2007-05-23 03:08:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
Animal testing has many great benifits, perhpas this goes without saying. But I am against it for the same reason I am against torture to humans or testing the same products to human children. There are unpredictalbe effects that may be harmful to the animal, and if we do not want to harm other humans, why should we stop at that and not want to harm other animals? Also, because, like testing to children, these animals did not sign any contract with the pharma company to wager his or her consent with knowledge of the fact of the risks involved. A human may go to risky jobs, but then, he or she knows the risks. A test animal does not.
2007-05-23 03:17:56 · answer #1 · answered by pecier 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what the tests are for. Shampoo? Yeah, I think that's wrong. It isn't necessary. Looking for a cure for cancer? Then animals MUST be tested before people are. It would be unethical not to test animals, and even more unethical not to test treatments at all. Human lives are at stake. When it is a necessity, then there is nothing wrong with it. For frivolous products that are not necessary, then I think you have an ethical problem on your hands. I try to never buy products that have been tested on animals, but should I ever come down with a deadly disease, I will be thankful that scientists are wise enough to use common, breedable, unendangered animals to find a cure. It is just common sense.
2007-05-23 04:37:05 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not necessarily. Many medicines have been made available to us because of the availability of animal testing. Medicines to control high blood pressure, diabeted and other deadly ailments need to be tested on a large scal before being released to the population. It is much easier to tes a medication on 500 rats than 500 humans. Imagine the outrage if a drug company released a medicine without ever being tested.
Much of animal testing has gotten a bad rap because of companies doing what seem to be stupid tests. I believe it was Gillette in the 1980's wanted to find out at what point does Right Guard deodarant sticks become toxic (how much would you have to consume), To test this they forced rabbits to ingest large amounts of deodarant until they died.
This example obviously seems cruel, but their was a reason for doing this; to prevent lawsuits.
Animal testing serves a real purpose. We must take off our lab coats though and respect the lives of the animals that we are using.
2007-05-23 03:20:50 · answer #3 · answered by Water Monkey 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
PeTA's Ingrid Newkirk said she is against animal testing even if it finds a cure for AIDS, so any objective person can see she is a mindless fanatic who can cause great harm if anyone heeds her dumb rants. She wants to burn labs that do animal testing. Millions of humans could die due to such nonsense. Animal testing must continue in such vital areas as AIDS, etc.
2007-05-23 03:47:55 · answer #4 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe it should be severely limited but not stopped altogether. Even now, I think it is important to test medications as thoroughly as possible before they are used in humans. That doesn't mean I think every study is justified.
2007-05-23 03:18:43 · answer #5 · answered by Kuji 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
depends on how harmful the testing is. sometimes,medical research on animals is very valuable and can help save human lives. Now, i think testing cosmetic products and shampoos and all that jazz should go. just my opinion.
2007-05-23 03:12:59 · answer #6 · answered by iknow 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Animals are sensient beings. They have souls, they have distinct, defined family units. It is completely immoral to torture them.
Many, many animals are extraordinarily nurturing to the other family members. Elephants visit "burial sites" on a regular basis, for example, and take their young there to pay respects.
Animals are not things.
http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html
I'm not sure who it was who said that you can tell how far a society has developed based on how it treats animals.
2007-05-23 03:14:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
depends. It should be stopped fur eyeliner maybe, but a lot of important medical research - such as for aids and cancer 0 is done on animals and that's a good thing.
2007-05-23 03:12:25 · answer #8 · answered by BobbyR 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it should be stopped. Animals always come second to humans. The earth and everything in it belongs to homo sapiens.
2007-05-23 03:12:53 · answer #9 · answered by Blindman 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