1. Are you a vegetarian? If you aren't, why not? You said that animals are as equal as we are. Or is it that you eat humans too?

2. Nothing has a "sole purpose". Really, whats a bunny's purpose? Food for wolves? Whats our purpose, pollute earth? Who knows.

3. How do you know scientists are snooty?

4. How do you know they only care about making money?

5. Finding cures for illnesses really proves that the scientists really want that hard cold cash huh?

6. Some animals are breed for the occasion, so then maybe that would be their purpose?

The point is that as humans we can sue people if we were testing a product. Usually SIDEEFFECTS are discovered in animal testing. If you imply that we dont use animals, then that leaves us one option, to use humans. There would have to be a contract or the subject could sue if anything went wrong that they did not like. The contract would be very simple "We cannot assume responsibility for any outcome that may occur." Would you sign that contract? Or if the man died and signed the contract, do you really think nothing will happen? Loved ones won't sue for stupid reasons? The fact is, it is easier and cost efficient to use animals for testing. Probably not until we get clones to test on, this will not be resolved. But then there's gonna be ppl saying clones have rights. The cycle keeps going.

that highly depends on what they are testing. yes dog shampoo should be tested on dogs. medicnes for animals should be tested on the animals that they are for. it all depends on context.

sorry for double posting but...



I THINK THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE LOST SIGHT IN THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE ANIMALS TOO!

It is like saying that you cannot test things on humans either. this is not a yes or no question. it is not merley moral as it appears to be at first. it is also circumstantial.

Well pick one

1. You being tested for a medicine to find out sideeffects.

2. An animal such as a monkey or a rat being tested.

Sure humans are animals, be we feel human life is far more precious than an animal's. We are a far more advanced animal, therefore we THINK we are superior than animals we think are inferior(such as rats). Even though that may seem mean, unfortunatly, that's how it is.

Just wanted to point out that i didn't say we can't test on humans. We can, it's just humans have a choice and don't want to take a risk, where animals don't have a choice, unfortunatly.

ditto..

but why?

no....and how the hell do you ppl put codes in this thing? I cant work it

That;s like saying, "Should a babies/humans be scarificed to help feed lions?" because your'e using the other creature for your own benefits


Animals deserve a right to maintain their life cycle. We have no right, unless the animal is domesticated, to use them as "experiements"... omg human ego swells A LOT

^
what are you basing this claim off of?

why do we have no right to test on animals?

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR LIFE. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH NATURE! WE DID BEFORE AND LOOK AT THE ONCE BEAUTIFUL RIVERS!!!!!!!! the once forested areas... now gone

I believe that animals should not be tested for things such as cleaners, cosmetics, etc. But if a rat is being used to find the cure for cancer, then of course, I am okay with that.

Ok. To be blunt, animals are stupid. Animals can not have rights. To have a right we have to have some understanding, or have a legal guardian with some kind of understand, of said right. A pet may have very few rights so that we may respect the wishes of it's owner, a human who can understand and ensure these rights. A wild animal can not have any rights, it is just not possible.

If we were to follow PETA's doctrine and adhere to total animal liberation (No pets, no zoo, no animal testing, no farms, no riding horses, no hunting) and set all the animals "free" with some kind of "rights" we would be in some pretty interesting positions. Imagine trying to read a Horse his rights as you handcuff him and haul him out to animal prison for taking a shit on your lawn. Imagine trying to explain to a lion that zebra have a right to live, and that they can not be legally murdered for any reason.

To have rights we also have to respect the rights of our neighbors. An animal would have to understand that he can't run wild piss, shit, bark, and eat anything he like. This isn't exactly something an animal can comprehend. This is a good thought experiment. There is a reason man has created civilization and his fellow animals have not.

We're more advanced.

If I could discuss Kierkegaard with a chicken I would never dream of killing it and eating it; or for that matter, anyone killing or eating it. This is something I would have a problem with. The chicken would have hopes and dreams and a great deal of intelligence that would speak for itself. It would demand freedom, rights, and liberties.

Obviously, this is not the case. It does not weigh heavy on me that I am eating chickens. I am, however, adamantly opposed to animal cruelty. I am also glad that our government in the United States, as well as other governments across many nations, have imposed a vast amount of animal cruelty law. We have legislation that could fill a small library pertainting to the "ethical" and "proper" treatment of animals. If this is not followed persons can be punished under the law.

Some may say it does not quite go far enough. Some say it has gone too far. I am not hear to debate that point. We are to discuss animal testing.

Now, this is certaintly a complex subject. However, I have come to the conclusion that by outlawing animal testing we would be doing a great disservice to mankind.

Because of the above, I hold human life above non-human life. I would kill a million rabbits before I killed a fellow man.

If we examine animal testing, we can see that it is very important.

First and foremost, it is important to note that animal testing is required in many cases by law in the United States and many other countries. The FDA, EPA, CPSC, and the OSHA all hold certain regulations that either explicity or implicity require a certain level of animal testing. Without many of these regulations we would be puting mankind under unnecessary risk, which at times has resulted in bodily harm and even death.


Without testing we would not have biomedical science. We would not have the understanding of disease, biological systems, evolution, genetics, and physiology that we have today if not for animal testing. Without it, we would be living in a very different world today.


Just to touch the surface:

The U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research has stated that, "animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health."

