Animal Testing

Do you agree with animal testing? For life saving drugs / cosmetics / cleaning products etc?
Or do you disagree with it?

In my personal opinion, I think testing on animals is completely wrong. They can't fight for themselves. I know that there are other ways to test chemical products, i.e. by using cells to see reactions etc.

As for life saving drugs, i.e cures for cancer, I can understand the need to perhaps test on animals, however, there are of course some people who are so desperate for any chance to live just a little longer, that they would give their life to testing. Plus, of course, we could use criminals for that too!

I understand that the technological way of testing, with computers etc would make the drugs and products more expensive, but in the same breath, instead of animals suffering horrendously for products which can be completely cosmetic, like shampoos can they not test them on criminals.

By criminals I mean, the rapists, paedaphiles, murders etc. The ones who gave up their own human rights when they took someone elses away.

Opinions?

Lol! How can I sound like Hitler?
The type of Criminals I am talking about are the ones who have left other people in a terrible terrible state and basically led them to years of therapy and misery.
Don't you think they should be forced to give back something to society? like a cure for Cancer?!

It's better than using animals. If it's necessary / acceptable to harm innocent creatures that can't stand up for themselves, surely it can be done to nasty human beings.

My first choice would obviously be using the cell technology though.

=o)

^As for life saving drugs, i.e cures for cancer, I can understand the need to perhaps test on animals, however, there are of course some people who are so desperate for any chance to live just a little longer, that they would give their life to testing. Plus, of course, we could use criminals for that too!^

And what if that "criminal" was innocent and wrongfully imprisioned?

There is an overpopulation of rodents, so why not use them for a greater good? Why shouldn't we run tests on them? Should we just use rat poison and be rid of them?

It is not ethical to test drugs on human subjects. If someone is desperate for a cure and willing to try anything, we should not exploit their desperation when it could potentially cause them harm.

It would help the current over crowding problems, however I still think that it would be inhumane to use it on people...

I believe animal testing is somewhat necessary, without it science wouldn't have advanced the way it did..

In my opinion: its wrong. plain and simple.
they are so different from us no matter how much we say they arent.
how can you be absolutely sure that if an animal doesnt have a side effect, that a human wont?
people would pay tons of money to have a drug tested on them for the slight chance of survival even if it is for just a few months.
i know that i wouldnt want my cat to go through testing, so why should i think its ok for other animals to do exactly that?
and especially not for cosmetics.
i would trade beauty just to have an animal be saved from testing.

thats just my opinion though.

I completely disagree with it. I think that it's asd 2 experiment on poor animals. It's not like they even have a say in it. I think that they should experiment on ppl that KNOW what they're getting in2 and they have a CHOICE 2 say yes or no about the matter

One, I am completely against that comment suggesting testing on criminals.

Two, I am, more so, completely against animal testing! Especially if it's for cosmetics & cleaning products. I think we have enough of them to conclude what kind of effects the substances do have from earlier testing as well as that we can naturally use our common sense & just place the warning labels to not get it on your skin, in your eyes or ingest it on all of it! It just makes sense.

Though I can understand why some people think that there is a need to test on animals, for a possible cure for cancer or other diseases. Though, if there are other ways to test I would definitly advise to do so as opposed to testing innocent & ignorant creatures. I'm still torn about this, but understanding.

All I know is & all I have to say is... I am not going to, and NEVER will, be the one to test on animals! I would never be able to live with myself.

I'm hardly implementing the law am I?
I'm just giving my opinion and asking for yours.
No need to try and change how I think because it wont happen.

That One Guy - Did you even read my first post?
I said rapists, paedophiles and murderers.

People who physically and purposely harm others.

^ I would say so.

"Cruel and unusual punishment" is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict said treatments for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. It was founded in the English Bill of Rights.

In the exact same words it appeared in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Then, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." appeared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would assume using criminals for testing to qualify as torture, as well as much more.

"No need to try and change how I think because it wont happen."

^ I bet you'd support the death penalty too...

Ok, four words, I agree with Aimz

lol

For truly critical medical research - not so much. With strict regulations and not so blatant destruction of wild life, its critical, but testing for the sake of testing with non medical products is insane.

Animals are not as important as human beings, and well they shouldn't be.

It's a law of nature that any animal that can, will use other animals to supple their needs in keeping them alive, most commonly by eating them.

Did you know that if a Lion is sick, it will eat the stomach of any herbivore it catches first to get the healthy digested veg from it's stomach? Sometimes then leaving the meat and sleeping off it's illness.

An animal using another animal for medical purposes. We're not along, we're just more oganised and advanced.

My point is, humans have a need to survive that means testing on animals saves human lives, and it's not like we're using endangered species, most often the animals are bred for the purpose.

Being liberal is all well and good. I don't approve animal testing for cosmetics, but for serious medical purposes?

Totally, and anyone who doesn't would change their tune real fast if they needed life saving medication that had been tested on animals to make sure it didn't kill humans.

Very good points Kevin and I find your last statement very true. We can talk about the subject all day but until someone is faced with a choice that directly effects their life or the life of one of their family members, they cant say for sure how they would react or if their views wouldn't change.

To initially test a drug on a human subject is unethical, even if they volunteer out of desparation.

Interesting fact about the lions but did you mean undigested or partially digested because if it was digested it wouldn't be in the stomach anymore.

"Animals are not as important as human beings, and well they shouldn't be."

^ One of the only things I highly disagree with you... But as far as everything else I do.

Perhaps some think this way; that they are not as important as human beings, but truth of the matter is that they are important to us; important to our survival. Without them we would not be. Without us they would simply live on. We human beings are the most dependent of all the creatures.