For or Against Animal Testing

[Lalalablah 1,538]

What do you guys think? Is it right or wrong to test products on animals?

[I♥KH 1,280]

Not testing human or in animal. There is always an another way.

Some products are the animals sick. Just for the peoples feel they right . 

Human egoisms.

[XxCobaltxX 321]

It depends on the situation to me, if it's like make-up or Very insignificant things like cologne then no, but if it's for groundbreaking research that could like possibly cure cancer, i might let it slide

[Col.Random 3,683]

Only on certain animals( Cows and chickens)And the only testing I'm in support of is different cooking methods

[rikunobodyxiii 700]

I agree with XxCobaltxX. If we are talking about something that could potentially save lives, then yes. Anything less then that and I'm inclined to say no.

[Oishii 3,987]

If they know there is a risk of seriously harming a human, then I think it's okay.  But medical science is the only place where that should be the case.  If it's commercial products like lotions and stuff, I don't think it's right.  It's something to rub on your skin.  What are you putting in it that you think it could be dangerous to humans that you have to test it on animals?

 

But you know what the ironic part is?  Bottles that say "no animal testing" likely has animal derived products in it.  Glycerin and stearic acid are two common ones where if it doesn't specific label "vegetable derived", it's made from animal byproducts. And not like the meaty parts you eat; it's the brain and spinal tissue that's usually used.  Read your lotion and soap labels right now and sink into the horror that you've been rubbing animal guts into your skin!

[Caity 3,946]

In terms of medicine I'm for it.  I've actually had a work placement in a science institution which involved animal testing, the animals were kept in very safe conditions (because obviously to make sure if their medicines work, they can't have other factors like bad living environments or mistreatment affecting the results) and not abused like they're often presented to be in movies or television shows.  Ultimately the work they were doing was going towards helping diabetes patients and those who have completely lost their sight.  

 

Now in terms of make up and such, it seems more selfish to experiment with animals when the end goal is a fashionable lip product or hand lotion rather than a life saving drug for example.  

 

I think there is another way though, using stem cells or producing clones for example, but then there's a whole load of ethical and religion issues thrown in there.  

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

*waits for the hedgehogs to burn this thread to the ground*

I don't really think about this stuff.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Isamu_Kuno

[Amon 4,279]

Yes, animal testing is the only way for us to really know how a product will react. The next best thing is testing on humans.

 

And anyone who thinks that rats and pigs are more important than human lives needs to be punched in the face.

[Rob 5,571]

How else would they make pet food?

[SHAZOW 269]

No I'm against it. Unless its animal food they shouldn't be testing anything on animals...

[Pretium 234]

Is Everyone Who's Against Animal Testing Willing To Become Test Subjects Themselves?? This Is An Honest Question. What Is Your Proposed Alternative Method Of Testing??

 

And I Didn't Quite Understand The Poll. If I Answer Yes, Does That Mean I Am For Or Against It??

Edited July 28, 2013 by Pretium

[TripleNipple 308]

Against animal testing:D I don't get the poll though lol

 

if it's a medicine, I'm fine with that. But if it's something like holy grail skin care products, or baking soda (they do test that on animals), I'm totally against. They even test Glad Bags on animals.

 

http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/companiesdotest.pdf

 

I mean, the even test air wick on animals u.u

Edited July 28, 2013 by TripleNipple

[WhiteCrow 55]

It's ok as long as the animals don't suffer.

[Tigerruss 576]

Well if it weren't for all these ethics protecting human life we would be doing the testing on humans instead. And generally it is better to have a product tested before put on the market, so this is definitely a moral grey area.

[SoraKH 793]

NO! Its just wrong!

Animals are living beings too!

But if the case is about finding a cure and its not harmful for the animal, i think its okay.

Is Everyone Who's Against Animal Testing Willing To Become Test Subjects Themselves?? This Is An Honest Question. What Is Your Proposed Alternative Method Of Testing??And I Didn't Quite Understand The Poll. If I Answer Yes, Does That Mean I Am For Or Against It??

 

Well the scientists should test their expiriments on their selves

[Tigerruss 576]

NO! Its just wrong!

Animals are living beings too!

But if the case is about finding a cure and its not harmful for the animal, i think its okay.

 

Well the scientists should test their expiriments on their selves

And if they made a mistake and proved fatal or crippling, (even if by no means it should be) you just lost someone who spent years studying and learning so they could possibly try to make a better future. And there simply aren't enough scientists to create a large enough sample to determine what effects are actually caused by the product. Since there can be flukes causing surprisingly good or bad effects, which can be completely unrelated to the product. Also for treatments for diseases if the scientist doesn't have the disease, how can they test the product on themselves? It just isn't practical to have them experiment on themselves, no matter how morally sound it seems.

 

And yes all living beings are living beings. Depending on where you draw the line you are killing thousands if not millions of living beings every day just by existing. (bacteria) I think some good criteria to protect some and not others would probably be can the living being show empathy? Maybe there could be a different criteria that could trigger the life is worth saving.