Animal Testing Or Animal Cruelty

[MrHawk]

I don't think there's that much wrong with animal testing. I love my pets but if whatever's being tested is going to be the cure to cancer or something that I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Maybe we're going overboard with our quest to be immortal but sacrificing the life of a few animals to save the human race is perfectly ok with me.

What I don't like is cruelty, it has no purpose and is disgustingly sick. But then I also hate the fact that giraffes and elephants etc. are hunted for no good reason other than to be a trophy.

Hmm, kill a few thousands to save a few millions ? I agree, its fine by me as long as it saves someone else...

[KMD]

Animal Testing hmm well depends what kind of testing it is I mean If the test was for its own well being such as a cure to an illness then fine but...
if the test can put its life in danger or in any kind of pain and would not be to that Animals benefit at all then heck no
I think ppl who do test like that should suffer as much if not more then the animal they did it too and if it costed its life then they should seek death as well

[Lucas101]

Nothing wrong with animal testing, if anyone disagrees with this statement they are acknowledging that they are neither from the Darwinist or Creationist schools of thought. So what school do they belong to?

[Rodri]

Not all animal testing is cruel, not all animal testing is necessary.

Nor does all animal testing lead to wonderful new drugs that will save the human race; sometimes it just leads to a shampoo that doesn't sting your eyes or makeup that doesn't cause skin irritation.

The whole issue is too emotive for reasonable discussion because animal lovers will always focus on the harm inflicted upon animals and those in favour of testing will always focus upon the beneficial drugs, medical and scientific advances, etc. that have helped the human race.

Personally, I can see both sides of the argument as valid but I don't really know enough to have a solid opinion one way or the other. To be honest, you would have to look at every different testing process, it's aims, it's merits and the level of cruelty involved. You would also need to look at alternatives to animal testing and the implications of complete bans on animal testing in the modern world. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that modern human society in total is cruel to animals and animal testing is just a small part of that.

[Khalee]

Hrmm, animal testing includes studies such as giving animals a button that gives them an O face

I know quite a few people would sign up for that in a heartbeat.

~

Someone mentioned animals living free or else it's cruelty. If that's true, I hope that person doesn't keep a pet, use bugspray, kill spiders/cockroaches/ants, or even visited a zoo.

Before answering whether animal testing is cruelty, first answer the question of whether or not you're a hypocrite.

~

As a pet owner who uses bug spray, I have no problem with tests that don't actually harm the animal, but I do have a problem with just who makes the decision about where that line is drawn. In the same manner as cloning, it's a topic of where the boundary lies, and how far it will be pushed by those with no morals, integrity, or sense of true responsibility.

[acer5200]

Thanx for the feedbaq More If Possible u leekers

POST

Why do I get the feeling you're trying to get us to do your homework for the 3rd time?

Also, it's "Thanks for the feedback..." Simple words with simple spelling. I'd attempt to decipher the rest of your statement but it makes absolutely no sense.

[GeminiCricket]

Why do I get the feeling you're trying to get us to do your homework for the 3rd time?

Also, it's "Thanks for the feedback..." Simple words with simple spelling. I'd attempt to decipher the rest of your statement but it makes absolutely no sense.

The third time? We've done it before?

[david_k700]

As humans are evolved species of animals, most theorised around the apes. If it is so wrong to do harm to another human, then why is it so allowed to do harm on an animal,

My best guess is that we humans place ourselves ontop of the dominant species which being true, we tend to think less of animals because they don't have the traits that we have or as advanced..

Animal testing is ok as long as no harm is being delt to the animal

Who are we to say we are better or more important then animals, at the end of the day both humans and animals end up in the same place.. the ground.

I apologise if this causes someone to get upset over my views.. but it is a discussion.

Cruelty on animals is disgusting none the less and people should be shot who cause such harm.

Bit harsh but

[Rodri]

Nothing wrong with animal testing, if anyone disagrees with this statement they are acknowledging that they are neither from the Darwinist or Creationist schools of thought. So what school do they belong to?

