Do you believe it's wrong to test on and kill animals for medical advancement purposes?
Even if it were to save many human lives?
Printable View
Do you believe it's wrong to test on and kill animals for medical advancement purposes?
Even if it were to save many human lives?
yes
Yes. But very carefully.
For example one of my neighbours is a very senior doctor and researcher at a major hospital. He's looking for treatment and cures for leukemia and tests on mice to do so. However if the mice get ill for any reason he will go to the lab and do whatever needs doing himself. He once came back from a holiday in southern Europe to put one of the mice down himself. I respect that a lot and think that kind of testing is for the best.
maybe not right but beneficial and yes i am for it.
Human life is more valuable than animal life.
~~from phone
I'm also for it, but only if it's done in a way that's as decent to the animal as it can be and not just absolute torture.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
Human life is more important and valuable than an animals life, and I'm all for testing on animals.
Yes. Agree with Jen. It may not be right but it is beneficial.
Why would it not be right
because we're putting them through potential pain that they didn't agree to I sposeQuote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
and they can't even tell us when they're in pain
Neither can plants but no-one calls for an end to walking on grass or picking flowers on the grounds of it being abusive. Either responding to a physical stimuli (which plants do just as much as animals) isn't the same as understanding pain, or we all ought to be out marching for vegetable rights
No i dont believe its right. I always use cruelty free makeup products and i just dont think its ethical at all
There is a difference between animal testing and animal cruelty is there not?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldLoveSong
In the makeup industry it is tech the same as a product saying not tested on animalsQuote:
Originally Posted by Empired
I'm talking about for medical purposes though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldLoveSong
I dont believe in testing on animals at all
Just out of interest how would you suggest we advance medically without testing first on animals?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldLoveSong
i feel like i'm attacking you but i just wanna know your point of view :'(
Mankind comes before the Animal Kingdom. Or at least it should.
A family member seriously ill in hospital about to lose their life or a pig. It's a no-brainer.
I don't agree with it no but as said, if it helps then yeah.
I won't ever agree with make-up testing on animals etc
Gd thing the thread is entitled 'Testing on animals for medical advancement purposes' then xQuote:
Originally Posted by IzzyUhh
I was just sayin I don't agree with that either :@Quote:
Originally Posted by Empired
Wait so do you agree with animal testing for medical advancement? sorry im confusedQuote:
Originally Posted by IzzyUhh
I don't agree with eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Empired
So, to take undertaker's example, you would rather a family member died of, say, cancer because we shouldn't be testing on animals to find a cure?Quote:
Originally Posted by IzzyUhh
No like I said on my first post, I don't agree with it but if it helps then yeahQuote:
Originally Posted by Empired
Your example of them testing on animals but then helping the animals if that makes sense probs not
Yh fair enough. I am the same: I am against animal cruelty but not against animal testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by IzzyUhh
Generally in life, some lose for others gain so I just see it as a necessity when it's not for cosmetic purposes.
Same people that agree with abortion say save mice lifes, but all industrial medicines you take are tested in mices. Human life is over an animal life, always.
I don't believe animals really have a concept of pain - yeah they might feel it but they don't have the same understanding of it as humans do.
I don't like the idea of deliberate cruelty but testing on animals is something I believe is a lot less risky and beneficial to humans, so I'm for it, as long as the animals aren't put through horrific pain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrawrrr
wotQuote:
Originally Posted by lawrawrrr
are u sure
I meant torture not pain in the second one really - or rather, what humans would call "horrific amounts of pain"Quote:
Originally Posted by Empired
When you say you don't think animals have a concept of pain, what do you mean then? Psychological pain? Because if you ring a bell and then hit a dog, and repeat it enough times, you can ring the bell and the dog will cower and hide away because it's expecting the pain to follow. Is that not a concept of pain?Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrawrrr
I don't think they experience it in quite the same way that we do. It's hard to define even in humans really, because it combines physical and psychological elements. I don't think animals have those psychological elements - because they don't have the same capability for emotions in that way. Animals, in my view, can't feel distress and suffering, and although they can learn from mistakes/past pain, like the dog example you said, they can't form a real connection with it and their pain only extends to the current, rather than the lasting psychological pain. I'm not sure I'm saying what I mean very well though :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Empired
Animals can't agree to being tested on. I guess if it were to save many human lives, it would be beneficial but what gave us to potentially ruin/take the lives of other innocent creatures for our own?
Is that not sort of selfish?
Morally it is wrong that we do it but I think if anyone was given the choice that either they or an animal live, they would save them self every time. It's kind of the same thing, we test things on animals to save ourselves.
It's the hierarchy of nature, a lion isn't going to starve itself to death in order to save a zebras life.
Hands down yes
Personally I don't mind animals being tested on.