Well, I think most of us are ok with it in order to save human lives...even if we aren't happy with it. I would eat my dog if it were me or him, but I wouldn't be happy with that choice either, you know?Originally posted by liljediboi
for those people against animal testing, would they change their mind if, for instance, they have a disease, lets say... some type of cancer, and the doctor says you will likely die in 3 years. but, if in those 3 years, animal testing would present a cure for this cancer, is animal testing good?
you will most likely say no, but there are people out who can be saved. and acording to nature, survival of the fittest.
i says its an unfair question
Well said.Originally posted by Zero
Animal testing for medical reasons is acceptable to me, with the understanding that the experiments will be done as humanely as reasonably possible. On the other hand, screw cosmetics companies!
On the other hand, some cosmetics are medical based and use for any number of applications to help patients physically or mentally.Originally posted by Phobos
Seems like a "necessary evil" that would be good to minimize. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's mostly out-of-sight/out-of-mind.
Pro. It's hell of a lot more moral than procedures on human species.There is a lot of controversy over the morality of testing new products and procedures on non-human species. I seek to find out what everyone believes concerning this issue, as well as how much everyone knows about alternatives.
I REALLY don't agree with this, and I think it is ignorant to say that we are suvivalists and that that justifies suffering of non-humanoid life.Originally posted by Mattius_
Well im going out further and saying that at long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably(which im sure almost all are) then it is acceptable. However, I do believe that anyone who eats meat regularly should be required to take a trip to the slaughterhouse. I eat meat, but I am conmfortable with the means to which i get that meat. Im sorry, but this world has never been beautiful in this respect, it has been survivalist; and any effects of cruelty towards animals are 'right' by the reasoning of a survivalist.
We are all survivalists.
You haven't read my previous posts, I agree with animal testing.Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
How do they test if it has adverse effects? Animals!
As they slip into a coma because of lack of prior animal testing
I think putting an animal on a hot plate, to find out whether it relieves pain, it very cruel. Get a group of human volunteers, tell them that the drug has been tested to be safe. Ask them next time they get a headache to take the drug and see if it helps.So my motto: it may be done, in such a way that the animal doesn't suffer needlessly.. I think a lot of work remains to be done in order to achieve this.
That may sound cruel to emotional beings like us, but it's really not. It would be cruel if the mouse felt pain, but if it never suffered at all, then it is just as "cruel" as killing it in its sleep.Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Do you know how they test pain killers? The hot plate test. They stick a mouse on a hot plate and turn it on. They see how long it takes for the mouse start jumping up and down. They know they have an effective pain killer when the mouse just sits there and burns.
Have you got a better way for testing pain killers?