Should animals be used for testing?

"Our relationships with other animals are a very messy and confusing affair. Some people say without hesitation that they love nonhuman animals (animals) and then intentionally harm them in education, research, entertainment, for food and clothing, and for sport. I always say I'm glad they don't love me. Some people argue -- or simply claim -- we need to harm other animals to learn about them even if we cause suffering and then kill them in the name of science. While most researchers who support animal testing seem to feel this is a regrettable but necessary practice, some, such as Dr. John VandeBerg, Director of the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, show little or no concern at all. To quote Dr. VandeBerg, "I think of the chimpanzees in the same way that I think of a library. There are many books in the library that will never be used this year or next year... Many of them might never be used again. But we don't know which ones will be needed tomorrow, next year or the year after." Oh my."

How do you feel about animals being used for research? Do you feel that it should be outlawed, or accepted? What else can we test on if you're against it? I want to know what you think.

  • I'm all for animal testing.
    0% (0)32% (6)20% (6)Vote
  • In some instances it's okay, in other instaces it is totally wrong.
    36% (4)42% (8)40% (12)Vote
  • I'm against animal testing all together.
    64% (7)26% (5)40% (12)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
Instances* sorry, typo.

0|0
6|13

Most Helpful Guy

  • I am all for it.

    Non-humans do not have rights. Rights derive from the faculty of reason.

    Non-humans do not have rights for the same reason that they cannot be prosecuted or sued.

    When animals kill humans, I do not hear these 'animal rights' people get angry about it. That is partly because they correctly recognize, at least implicitly, that humans have moral responsibility and volition while animals do not. But, they don't consistently recognize this, because they are driven ultimately by a hatred of humanity, which leads them to elevate animals above humans.

    That said, just because animals do not have rights and therefore ought not to have any legal protections, that does not mean that anything done to an animal is morally good. Destroying for the sake of destroying is immoral. Causing pain for the sake of causing pain is immoral. Bestiality is immoral.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Pets have rights though.

    • No, they don't. I'm not talking about the law, if that's what you mean. I am talking about moral facts. Facts are facts, whether the law recognizes them or not. The law is wrong on 'animal rights' as on many other things.

What Guys Said 12

  • I'm divided on this topic. Testing on animals has helped us in so many ways that we may not have many of the medicines or cures if it wasn't for that. But at the same time, you're killing innocent animals, causing them pain and living in a cage.

    I'd like to say I'm against it, but at the same time, it's been really positive for us humans. Controversial topic, that's for sure, I like it xD

    1|0
    0|0
    • Yep, without dogs, we wouldn't have insulin among other chemicals. But, that doesn't make it right.

    • Excellent way to put this. I love animals, but testing on them has helped us out in many ways.

  • It saves human lives. I know this is a moral dilemma that most people couldn't understand or don't want to. But you have to decide if the life of a human's is more valuable than the life of an animal.
    Consider the following scenario: you have two buttons in front of you, 1 button kills 10 chickens, but the other button kills your mom. You wouldn't hesitate to kill the 10 chickens, which proves everyone believes the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal.
    Unless you really hate your mom.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Yuo your right human life's matter more

    • Show All
    • No my mom will die because she's a complete bitch who cares more about herself, her phone, and her boyfriend than me and my two brothers, one who is autistic.

    • My mom was a bitch too, but you're gonna regret saying those things. I regret saying horrible things about how I wished my mom would die, but when it did happen I felt horrible. I've been in therapy for years now trying to get over the guilt and depression. My mom ignored me and my two brothers and she cared more about my dead beat step-dad then us.
      But you'll still regret it!

  • It's definitely a grey area. Lots of animals suffer from it but even more creatures have been saved from the successful results of those testings. You torture 1000 chimpanzees and then you find a cure for a disease because of it that is used from then on and ends up saving millions. I think as long as it's for the sole purpose of developing cures and vaccines for serious illnesses it's fine. But nothing else.

    0|0
    0|0
    • They should at least do it humanely.

