Animal Testing

[Romek]

Animal Testing
Approved by Ghan_04
​

Just a General Introduction:
Animal testing has been used for many years to test products that could be harmful to humans. Numerous tests are conducted before the product is made available to the public.

An Argument For:
Animal testing has helped us realise that some products could be dangerous to humans without actually hurting the humans.

An Argument Against:
Animals are living creatures which have feelings, just like humans. We're hurting them!

Debate away! Just make sure you back your arguments up, explain well, and above all: Follow the Rules.

 

[FireCat]

this shouldn´t exist at all! ever!! but now they could find something else then harass animals. it's not 1700 now

 

[Seb!]

This is very necessary. Without animal testing, we really wouldn't be where we are today scientifically. Of course pain to animals should be minimized, and we shouldn't test on whales, dolphins, great apes, or endangered species. However, the last thing we need is humans being hurt because products were barred from testing on animals.

Also, if disallowed to test on animals, some desperate nihilists might test unstable products on humans, like the infamous Tuskegee Experiment..

 

[FireCat]

This is very necessary. Without animal testing, we really wouldn't be where we are today scientifically. Of course pain to animals should be minimized, and we shouldn't test on whales, dolphins, great apes, or endangered species.

Yeah... but

I don't think is needed anymore and why we need have more products? well if the animal have diseases same like a human "without they give themself it to the animal" so on that ok, only they don't give to much pain. so they can test it if the animal be better or not and they see also it be safe to us to give or cure us.

Well by now I think they could test on something else.. without animal or human #wishful thinking#

 

[Varine]

I don't think is needed anymore and why we need have more products?

Why do we need to have more products? Oh, I don't know, maybe so that people can get better when they are sick?

Well by now I think they could test on something else.. without animal or human

Like... a tree?

That's all I really understood.

 

[New_U.S.]

Well by now I think they could test on something else.. without animal or human #wishful thinking#

China has enough people to test on .

Anyways, we make medicines to benefit humanity. Really, they keep us alive, which boosts population, which makes us have to expand to uninhabited land. So any form of medicine can indirectly hurt animals in some sort of way. Medicines are for us, and should benefit us. Why should I care about a rat's feelings?

Anyway, remember what happened the last time we tested on humans first?
[YOUTUBE]i8zcm3VtxhE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[vypur85]

Hmmm... I think animal testing should be allowed (though I personally think hurting others for the benefit of self is not a good thing). In the research world, especially medicinal/genetic/developmental research, nothing can be possibly achieved without animal testing.

If we were to harass animals in terms of animal testings, then everyone of us should be vegetarians or else, we harass them everyday.


> remember what happened the last time we tested on humans first?

Lol...

 

[FireCat]

Why do we need to have more products? Oh, I don't know, maybe so that people can get better when they are sick?.

well now was about products we dont really need to have.

Like... a tree?

That's all I really understood.

well if someone can make a ugly car runs on air, then why not? I am sure someone can find something even about this. well I know they can't take of it entirely. well you understend little?

 

[vypur85]

> then why not?

Impossible. Plant system and animal system are different. Completely different.

 

[FireCat]

> then why not?

Impossible. Plant system and animal system are different. Completely different.

Nothing is Impossible, but I don't said it be on plants. I know some people begin to test on something so they not needed a animal anymore, but I don't remember what it was they used instead .

 

[Kenny]

Morally and ethically, the whole idea of animal testing is messed up. However, from a purely political and business stand-point, it is somewhat needed. So i guess you could say im sitting on the fence for this one.

Personally, in movies, i hate it when animals are killed or something bad happens, but i couldn't care less if a human dies, unless i like the character, but then its still no biggy. Thats probably influenced my decision, i guess.

 

[Varine]

Personally, in movies, i hate it when animals are killed or something bad happens, but i couldn't care less if a human dies, unless i like the character, but then its still no biggy. Thats probably influenced my decision, i guess.

You mean like they are killed in the movie as part of the story, right? Not like killed in the filming?

 

[BANANAMAN]

do animals even have souls?

 

[TheDamien]

do animals even have souls?

Do humans even have souls? I don't think it is relevant to this issue. The main question is whether or not animals can suffer consciously, as humans do. It is not unreasonable to assume that some animals are capable of this and so should not be tested on for ethical reasons.

The great apes, for instance, should probably be excluded from animal experimentation.

whatever when you not even want think can be another solution then use a animal for testing and "I don't said they can take of it entirely", but nothing is fucking Impossible. so what you don't understend?

If "nothing was impossible" then the researchers would simply pull their answers out of the sky and be done with it. Animal testing is necessary, and that is that.

 

[FireCat]

If "nothing was impossible" then the researchers would simply pull their answers out of the sky and be done with it. Animal testing is necessary, and that is that.

and how can you be sure about it's not impossible. well it was not impossible to go to moon, cars, computers and so on, so why not?! and is not "that is that!" at all. and btw is not entirely necessary to test evrything.

 

[TheDamien]

and how can you be sure about it's not impossible. well it was not impossible to go to moon, cars, computers and so on, so why not?!

All of these things were impossible, and then they became possible later on as technology and understanding progressed. I'm sure that in the future there will be good alternatives to animal testing, but for now animal testing is a necessary evil.

and is not "that is that!" at all. and btw is not entirely necessary to test evrything.

If there are human safety issues that can only be resolved through animal testing, then it is necessary. Beyond that, animal experimentation is critical to research in many fields including oncology, neuroscience and developmental biology.

 

[Prometheus]

A quote from Faily Guy.

"Can I do a 1st time test of this bone-restoring surgery for geese, on you?"

Animals shoudn't be tested on. Just make healthier products and it removes the need for them. Possibly make up some chemical mixture and see how it reacts to the product?

"Green is bad, right sir."
"Yes."
<5 Minutes Later>
"Uhh, sir."
"What?"
"All the products are green, sir."
"Aw %#$^!"

 

[Varine]

whatever when you not even want think can be another solution then use a animal for testing and "I don't said they can take of it entirely", but nothing is fucking Impossible. so what you don't understend?

I don't understand any of what you're saying. English obviously isn't your first language and I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what you're saying, and I don't understand what you are talking about by testing on something other than animals. We basically have the choice between test animals or humans, and animals are a better option. We can't inject a tree with cancer and try to find ways to combat it.

 

[sqrage]

I don't understand any of what you're saying. English obviously isn't your first language and I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what you're saying, and I don't understand what you are talking about by testing on something other than animals. We basically have the choice between test animals or humans, and animals are a better option. We can't inject a tree with cancer and try to find ways to combat it.

He probably means some kind of lab-grown organism. That doesn't seem possible just yet though.

And do you guys really care about lab mice being used to test new medicines on? Would you rather it be someone from your family who is taken against their will?

 

[UndeadDragon]

I agree with sqrage. We don't have much choice in what we are going to test on because our science has not yet moved on far enough to make organisms to test drugs on and the only other alternate to animals is humans.

Drugs are tested on humans, but that is only after it has been tested on animals and the scientists know if the drug is safe or not. Human testing is used to determine whether the human body can handle it (take it in and let it out).