- NEW!
by Disturbed in a Jr COAT is so confused on April 29th, 2009
No animal testing is justified. They can't consent. In my opinion it's like rape in a way.
by kingof303 on August 25th, 2009
ok plz understand that animal testing is wrng very wrng and shud be stopd but i wud rather have them test on a kittin or puppy rather then on ur sister or my sister it save us the more impotent species HUMANS we are the bigger and more important life on this planet so i believe in ti all thou it is bad and inhumane
by Prime wants the old AB back on April 29th, 2009
None at all.
by pagan-babe on April 29th, 2009
I dont believe any animal testing is justified
by CT on August 26th, 2009
None..if people want to buy cosmetics or whatever then they should be tested on the humans who want to look good...NOT on innocent animals..
by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on August 24th, 2009
To NO extent at all. Ever.
by mgl on August 24th, 2009
To me it's not justified, ever!
by kingof303 on August 1st, 2009
i dont think u ppl relize how importent animal testing is. it stops us frm getting injured with lets say shampoo or sum kind of skin cream,it tells us that it is dangerus but wen it is hurting animals constantly then we knows its bad and shud stop do u agree commen,friend me.
-have an open mind-
by Alex-ALi on September 1st, 2009
"Well I read somewhere that the scientists test as much as possible before testing on animals i.e. will see how the product reacts on cell samples etc before on an animal - in an attempt to deliver minimal damage to the animal. In this case I'm for it as the intent is not to be cruel in the name of experimental slap dash! If the final product wasn't tested on an animal it would just be some poor sod of a human and I'm definitely for testing in the name of medical advancement so would rather an animal over a human." We could go on forever trying to bring awareness about one an others opinion
To conclude,
1)would you never allow a drug to be used to treat one of your children because it had been tested on an animal, and would prove fatal if they were not administered it? if they were to say die a horrific and painful death, "but mummy wanted to use the balloba plant from Pinghafgoo" just becasue she didn't agree with animal testing. I think they would be begging you, don't you..to let them live?
2)I'm not here to prove any one wrong, I am here to stand up for what is evidently right, and to stop wishy washyness from infiltrating the net in the form of dream catchers and spells, now...
3) I'm always right, if otherwise proven wrong, and on this occasion I have proven that you can justify animal testing, and that it is not always immoral.
4) can understand you trying to make myself look at my actions in a moral manner, but I do this everyday and don't need your help to become less blinded
by HannahV on August 26th, 2009
I know its wrong, but if it was a choice between a potentially dangerous treatment being used on a human or an animal..an animal would be used. Sometimes other species have to die to save this one.
by SalientAlien on September 1st, 2009
If the purpose is to save human lives, I think it is justified. Many times, treatments simply can't be developed without animal testing. Try reading 'The Great Influenza' for a better understanding of experimentation and the great strides that medicine has made in saving lives and human suffering. Ever suffered through polio or diphtheria? No? Then thank animal testing.
by Marc on August 26th, 2009
Most of us werent vegetarians to say dont torture the animals.
by Tveg on April 29th, 2009
If it's harmful, it's not justified. There should be criminal prosecution for some involved.
by qwerty on September 1st, 2009
for lifesaving medicine research
by mcdonna on September 1st, 2009
I work in the medical device industry and although I have nothing to do with the research and developement of the products I see how utterly imoprtant these devices are to saving human lives. These products would not be around or be allowd on the market had they not been tested on animals. After the animal testing phase they are tested on humans before they are approved. There are very stringent FDA regulations governing animal testing (for FDA approved products)
I have met many people, my friend's son included, who's lives have been saved because of these products and for that reason I think it is justified for medical purposes.
by Thriftymaid on September 1st, 2009
There is a certain amount necessary prior to testing on humans, whether it's for cosmetics or drugs. I don't think it need be cruel. I've read and seen some horrifying pictures. The pictures I saw were all for cosmetic testing which was awful.
by Ron-T on August 26th, 2009
none it is not justifiable to me,bunch of loonies and frikken cowards.
by kingof303 on August 24th, 2009
yes i understand this but human tissue cant tell us if its hurting or if its itchy ect. and yes they do die alot but i wud rather have them die then us so u must like animals alot if u wud die 4 cause from my standerds they will die before us there for are not importent
by Nomasain on September 1st, 2009
It's hardly ever justified.