  • rabbits will eat their young. meerkat alpha females will kill the young of lesser females and make them face exile or nursemaid duty. lion males kill cubs to put the females in heat. chimp females will kill and eat other chimp's babies. baboons will lazily munch on bleating, crying gazelle.

    animal testing isn't so pointlessly cruel, is it, by comparision?

    0|0
    0|0
    • I know it is. We all treat each other wrongly for pointless things, even animals do.

    • Show All
    • @CityBoy773

      It's entirely different. It's different enough that animals being savage to their young is normal, part of life, and quite familiar to anyone who works at a zoo or even a petstore.

      When a human is savage to their young, we sent people with weapons to intervene, drag them before a 12, 18 peers, and decide what punishment is suitable.

      As I said... if it wasn't different, we wouldn't be having this conversation. ;)

    • I'm saying that fact that we as humans also abuse our young is the similarity. The difference is the punishment, if even caught.

  • I prefer that any product I use is tested on an animal rather than tested on ME.

    0|0
    0|0
    • It should be useful testing only. Thus not sheer curiosity or army tests.

  • Better animals than humans. However, i think many people who test on animals are careless, and that they could easily do it in a less harmful and cruel way.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think only animal-related products should be tested on animals (because duh).

    Everything else ( harsh and/or toxic chemicals, bio-weapons, etc.) should be tested on murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Ha, my mom would agree with you.

  • Unfortunately, an animal can't talk and say otherwise and a human does talk and refuses to. So we really have no other options. I truly wish there was another way, but there really isn't.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Why not pedos?

    1|0
    0|0
  • U should test and the gays and homo sexuals and pedo moleters and rapist.

    0|0
    2|1
  • they do it in the most human way possible, and there is no better option would you rather they tested thing on humans instead

    0|0
    0|0
    • Like some others were saying, they could use people on death row, but i dunno. Tough topic to discuss.

    • Show All
    • You can test on animals, it just needs to be done humanely.

    • most of the time it is as human as possible.

  • Its horrible

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 6

  • Sometimes animal testing is necessary to save human lives, other times there is no justifiable reason to put a being with a complex nervous system through so much pain and stress.

    As a person who chooses to not eat meat for animal welfare reasons, I understand how sometimes pain can't be avoided for the innocent. That being said, it should be avoided at all costs especially when using intelligent and complex organisms.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yeah. Dogs were used to discover insulin, so unfortunately it's needed in some instances.

    • Yeah, it's definitely sad. I think these animals should be in a sense honored for the sacrifice they are born to make, they suffer blindly never knowing why they deserve it. And there should be some sort of reverence of the creature used in this way.

    • Yeah agreed.

  • rapists, murderers, and pedophiles would yield much more accurate results because they are human (well barely)

    2|0
    0|0
    • Exactly. I agree with that. They are scum.

    • Show All
    • An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

    • well it gets rid of the scum instead of them eventually getting out of jail and hurting more people there are only so many chances you can give people

  • This is why I'm a vegan. So many of my friends say they love animals yet they eat them and kill them, but they couldn't even look them in the eyes and do it.
    I don't think I'm a pet love or an animal lover. But I feel bad that we force ten Ito our twisted society. If people want to test drugs us people. I kind of understand because they have found helpful medical research from studying animals but still it seems wrong.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'd rather use sex offenders, child rapists, and murders but that's just me.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Haha, totally because in most cases, if not all, they are scum.

  • I'm against animal testing. Just because it isn't a human doesn't mean it doesn't feel pain, it doesn't mean they don't have families. Animals have emotions. To test the effects of tobacco they stick rats in a chamber with tobacco filled air for several hours, take them out, kill them, and then dissect them to see the effects. If you don't see how disgusting that is I don't know what to say. I can understand it if there aren't any other options and the experiment will save more lives than the ones used in the experiment, but I am against it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • That really is disgusting. I hate it so much.

  • For medicine I kind of think it's a necessary evil. For cosmetics. Fuck no.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Yeah, agreed. How dare they use innocent animals to test cosmetics?

Loading...