This issue has nothing at all to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory or creationist theory. It is about how we human beings treat the other animal species of this planet, particularly in regard to using animals as test subjects.

To say that there is nothing wrong with animal testing is like saying that there is nothing wrong with cruelty to animals, because there is plenty of evidence that many tests carried out on animals are extremely cruel in nature. Many times, it could also be said that it is not absolutely necessary to carry out these tests on animals and alternative methods of testing could be developed but aren't because it is expedient (cheap and easy) to continue testing in this manner.

I was on the fence on this issue but I have decided to come out as fully opposed to scientific testing on animals, mainly because the drug companies, cosmetics manufacturers and other corporations who are doing these tests are only motivated by profit and will always (when allowed to) choose the expedient path, rather than the moral path. If that means that some labs that are doing relatively harmless animal tests have to suffer some inconvenience, that's just bad luck. Nobody will be hurt by banning animal testing, just inconvenienced.

"But what about all those miracle drugs that save lives?" I hear you ask?
I personally think that those drugs will still be developed. It might take a little bit longer but the drug companies will find other methods to test their products because they need to make new products to keep making profit.

Now I am no animal rights activist by any means. I enjoy a nice bit of slightly charred flesh as much as the next person and if I didn't have a car, I would probably ride around on a horse or donkey. To me, that is just life. We are omnivores and we are tool-makers. It is entirely a part of our nature that we will exploit animals for our advantage, but that is not (in itself) cruel. Nobody expects a lion to enjoy a nice green salad instead of a fresh rump of wilderbeast given the choice, because the lion is only doing what comes naturally and that is not seen as cruel by any reasonable person.

Inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering upon creatures, whilst keeping them confined (and sometimes physically restrained) would have to be close to the very definition of cruelty in my opinion. Large corporations and (some/most?) scientists cannot be trusted to do the morally right thing by animals (or humans) because they are too focused on the results and not on the welfare of the test subjects.

That's my 2 cents worth, take whatever you like from it.

[King Alboin]

I have to respectfully semi-disagree, Rodri. I say semi cuz well, stuff like this ...



is useless, cruel, unnecessary, ridiculous, Dr. Morbose would even call this type of research, gross. So, therefore on subjects like this, I agree.

However, I disagree on having an all out ban. Testing products on animals, is accepted as a means to insure the safety of the product for human, and animal use. Some may turn green, but that saves the general population from turning green. I like women who wear make-up and use perfume, and use feminine products, of which all of that must go through the harsh scrutiny of the lab's research to also insure a safe product for consumption. You say its for money, well, yes have to make a living somehow. But see? if the companies practiced the non-testing of products on animals, like they did not do back in the ... lets just say the late 1800's, then you have extremely unsafe products being sold. an example being, that arsenic and antimony where used in make up, and skunk juice was used in perfume. and still is I think. anyhoo, for the safety of the general public, and for the coverages of scents, you dont want to smell, products must be tested, on non human subjects.

Make the argument, about cruelty to animals, and put a human face on them, .. okay, then go ahead and put human values on them also.

A rat, mouse, hamster, and guinea pig, [common to being test subjects] all will eat their babies, whole. Gobble them down with out one thought of remorse. Okay, well humans will test their products on them, but though cruel, humans dont eat their babies. and if you find an example of humans doing that, you will find it is not acceptable behavior. But in the vermin world it is acceptable. I think its discusting. tis why I dont like rodents.

Long gone are the days, when "man" can just go out hunting and fishing for his daily dinner. Many things have changed since then, and many things are made better because of the research done, from the testing on animals. Life as a whole has been improved. Not a Utopia, not even close, but improved, none the less.

Cruelty on animals is disgusting none the less and people should be shot who cause such harm.

Bit harsh but =)

Soooo, is not shooting another human, cruel? Sooooo the human that shoots the human that does tests on animals, should not then, to follow in a consistant line of logic, also be shot, and then he/she should then also too be shot, then that person should be shot, and then that one, till all out war? just asking for a clarification, is all.