The majority of animal testing is not used to test the effects of things to help the animals. 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. There no point in testing medicines that will be used on humans on animals because you are not learning anything from it. Like I said before, penicillen is fatal to animals but not to humans 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. 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. What about the LD50 test? And what point is there in testing cleaning products on animals?
"Not so with animal testing. It is not in the best interest of the animal and the goal is not to make the animal better."
well that depends on how you look at it.. what if it is a test on a natural occuring disease that the animal has and they are testing cures? would that not thwart both of your statements? the cure would be both beneficial to the animal and it would make the animal better thus giving us the ability to make animals and people who suffer from said illness better? true?
also you are aware that the majority of animl testing does not involve death or pain to the animals? true, some do but not the majority..
also you do know that the tests that are conducted also benefit other animals as well... we can agree on everything said here can we not?
quote:i don't think they can... also what about babies and young children that have surgery, did they "agree" to it?
No, they didn't. But their parent (legal guardian, whoever) agreed to it because it was deemed in the best interest of the child. And the purpose of it was to heal. Not so with animal testing. It is not in the best interest of the animal and the goal is not to make the animal better.
quote:After all, these animals wouldn't been born anyways.
I don't really understand this argument. The animals wouldn't have been born anyway? True. Still, does that make it right for them to be killed or for you to perform tests on them? Life is precious. Once you have created life, you must preserve it to the best of your ability. All Americans are guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (although I prefer the Navy's slogan: life, liberty, and the pursuit of all those who threaten it); what about the other animals?
I believe that if the animals are bred for the purpose of testing only - that it is alright to test medicines etc on animals. After all, these animals wouldn't been born anyways. It is the same for meats and such: the animals were raised to be used for meats and there is nothing wrong with using them for that - if that's what they were raised for.
<but that is only your opinion, isn't it.. if the animals was out, then it would not know it was in that "contraption".. have you ever seen some of the things that people are in during surgery?>
The difference is that the people who are undergoing surgery agreed to it. I don't think that the animals have signed any consent forms.
but that is only your opinion, isn't it.. if the animals was out, then it would not know it was in that "contraption".. have you ever seen some of the things that people are in during surgery?
first, so where did you get that archive photo? second what was the test? was the animal under pain killers? what was the test for? also you do know that there are no nerves/pain receptors in the brain right? so how do you know the monkey was in pain? they do types of brain surgery on people while they are still awake, did you know that?
my point is, that you can't tell anything from that picture except what you "think" is happening.. unless you have ALL THE FACTS about the particular test in the photo, you can't really make any judgements.. do you see what i mean?
ok, although i do agree 100% with the people on here that are against animal testing for things like cosmetics and other stupid tests, i do feel that animal testing is necessary.. at the risk of sounding rude, however, the only person that has sounded educated on the subject was "joyflgrrl" and although they made some valid points, the post was a little to over simplified.. although in "some" ways it can't be very accurate to test on animals, in many ways it can.. as far as nonanimal alternatives, they are few and far between.. for the most part animal testing is beneficial and does help to develop MANY, MANY new therapies, drugs,etc..
Animal testing does NOT benefit mankind. In fact, it is very dangerous. Animals are not enough like humans that you can actually believe that something that holds true for an animal will hold true for a human. For example, penicillen. Where would we be without it? But it kills animals. And there are so many cases in which a drug is proven safe for humans due to animals tests but then must be recalled because it is actually fatal to humans. Vivisection serves no practical purpose and should be banned.
I agree with labelsareforproducts. If it's for really important things like diseases such as cancer etc. then I agree with it (although I wouldn't say it's fair. Animal testing can't be described as fair, just as necessary if we want to make these advances). However for cosmetics etc. it is not necessary and I don't agree with it.
I'm a vegetarian (trying to become vegan), and I believe animals should not be killed unless it is absolutely necessary for mankind. AIDS--necessary. Cancer--necessary. Common cold--unnecessary. Shampoo--I don't think so!
I'm excited that someone brought up this question.
I think people need to be aware of the fact that 95% of the animals that are being experimented on in America are rats and mice. These animals are almost completely different from humans physiologically. Therefore, it is imperative that experimenters explore more effective means of testing medicine and product safety. A substance that is not harmful to rats, my be toxic to humans and vica versa. Many experiments that include rodents have been proven to be inconclusive simply on the basis of the test subjects' anatomy weren't similar to humans.
i think that testing on animals for anything except aving lives is totally unnecessary. I mean, there are a lot of companies that don't so this prooves that, to be a successful company, u dont need to test on animals. however, when it comes to the medical needs of people, i guess i can see why we need animal testing. i guess i just dont like to thing about it.
i think animal testing for cosmetic and other unneeded purposes is totally uneeded. and it doesnt taker a moron to figure out that mice and humans are almost nothing alike. If some scientist found that some part of an animal cured cancer or something then id be fine w/ using the animal because it would be saving billions of lives but i dont think getting that perfect shade of lipstick is going to be saving any lives ....... did anything in this post make sense? im really out of it today *Mishie*
Topics 