In most cases, prisoners can be offered (not forced!) the possibility to get payed for it.
Where I live, people get payed for testing medication and such. ANYONE can sign a disclaimer and join, earning a few grand.
But I prefer prisoners to have the priviledge of being asked first, so it's easier for them to reduce their debt to society or even reduce their sentence.
by Who Is She on September 1st, 2009
The simple fact is that whatever has in the past been done to animals (and concentration camp victims), is past now, whether justifiable then or not.
Here and now it is also fact that alternatives to animal testing for virtually everything, let alone cosmetics and cleaning products, are available to us if we choose to fund them and many leading figures in medicine have spoken out against animal testing, not for animal welfare reasons but, often, for human welfare reasons. Animal testing can be misleading.
For me it has never been justifiable to test on weaker species just because we can! Here and now we don't even need to. Political and economic restraints mean it won't be completely outlawed for some time and the more backward, stubborn or just poor countries will be the last to eradicate this outmoded outrage.
There are alternatives and applying force against the weak for our selfish benefit can't be justified, just excused in the minds of those who wish to perpetuate the problem.
by kingof303 on September 2nd, 2009
? how does that relate to this
by QuartzKitty on September 9th, 2009
I love animals. I do. I talk into a puddle of goo when I see a baby animal, especially a kitten or puppy.
So, don't think me an evil heartless witch for saying this, but, the simple fact is, without animal testing we wouldn't have many of the medical advances we have today. Animal testing isn't just used for things like cosmetics (which is wrong), but for serious medical research that has saved millions, if not billions, of lives.
If anyone here is diabetic, or knows someone who is, it's due to animal testing that there is insulin for treatment. Until VERY recently, insulin was extracted from animals and refined for human use. Thus saving who knows how many lives. Only recently, though the use of cloning, have we been able to produce insulin without needing to harm an animal.
Many vaccines are produced through animal testing.
Anyone who's gotten anti-venom to treat a snakebite can thank animal testing for their survival. Anti-venom is produced by injecting venom into a horse, and extracting the antibodies the horse produces to refine into anti-venom. It sounds cruel, but it's the only option we have right now, and it's saved millions of lives.
Animal testing is used for beneficial purposes every day.
And how do you classify animal testing anyway? They use animal testing (observation and recording) to document how memory works, which could help to find a cure for Alzheimer and similar ailments.
Fruit-fly research, a form of animal testing, is the backbone of genetic research. 98% of what we know of genetics comes from that form of animal testing.
People who do animal testing are not evil, heartless, sadistic bastards who get off on harming animals. They are usually people trying to save lives who work hard to make sure that the testing is conducted as painlessly and humanely as possible.
Most of them look forward to the day when animal testing won't be needed, but right now, it sadly is. Such research helps and benefits not just human lives, but the lives of other animals as well.
by kingof303 on August 23rd, 2009
well this is true but we are constantly makeing new products and i do agree that there shud be rules to keep the animals safe but are lives are more importent then thers and yes there may be diff. affect but ut stil gives a head up if it shud be used or not and yes maybe they are injured in the process and sum even die but its for us people so that we dont be hurt...so wud u rather have a human test it out or animal??
by oneistheonlynumber on September 9th, 2009
I think it is justified for very late stages in drug testing when:
1. potential side effects that are severe
2. the drug has major benefits to people like curing a disease with a high mortality rate
I believe human life is greater than animals even though, I respect animal life. If you say otherwise, I like to see you tell your love ones that you would rather have them die than your pet.
What is the medical term for the color red?
by Answerbag Staff on January 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When will cherry flavoried thorazine chewable tablets be availble?
by Mister_Bromide on September 27th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What is the medical term for the color red?
by Answerbag Staff on July 4th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
If an unknown doctor on a radio talkshow at 3am says licking frogs will cure boredom, would you try it? Even once?
by genericdust on September 28th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
I have decided to donate my body for transplants and/or research. Why are some people upset with this idea?
by MotherTruckers on September 14th, 2011
| 2 people like this
You're reading To what estent do you believe animal testing is justified?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
if u means its just as bad as rape i agree infact its proably worse
by jas on April 29th, 2009
Yes I think it's very close to being as bad as rape, but I also think it is a form of rape. They are doing stuff to the animals when the animals haven't consented.
by Disturbed in a Jr COAT is so confused on April 29th, 2009