Animal Testing/Abuse/cruelty

Are their any humans brave enough to be tested?

I think it's just plain stupid to use a living thing (that can feel pain just like we can) just so that we can make sure that make-up is safe. The companies have made enough make-up, so why do we need anymore of it?
Scientists have actually cloned human skin before (not an actual human, but human skin), so why do we still use animals for testing?

And I know this is a little bit off topic, but I hate dissections because:
1) Even though some of these animals are bred for dissection, it's still cruel to kill them and then fill them with formaldihyde (spelling?).
2) There have been enough dissections, right? Some are even on video so that classes can even watch them. What's the point of dissections if we have all of these videos and "computerized" dissections?

[/off topic]

Quote

Other animals?
That's kinda stupid, since all animals feel pain.

it's true but not all tests make the animal feel pain...I have to agree it is sad..

It's driving me nuts that people keep saying "Oh, if it's for disease, it needs to be done."

Elitists!

Sorry to all the anti-animal testing people here, but I would rather have medicine tested on an animal than die of a disease, and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. It's just my opinion.

For cosmetics, no, no, no. It's completely unnecessary. But in my opinion it's necessary medically for the curing of diseases. Personally I'd rather my medicine was tested on an animal until it works, than die of bird flu or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of animals suffering in order to keep humans alive. But I don't think there's any other answer, except to test on humans, and nobody would volunteer for those sorts of tests.

I'd rather die. I think my life is just as valuable as another animal's. I'd hate to be tested to save a dog's life, and I know they feel the same - not to mention that they don't even understand what's happening to them.

100% for it.

Why?. Because it'd be hypocritical for me to be against it. I'm only alive now because of the drugs that have kept me in this world, and i'm not about to apologize for being alive. Of course, i'm sorry little animals had to die to further my life.

But think of it this way. Do you really think for one little minute that if rats were at the top of the food chain, they'd even hesitate to test their drugs and medication upon humans?. Evolution dealt our species these cards, we're playing them to our advantage.

And evolution also dealt us the cards we could use to have compassion, but we don't use those.

Because...

Well, it wouldn't be easy.

I get by without using anything tested on animals...

I wouldn't get by without animal tested drugs. There is no way i'd be alive right now if it wasn't for medication.

You've also got to think, when these drugs are found and used regularly on humans, they get passed down to vets who can adapt them and used them for animals.

I don't like the idea of animal testing. But it needs to be done for things that could help us, and animals. Not like a lipstick or something. If they were us, like more "powerful", and we were them, we wouldn't want them to do it to us. If that made sense.

It depends. I think it is a waste of time and money, and animals. What did they do to deserve being tested for stupid make-up?

But the animal should be allowed tested if it's for a cancer cure, or a kind of sickness if there is no cure or even medication yet.

um i dont like it at all, but if they need to to save a human life, then i think its ok... please donot forget that they test it on humans afterwards too. so im half and half. i do not like it, but i know it is nessacery until they find a better way.

Majorly against. Why should animals have to suffer for our selfish purposes? We've already destroyed their habitats and caged them for pets isn't that enough?

So...okay.
I'd say a little more than half of you agree that animal testing is okay if it's because of medical reasons? Hm. Okay. So, you're saying you'd rather have a bunch of animals die to find a cure for cancer that there might not even be? Or maybe you'd like to see some animals die so you can have some cough medicine so you don't have to sneeze anymore, while the animals don't have a life anymore?
So, if it isn't for the animals, then why try it out on them? Because they have no say in the matter. If rats could talk and you asked one if they'd like to be tested for something, would they say yes? I'm saying no. They're not that stupid.
I think if people want medicine and cures and all, they should try it on themself, not animals. I'm sure some people would volunteer, but if the animals don't volunteer, I think it's just effing crazy that they should use them just because they can't say no.
(Just as a thing, I don't know if they use animal testing on cough medicine, it was just an example of something.)

Against it for make up.
For it for medicine... but only to a certain level.

Most people seem to be for animal testing if it is for a cure to some disease, but they are against testing cosmetics. With all the krap that's in cosmetics a disease we were unaware of could result from the new cosmetics that were untested and we would have to test on the animals to find the cure.

There is no real need for animal testing, though. Like someone said before, we have advanced computer programs that would bring more accurate results.

Bloodraine:

Evolution dealt our species these cards, we're playing them to our advantage.

Just because we have been given the most power doesn't mean we have to kill millions of animals for testing. Hitler had more power than almost everyone while he was alive and he used his power to put people into concentration camps and he tested on them too. Power does not give you the right to hurt the ones that you think are not worth as much as you are.

Here's part of a letter I got from PETA yesterday:

"At a cost of billions of tax and consumer dollar, animal experimentation has become a habit-a very bad habit-that is scientifically unnecessary, medically unreliable, and shockingly cruel.

.....

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently pushing plans that would require hundreds of chemicals to be retested on animals. That's right-not tested, but retested, even though at least 19 separate experiments have already been performed with these chemicals, in which birds, dogs, and many other animals were forced to ingest or inhale large amounts of pesticides. In fact, hundreds of thousands of animals ill perish if the EPA has its way.

These tests will tell us little about what dangers the chemicals actually pose because of the enormous differences between animals and humans. The EPA has een admitted in writing that the experiments that require dogs are unnecessary, but it had no plans to stop these cruel tests.

New technologies offer us proven alternatives that are far cheaper, more accurate, and more humane. Exmples include cultures of human cells and organ tissues-which are directly revelant to people-as well as sophisticated computer models that can predict the likely toxic effects of a test substance.

....
As a matter of fact, your own dog or cat could easily become a victim... because each year,"pound seizure" laws force unwilling animal shelters to turn over tens of thousands of lost cats or dogs to experimenters."

r o c k s t a r:

I think they should test people.

Yeah, but how many people are gonna want to have chemicals poured on them?
Or should they just pick a race of people, and make a new Holocaust happen?