Without it [animal testing] we would not have the same advancements in organ transplantation. We would not have penicillin. We would not have been able to defeat the polio virus, and battle rubella. Dialysis would have never been. HIV would be even more threatening and disabeling. Insulin-dependent diabetics would not be depending on insulin, they would be dead.

Millions and millions of human lives have been saved, improved, ensured, and brightened through the use of animals in biomedical research.

Without it we would surely be sufferings to fears and realities of countless maladies of both body and mind that we would have never had to worry over today.

Our pets and even some animals in nature also benifit from animal testing in the astronomical advances it has paid to veterinary care.

As we speak, embryonic stem cell research is being aided by the presence and availability of lab rats. With them, we may see the end to some of the suffering induced by spinal injuries every year - In both humans and animals.

and why do we not the this right?

we're part of nature. you don't see people calling lions immoral. you don't see people fining moose who piss in a stream.


if you say we have no right to kill animals, then you must believe in a nice world where nothing ever dies and all the animals are friends. sadly, life isn't a cartoon.

I'm not really in the mood for an argument, but all I got to say is NO. Whenever possible, I go online and support those who are against it =D

Geez, people are so inconsiderate if they believe that animals should be tested for any purposes. In order for the "safety" of products that we as the humans, use. Just because animals are considered as not having "rights" or any liberties, that does not mean that they should be treated cruely. Imagine if we were the animals and vice versa. Do you think it's nice to have "humans" treat us for experimental purposes? I hope not.

Meh, I will end here because I'm a bit hyper right now!

hell, i'm going to die anyways.

besides, if you were informed instead of spouting propoganda, you'd know that the animals are treated humanely.

and if you must know, there were people who did the experiments on humans instead. they were called nazis.

i dont like the idea of animlas being tested on at all, but we cant just make things people are going to buy later on w.o knowing the side effects.



how do you know animals have a specific purpose in life? They eat and sleep. Sometimes theyre used for food.

If you aren't in the mood you probably shouldn't participate as you probably don't have much to add to the debate in such a state of mind. Thanks though.




I don't. But, that's nice that you do.




Yeah. It's so incosiderate to want to test on rats to cure cancer. Stupid meanie heads wanting to save Man-Kind from a terrible disease.

I wish they had never researched on chimps and mice during the Polio epidemic. I wish that it would have become even more widespread. I wish it killed millions and millions and people every year. That would be awesome. I'm so considerate!



Why is safety in quotations? Are you suggesting that animal testing doesn't help secure the safety of prescription medicine, vaccines, antibodies, and any other number of products available to the world?



1. They don't have rights.
2. Whoever said that that meant they should be treated cruely?
3. In most cases, and under law, we are to minimize the amount of cruelty used in any kind of animal research. No one is aiming for it.
4. We want results; Animal testings provides those results in the easiest, most accurate way. Without, we wouldn't have biomedical science.



Animals don't have the same advanced and highly complex thinking processes that we as human beings do. If we were animals we would not be able to "imagine" such a thing, let alone anything consciously. No lab rat is hanging out in a cage having a philosophical debate on the morality of his or her involvement in animal research with a fellow cage mate. They just don't have the capacity to think in such a way. If we were those animals, we would have to imagine, as humans, a complete suffication of our advanced thinking and reasoning skills. Metacognition would never ever be a possibility, and to acheive that actual feel we might have to resort to server brain trauma.




Ok.

eep. you shall eclipse me as mr. acid.
i shall call you slayer from now on.
and i hope others shall do the same.
can't have two mr. acids, now can we?

and, on another note, lab rats have saved more people than 911. seriously.

As soon as a chicken gives another chicken rights, I'll stop eating chickens.

ZEUS ALSO DECREES THAT TESTING ON ANIMALS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

zeus wants more chicken entrails read too.

You are contradicting yourself. To domesticate an animal, you either have to take it from the wild or have it breed through animals that have been removed already. How can you domesticate an animal without violating it's life cycle?

"Experiments" - LEGAL ones - we need in order to help those who are sick in our society. How do you think a doctor/scientist can study and work on a cure for HIV/cancer without studying it's affects on a body? Most people would want a world rid of crippling diseases. You cannot arrive at a result without testing it out first.

Hopefully, when you were a baby, you were vaccinated. All those vaccinated that saved you from an early death were first tested on animals. The Polio vaccine was made from substances from a monkey's brain before being cultivated in the lab.

Would you sacrifice your legs so that a monkey can have the same, exact rights as you?

There's a difference between cruelty to animals and animal testing. I don't agree with comestics testing. However, medical testing is need for doctors to help those who need it. Without example, they wouldn't be able to advance.

Someone made the point that human products need to be tested on humans?

If someone had taken a trail drug and his eyes fell out, you would think it was horrible, wouldn't you? Then you would advocate against human testing. And then either medicines will take a long time to process/develop or a shortage on drugs would happen.

i would like to say the nazis were wonderful animal rights activists. they instead tested on jews.

so here's my proposition. PETA can free any animal they wish- they just have to offer up one of thier young 12 year old vunerable girls that they've convinced to join instead for the testing.

Uh oh, you broke Godwin's law.

He didn't break it, he followed it to the letter, actually.

no. i think its really wrong, cuz in health, they made us watch this video about FAS n they forced alchohol into animals like dogs and chicks, messing up their lives. sure, they are animals w/ no common sense, but they hav lives too, rather than for another life forms to mess w/ their lives.