drugs to wrestle an ever-replacing plethora of ailments and themes which afflict humanity. in case you have ever taken any type of drugs, you've benefited from animal study. at the same time as it really is unlucky, it really is a few thing that ought to proceed to earnings all of mankind. I do agree that testing on maximum animals isn't mandatory as precise documents can not be collected because of the large variations in body structure. If some thing testing will be constrained to primates that percentage similar physiologies to people. this can provide scientists extra precise documents to make certain the conceivable outcomes that a clean drug would have on the human body. do no longer imagine me an unfeeling monster. that is in simple terms the reality of drugs. positive, shall we provide human beings drugs without testing them, yet that in itself has unfavorable moral implications, as we do not comprehend what a drug would do to someone. scenario: a clean drug has been developed to address, oh enable's say AIDS. The drug isn't examined on any try matters (or animals) and is widely distributed to AIDS-contaminated sufferers. of their haste to launch a clean drug to wrestle this terrible ailment, scientists and docs are unable to make certain that the drug has a poor area-result. It will boost blood rigidity in 25% of sufferers so intense that it motives arterial rupturing. In a count number of days, rankings of sufferers are left useless, others mind damaged from blood vessels rupturing of their mind, etc left in worse structure than earlier taking the drugs. would you pick to be the only to describe to their households that their loved ones had to die so some animals ought to stay? Had the drug been examined, its unfavorable outcomes would were assessed and the drug likely would have not at all been approved for distribution. i can not say an similar, notwithstanding, for beauty testing. There are a great type of testing strategies for cosmetics which do not contain animal suffering. it really is, notwithstanding, more affordable usually for the beauty organizations to attempt on animals, and hence many nevertheless motel to inhumane testing ideas.
2016-12-05 01:00:18 · answer #5 · answered by schiavone 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, cruelty to animals is just mean!! Testing people in prison would be better!!
2007-02-27 09:29:53 · answer #6 · answered by melina 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It'll never happen, but I feel sorry for the animals that are tested on. If people are so concerned about finding cures and such they should donate their bodies.
2007-02-27 09:30:36 · answer #7 · answered by the_gurl_in_ur_liquid_dreams 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course Im against it!!! I think that everyone should be against animal testing....its just a shame tht some ppl arent against it..:( I think tht its a gr8 idea to use ppl in prison!!! Lol u have the right idea!!! Too bad it will nvr happen though......
2007-02-27 09:36:35 · answer #8 · answered by You Know You Love Me <3 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Not really better an animal then a person.
2007-02-27 09:31:25 · answer #9 · answered by nobody 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes to stop testing!!!!!!!!!!!
but you cant make human testing humane even if they are criminals, torture is torture even if its done to a murderer. what they should do is find a way to test on nonliving creatures, or mosquitos (who likes them) but i dont think they can do either.
2007-03-02 07:53:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