Is it even possible for the animal rights people to see that when we test a product on an animal, its safer? what should scientists experiment on? humans?
by 
Wannabe Superhero
ANSWERS: 26
-
Indeed they should be tested on humans! After all, WE are the ones who will benefit from the product! Not the poor innocent animal they test it on.
-
yes they should be tested on humans. people sign up to get tested on anyways and they get paid and everything
-
Well, I am all for animal rights, and I think we need to balance what the benefit is against the harm caused. By all means, experiment on lab rats to see if your new treatment cures cancer or world hunger. However, to test skin lotion, how to color your hair, a new shade of lipstick, how your razor works, etc... Animals should not be suffering for this. If it really means all that much to you, you should be willing to submit for testing yourself.
-
The products should be tested on Animal Rights Activists.
-
I think we should test it on humans. If they're for humans and there are humans willing to test it then by all means test away. I think testing animals is a practical means of testing but it's not very humanitarian.
-
If "products" were only tested on non-human animals, we wouldn't have many of the medication we have. Classic example is that asprin is toxic to many non-human animals. Give a dog chocolate, and it will die. My point is, we are at a point that we understand enough about the human design that we really don't need to test on non-human animals. Computer testing is good.
-
Remember the tests that were done on humans regarding syphilis? I am not sure of the details but wasn't it black soldiers who volunteered for the tests and weren't told what it was? It seems like there should/could be a third option available somehow, somewhere. Maybe in the lab itself.
-
The biggest problem I have with them testing on animals is that it's so often done inhumanely. They have subjected animals to burns and many other painful things and given them nothing to protect them from the pain. I understand the need for animal testing, but lets not put those poor animals through hell for our benefit.
-
I think the Nazi's already tried that and we lost/wounded 646,000 soldiers trying to rectify that. Ask Peta if we want to go down this path again. With 6,602,224,175 souls to feed on this planet I think we are at a point of no return...carry on.
-
no, it doesn't become safer, it's just that we can detect dangerous ones and not pursue them -- or do you know something i don't about what happens after a test result says "bad" ? bonus points if you can tell me how many products per year are tested and rejected because they cause problems with the animal
-
I am not a gung-ho animal rights advocate, but I draw the line on causing undue harm to animals so women can have a new cosmetic product. When I was growing up, make up was only for harlots, now it has become socially unacceptable to not wear make up. It's just plain crazy.
-
should be tested on murderers serial killers and the like at least there giving somthing back then
-
Well the problem as I see it is that other animals are not equal to humans. Humans could volunteer for money to become "testers" for companies. Or refuse. Animals can't say "ZOMG I DON'T LIKE THIS! You guys are crazy - GET ME OUT OF HERE!" and don't have a choice. However there are some benefits. I could understand testing cures for cancer or other diseases...I don't understand testing lotions and shampoos and the like on animals, though.
-
wow thas pretty low there guys.
-
as lond as we eat them afterward
-
it should be tested on humans. This will cause them to be more accurate. Or test it on human tissue, cells, organs etc
-
I will always believe that using animals for this type of testing is wrong. There are plenty of "us" humans that for a fee, would avail themselves to be tested instead of an animal.
-
Yes, we should experiment on humans. Let's start with the Christians
-
Hard-core animal rights people are the biggest hypocrites going. What percentage of them actually refuse life saving treatment because it was tested on animals? Well, if the number two broad at PETA can't do it, I'm guessing that percentage is somewhere around ZERO. I'm not completely heartless and do see their point when it comes to cosmetic products, but as for medical therapies, they should just shut the hell up. NO CONVICTION = NO MORAL ISSUE.
-
In many cases the "experiments" are ones that could be conducted on humans without causing any harm. One such case at the University of California was of a very young baby macaque monkey who was taken away from his mother at birth, his eyelids were sewn shut without the benefit of surgical anaesthesia andhe was completely isolated. He clung onto a rubber bollard that was in his cage. In addition to this he was fitted with a crude "helmet" which emitted loud and high screeching 24 hours a day. Con'd
-
You are asking the wrong question. The question should not be "Do animal rights activists believe that animals are more important than humans?"; the real question is "Should you go to a veterinarian or a medical doctor when you are sick?" Why does it make more sense for a human to go to a medical doctor. Why would a farmer who has sick cows not call a veterinarian who specializes in dogs and cats?
-
What most people are too ignorant to realise is that almost all animal testing is done for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And only a small percentage is done for human 'gain'. What good does testing on non-human do when we are not the same species and have completely differnt responses to different thing. It is unnecessary, worthless and barbaric practice.
-
I'm pregnant, and frankly I am glad that medications I need to take have been tested on animals before they are given to me. My unborn child's life is more important to me than the life of a rat fetus.
-
It's safer if the medical product is tested on a species that shares a similar genetic makeup, sure. As to the second part of your question, I'd like to see a PETA member be first in line at the research facility. I suspect it won't happen though.
-
It's never possible for "those other people" (you know, the ones who disagree with me) to see the things that are obvious to me. Must be something genetically wrong with their brains, or the way they were raised.
-
Since science has been evloving for centuries methods need to be considered that eliminates the need for animal cruelty on any level. We are so far away from this kind of consciousness that the whole planet is suffering far worse than any disease that needs to be cured. Most of the disease we have are due to eating, and abusing animals. Where do you think cancer came from in the first place? Not, certainly from a vegetarian diet.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC