Animal testing is wrong?

Question

Animal testing other than for Medical, like Cosmetic should be banned, agree or disagree?

I am saying ok to testing medical, they could actually save lives, but Cosmetic is pointless

Look
http://www.animalliberation.org.au/costest.php

To those saying 'Would i volunteer' look at the link there are more reliable ways of testing without using animals

Answer 1

Agree.

I've actually done a speech on this a few years ago, and I still carry the same opinion. Innocent little animals shouldn't be put through the trauma of being tested on for our own selfishness - they should be free and looked after properly!

At least testing on animals for medical reasons isn't out of selfishness but for a good cause. To stick a needle into an animal, have their fur shaved and tubes and chemicals put inside them for a lip gloss or moisturiser - It's so wrong and un-necessary!

Forget 'Human rights' because I've lost faith to be honest! I've said many times how we should test on these brutal killers and child-abductors, but no because of .. 'human rights'. How can you call somebody who molests a 7 year old girl human? How can you call somebody who takes the life of a young mother right outside her home human?

Final answer: MEDICAL - For now, yes. But animals should be treated with luxury and care, nicer surroundings and attention. We should find another way to test, for example on criminals who commit these ghastly crimes. COSMETIC - No way, completly selfish, cruel and un-necesary!

Thank You
& Take Care! :-)

Answer 2

I think there are many other options for cosmetic testing but for medical research I think that the life of an animal is more important than the life of a person. I'm sure many people will disaree, but I worked in a cancer unit for 4 years, and the only way we knew the treatments were safe on humans was because they had been tested on animals. If we have to kill some mice to save a persons life, is this not justified? I think we need to put this into perspective...

Answer 3

.We probably have enough cosmetics as it is, so further testing of new products which probably contain the same ingredients could probably be tested on skin tissue to see if an adverse reaction occurred. We do need to investigate the safety and efficacy of new drugs and surgical procedures however and I'm OK with that with the caveat that suffering or cruelty is expressly avoided. I would put animal testing for medical purposes on a par with animals as a source of food. Human volunteers are used in the final stages of drug testing btw, often with tragic results. Think of the scientists who developed a vaccine for yellow fever..real heroes!

Answer 4

Mostly, yeah.

Though there are some less frivolous products that I can see testing. For example, if scientists developed a new compound that could be used as insulation in buildings and save a kerjillion kilowatt hours of power each year, but they needed to make sure it was safe before putting it on the market... well, I might say that's worth a few mice. The reduction in pollution that such a thing might bring about might effectively save more animals than were sacrificed. And honestly, I'd rather do a preliminary test on mice and find out that it kills them than mass produce it and install it in homes then find out that it slowly releases a gas that kills babies or something.

Answer 5

It's not entirely right, but it's certainly not wrong. It's kind of like a necessary evil. Ethics (and common sense) prevents most people from testing new drugs on humans. Animal systems are often similar to humans and allow for us to test them and extrapolate the effects in us (or at least give us greater confidence in its ability to work/not work and help us decide whether human clinical trials are in order).

There's also the fact that animals help us learn about ourselves and the way we work, and have in a way, helped save thousands, if not millions of lives. Banning animal testing would just be a dumb move that may jeopardize thousands of lives.

Answer 6

To the men I ask:
How do you expect to survive against people willing to strap bombs to their children, when you have a problem putting mascara on bunnies?

To the ladies I ask:
If a large soulless cosmetic corporation actually musters the integrity to test its products on rabbits instead of women, is “Oh, hell no.” a rational response?

Think of this as a trainer question, so you don’t screw up on the ever popular:

“Should I stay in an emotionally satisfying but physically abusive relationship?

Answer 7

Animal testing is an absolute. How can you judge a life as inferior just because it is lower in the food chain? Just like it is wrong to do human testing, for any purpose, it is wrong to test animals, also for any reason. Animals should be treated detached from the result that is hoped to be achieved. Either it is OK to test animals for all reasons or it isn't.

Answer 8

It is banned in the UK already.


Oh and its 2007 just in case you thought it was still 1960 something...hippy

And to all those who think Animal testing is wrong ive got one word for you....Thalidomide

This drug was not tested on animals before it was made available an look what happened. Unfortunately animal testing is the only way it can be done, plus the animals that are used are only bred for that purpose and would not have existed otherwise

Answer 9

Agreed

Answer 10

Cosmetics are tested on animals for medical reasons. Will you volunteer to take their place or support a ban on cosmetics?

Obviously, I disagree.