Animal Testing/Abuse/cruelty

Yes, I've watched it and my opinion still remains the same. As I have said, it is not a pleasure to see it, nor is it moral or anything. The problem is it's necessary in order to save many other lives. As someone has said before, they have to test it on something. And till now no one has come up with a better idea. Don't you think they'd test it on flies and roaches if the results were relevant? I have a dog that I've raised her since she was a few weeks old. Now she's almost a year and a half and I love her more than I can express in words. But if I had to choose between saving her life and saving millions of others, I'd choose the latter.

Oh, and before people start talking about the brutality of those people: my dad is a vet so I've met many people who work with animals. Most of them lose their patience really quickly because working in such a loud noise for hours and hours can make you really irritable. So they can easily become violent with animals.

gia:

Oh, and before people start talking about the brutality of those people: my dad is a vet so I've met many people who work with animals. Most of them lose their patience really quickly because working in such a loud noise for hours and hours can make you really irritable. So they can easily become violent with animals.

Thats not an excuse to become violent with an animal.
My mothers a dentist, and the noise of the drills can get annoying, but she doesn't rip out people teeth because of that.
You'd be just as thankful for your medicine if the drugs were tested on humans, or flies.

Samberri:

WE DON'T HAVE TO USE ANIMALS.
Geez,
if the human race wasn't so cowardly.

You're saying we should use humans instead?
Well then, who decides what humans to use for testing?
Do we use retarded people? White people? Homosexuals? Asians? Men? Women? Do you think anyone will sign up to testings?

I'm for animal testing if it's for medical causes.

I don't buy make up or hair products if it's used on animals.

--Yara--:

You're saying we should use humans instead?
Well then, who decides what humans to use for testing?
Do we use retarded people? White people? Homosexuals? Asians? Men? Women? Do you think anyone will sign up to testings?

I think that's the problem. No one wnats to be tested on. I know I wouldn't be first in line.
There's no way of choosing people. That's why we use animals.

r o c k s t a r:

I think that's the problem. No one wnats to be tested on. I know I wouldn't be first in line.
There's no way of choosing people. That's why we use animals.

Which is what makes animal testing so bad.
I'm sure if animals had a choice to be tested on,
They wouldn't sign up.

Scandalous.:

Which is what makes animal testing so bad.
I'm sure if animals had a choice to be tested on,
They wouldn't sign up.

That's exactly how I feel.
I don't think they want to be eaten either, but people eat them.

People do volunteer to be tested on animals because apparently it pays well.
When a drug in the UK was tested on humans and I think it killed someone and the rest of the testees ended up in hospital, more people volunteered. Why? Because they thought it payed well, they didn't care about the risks.
People volunteer all the time.

Logic Is For Losers!:

So you people are trying to tell me that it's ok to test things on animals, break the necks in the proccess, cause them years of pain, more likely death then anything, if it's for the good of mankind? That's sick.
Animals don't test on us for the good of their kind, do they? Animals have different genes then humans, drugs won't work the same on them as they would for us.
We've lived just fine in the past without testing animals.
Don't you think that it's wrong that we can't kick dogs and cats when they misbehave, but they can go test on animal, shove needles into them, and break their necks when they don't cooperate?
It's disgusting, harming animals is wrong, no matter who it's for.

Okay...
Animal testing is messed up, as Logic is for Losers! said in the quote.

I'd like to see a lot of you go and watch a monkey being experimented on.
If you do, note the panic he is in; note the pain as the men handle him like a toy they can just throw away when they're finished with it; note the way he struggles to escape from the punishment for something he knows nothing about. For something that has nothing to do with him, and most probably never will.

Try watching your dog be the one on the metal table. Watch the people pour chemicals down his throat while he whines and whimpers && doesn't get any comfort; just a slap and a sharp word for his pain.

Someone earlier said that the animals used are sometimes ones from lost animal shelters; dogs && cats that havn't been claimed. That could be your dog.

Why don't you put yourself in the animals' place?
Imagine being treated && handled roughly, chained up, put in restraints so you can't move.
See what desicion you would choose if the options were let a harmful, unknown substance be poured down your throat, or resist && be hit && beaten. Maybe even killed when they lose all use for you. When you're so mangled && messed up that there's nothing more to do to you.

Is it okay because it's for a cure then?
When you're in pain?
When you're suffering?
When it's your beloved pet?

There is no time when it is okay. Its cruel and selfish. It's abuse, && we can do something about it.

If, let's say, 30-something animals are sacrificed to save millions of people and possibly other animals too, what's the big deal about it?
It's not just drugs for human use that are tested on animals. Drugs for animal use are tested on them too.

i am all for animal rights
and i am against animal abuse
but i am for human life!
i am against like testing make up and such on them
but meds and treatments that will save a humans life
i am for

Logic Is For Losers!:

Animals don't test on us for the good of their kind, do they? Animals have different genes then humans, drugs won't work the same on them as they would for us.

Actually, we do have the same genes, they are just "arranged" differently. All species have a common origin, it has been genetically proven. There are just 20 aminoacids present in all living creatures, but the number of combinations is too big to count and is constantly increasing. So animals, especially mammals, have the same reaction to different substances as we do.

I think someone else has already mentioned this, but isn`t there some kind of technology that could replace animal testing? Or has that not been invented yet?

Just curious.

Nope, there isn't.

I am against animal testing
i am a vegitarian
and i dont ( i try whenever possibal) not to use things not tested on animals

Animal testing:

I would never test on animal unless its something good like the cure for caners Diabetes. stuff like that but would you ever hurt an animal i couldn't I couldn't even squash an ant i'm very protective over everything. Nothing near me or with me thats an animal will not be hurt.