I believe that any sort of testing preformed on animals for the benifit of humanity should be allowed. If we lose 10,000 rats, cats, dogs, gorillas, etc. to save one human life or advance the human race, then it was a worth while cause. Where does anyone else stand?

Im just telling u FETCH... animals arent for jus tone reason animals r friends...they were here long before us..and i would give my body up for the animals but my family wont let me....ooh and fetch u dont even kno wat the tests r!!!!1 the animals usually end up dying a slow painfull death...Udie a slow painfull death tell me how that feels!!!!!

why does everyone not care about animal testing.....its very important..it shouldnt even exist!!!! poeple open ur eyes and look around....dont u want ru kids to have a pet..if we keep testing on animals we'll never see animals ever again...animals r important.....the human race need s to step down.... LEAVE THE ANIMALS ALONE!!!!!!

i gotta question 4 u retardo. u eat meet, well if the animals b cum exint then u caint eet ur meet. & 1 uther thin uf jus 1 speices die out thin 17 die coz it effects the food chane & u wood no that if u actually paid attention in school.

yaa....animals r inferior to humans buty should we take control of something tht has been here longer than us....answer tht!

people......open ur eyse...animal testing doesnt help anyone...like many have said we're all gonan die anyways y make them suffer?!?!?!?!?! how can all of u people not care....look around..do u have pets???Animal testing doesnt just use rats and bunnies they use dogs..cats..farrits..weezles..birds..monkeyss..if we keep testing all these animals r going to b extinct!!!!

3 things

fetch, first it is the other way around.. the people who are so against animal testing of any kind should volunteer.. if they don't like the tests done on animals they should offer themselves as an alternative.. but we both know that will NEVER happen.. all talk

second, if people want to save other humans why would they offer other humans up to potentially die in some (not all) tests just so animals would not be tested on? that kind of defeats the purpose..

third, humans are used in testing, after animals testing and other testing is done.. nothing hits the market without human trials..

quote:

---

so if we shouldnt test on animals then what should we test on?

---

humans. I mean, most people who are pro-animal testing say it should be allowed because it could find a cure to save all the porr people who are dying. If you care so much about it you're willing to kill others and make others suffer (yeah, animals count as other even though they can't protest), then why not voluenter yourself? Most people wouldn't. Fine, then don't make exucses. Don't pretend you care that much when you don't. Animals are used for one reason- they can't protest and have no choice.

Having said that, I'm not horiblly anti

"So my new oppinion is : Keep testing on animals until the day that non-animal tests are just as productive, not a day longer."

Jookly... i totally agree...

Very intersting website, If it is not neccasary to test on animals than i see no reason to. From the info on the site however, it seems that they are still devloping this technology.
So my new oppinion is : Keep testing on animals until the day that non-animal tests are just as productive, not a day longer.

agreed, but in many cases the alternatives have been found less informative and not as good.. so what do you suggest for those instances?

In-vitro studies are becoming very popular amongst scientists, epidemological studies, human clinical studies( in which patients'with certain illnesses are observed, and analyzed). In fact,
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) have been working w/ scientists to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments.


Visit their website for more info:



nullnullweb page

so if we shouldnt test on animals then what should we test on?

Tigercats your justification of animal testing by saying that babies can't consent to undergo surgery, therefore an animal's lack of consent is just as moral, is illogical. THis is so because animals(in these facilities), unlike babies, are TESTED on, for experimental reasons. Babies undergo surgery to better their condition, not for experimental research, in which the patient's(or confined specimen) interests, or feelings are unaccounted for.

There were two different bodies of work on finding the vaccine for polio. One involved the experimentation,exploitation, and slaughtering of about 1million animals. While the other used in-vitro research. The more humane experimentation was awarded the Nobel Prize , while the Nobel committee refused to even recognize the one that ivolved animals. This is because they saw it as being exploitative , wasteful, and lacking respect of sentient animal life.

two wrongs don't make a right

animals would test on humans if they had the capacity.

"I don't have a problem with that because something that will be used on animals once it has been approved should be tested on them to show how it will affect them."

so then you would not have a problem with that monkey being put in that contraption if it would maybe help other monkeys?

"There no point in testing medicines that will be used on humans on animals because you are not learning anything from it."

that is very untrue, many medical advancements have come from animal tests.

"Like I said before, penicillen is fatal to animals but not to humans"

again untrue.. it is fatal to a small group of rodents.. many animals are prescribed penicillin by vets..

" and a number of medicines that have been approved because of the results on animals have later been recalled because they proved fatal to humans"

true but what your failing to mention is that those drugs were tested on humans also, BEFORE they were released to the public. so that kinda shoots your comment in the foot so to speak.

". You can not tell how a medicine will affect a human because of how it affects a rat or a rabbit or a dog or a monkey."

sure you can, but it depends on many things...

"What about the LD50 test?"

what about them? in some cases they are very helpful, however in most cases they are not.. the FDA does not require them and most groups discourage them unless they are PROVEN needed and no alternative exists.. so what is your point?

"And what point is there in testing cleaning products on animals?"

well under most circumstances there is no point in it.. kinda like current cosmetics testing.. however at one point they were valid.

hey ya'll!
i don't really have anything to add to what you've all said; that animal testing IS neccessary in some situations but for trivial things like cosmetics it isn't. I also don't think that animal products should be used in cosmetics or whatever either. However, I am not a vegetarian, and i DON'T think that animals have the same rights as people, or that they should. However, I don't think that they should be used for testing in unimportant things like cosmetics or shampoo or whatever. Hey, I don't think that any of this made any sense! Hooray for me! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

if animal testing is being used to benefit human life then its alrite
but if it is used on sumthin stupid like beauty products then its wrong
dont get me wrong my bathroom has every skin/hair/body care product imaginable but none of them use animal testing i check
i once recently used this conditioner and read the bottle and it speciffically said they used oil from this rare exotic fish that lived at the bottom of the sea....well thats just bs....the ingredients listed it and everything....well if sumthing is rare then shouldnt we try to preserve it until we have more of it
have a nice day
= (
= D
andrea aka Hey You!