Do you think Animal Testing is right?

[Jordy]

Well that is truly how I feel, I feel it's exactly the same as killing a human being; it has feelings, it has a life..no matter what it is, a animal or not.
You can think that it's ridiculous that I think that, but if torturing a animal is okay, then it's the same thing as torturing a human, when it doesn't even need to happen in the first place.
I'm also a vegetarian, I haven't eaten meat now for 6 years.
So I'm also against killing animals, this links with it obviously.

So if you had a fly in your room driving you mad for hours and hours you wouldn't kill it if you had the chance? It's not exactly the same as killing a human being, there is a little or no evidence that they endure pain the same way we do.

For medical testing I've no problems with it at all, however for cosmetics I wonder whether it really helps and if the animals need to be put through the pain. The Body Shop has managed to produce all it's stuff without testing it on animals, as far as I know, people who use their perfume don't find it corrosive or anything. They manage to produce cosmetics without testing it on animals, surely everyone else can.

For the record, I've also been a full vegetarian for 7 years.

[Ardemax]

Actually... most people dont eat dogs. In China, yes. As 4 technology; OBVIOUSLY it cant solve everthing. Hense why I said "It may not work but its worth a try"

You're funny? So it may not work but it's worth a try.

Try saying that to a terminally ill patient who may have months to live, but instead of finding the cure on animals, we have to wait for "technology to help us".

If we didn't use some of these animals for helping cure things like cancer, they'd only probably get eaten or killed.

I know it's sad, but it's the facts.

[Tash.]

I'm completely against it. For the purposes of cosmetics I think its absolutely selfish to test something on an animal for our own vanity. As for the medical side of it, like other people have said already, different people react differently to drugs. Bearing this in mind, how can anyone possibly say that testing on animals is going to help? If humans react differently to the same drug, we definitely can't say any human is going to react similarly to a drug thats fine on an animal. Often the testing itself causes distress and harm thats much beyond what is needed anyway. I see people arguing that if you're going to defend the rights of animals such as rats/mice/dogs/monkeys then you might aswell defend bacteria and plant life, but the two things aren't comparable. Humans interact with rats/mice and on a higher level with dogs/monkeys so we form an attachment to them (or at least many people do). Bacteria and plant life are incapable of showing us their discomfort so they aren't considered within the same bracket of life. I despise all forms of animal cruelty, not much makes me angrier or more upset than to see a human being, supposedly of a higher intelligence, inflict pain upon a defenceless creature simply because it's their belief that they are a higher form of life. It's disgusting.

[FlyingJesus]

I see people arguing that if you're going to defend the rights of animals such as rats/mice/dogs/monkeys then you might aswell defend bacteria and plant life, but the two things aren't comparable. Humans interact with rats/mice and on a higher level with dogs/monkeys so we form an attachment to them (or at least many people do). Bacteria and plant life are incapable of showing us their discomfort so they aren't considered within the same bracket of life. I despise all forms of animal cruelty, not much makes me angrier or more upset than to see a human being, supposedly of a higher intelligence, inflict pain upon a defenceless creature simply because it's their belief that they are a higher form of life. It's disgusting.

In a similar way there's a difference between humans and animals though, which was my point. Non-sentient animals do not understand pain and distress, and can only react in such a way as their very basic survival instincts allow. Many plants do shy away from physical connections just like you reflexively do if someone taps you unexpectedly and a fair amount even have defence mechanisms such as the release of hidden spurs or gas emissions, but quite clearly they're not altogether too able to run away.

Not sure where you were going with the attachment thing.. some people have pet rocks but that doesn't make silicaceous objects open to rights discussions

[Smits]

Before i start reading what others have put, i'm going to say what i think.

Personally i do believe that animal testing is right. Why? Simply because if we didn't use animals, we would have to use humans, and i'd much rather a rabbit or even a monkey die, than a human. At the end of the day, it is in most cases done as humanely as possible, and many of the animals are bread specifically for the purpose of testing, they porbably wouldn't be around if there was no testing.

However, i do agree that some criminals should be tested on as an alternative, as some really do deserve it and would provide us with much better results, but the human rights act prevents it.

Overall, the animals are bread for the purpose of testing, yes it is a dreadful life, and nobody enjoys the idea, but it has to happen in order to ensure we get safe products on our shelves.

[Bun]

i'm all game for it. we're intelluctually superior to any other animal and top of the food chain. i'd rather sacrifice 100 animals than 1 human being. plus it's sooo beneficial, for both medical and erm the other side..

[Tash.]

In a similar way there's a difference between humans and animals though, which was my point. Non-sentient animals do not understand pain and distress, and can only react in such a way as their very basic survival instincts allow. Many plants do shy away from physical connections just like you reflexively do if someone taps you unexpectedly and a fair amount even have defence mechanisms such as the release of hidden spurs or gas emissions, but quite clearly they're not altogether too able to run away.

Not sure where you were going with the attachment thing.. some people have pet rocks but that doesn't make silicaceous objects open to rights discussions

What do you consider to be non-sentient animals though? For instance, I have a puppy and i'm sure that when she's hurt her reaction to it is purely instinctive but if she shows distress then how can she not understand it? Her distress is shown through the yelp she lets out if she stands on something sharp, the same as what me or you might do if we stood on something that hurt. She whines for attention, just as you can argue a human baby would. What i'm trying to say is, I understand what you mean about plants, and yes they may show their defence mechanisms too but they are so different to a humans reaction we don't empathise with them in the same way as we might a dogs.

What I meant by the attachment part was that if we are able to form one with an animal we interact with it, making them seem more human to us. Perhaps this isnt the case for you, but for most 'animal people' that bond means something and would prevent us from hurting them purposely.

[Black_Apalachi]

... In my opinion it should be stopped altogether. It's cruel. All those animals have lives just like we do.. it's not right.. ...

To you and everyone else opposed to it: what alternative do you suggest?

[FlyingJesus]

What do you consider to be non-sentient animals though? For instance, I have a puppy and i'm sure that when she's hurt her reaction to it is purely instinctive but if she shows distress then how can she not understand it? Her distress is shown through the yelp she lets out if she stands on something sharp, the same as what me or you might do if we stood on something that hurt. She whines for attention, just as you can argue a human baby would. What i'm trying to say is, I understand what you mean about plants, and yes they may show their defence mechanisms too but they are so different to a humans reaction we don't empathise with them in the same way as we might a dogs.

What I meant by the attachment part was that if we are able to form one with an animal we interact with it, making them seem more human to us. Perhaps this isnt the case for you, but for most 'animal people' that bond means something and would prevent us from hurting them purposely.

I may be using the wrong term, as sentience can be portrayed as simply giving the illusion of distress as animals tend to do. Sapience might be a better word as it's defined more as an understanding of such things rather than just the capability to react. What you're describing is a simple procedure of anthropomorphism - we see an animal whimpering and assume that it's feeling unhappy, because it's showing physical signs of displeasure the same way we as humans do, but there is nothing at all in conclusive proof to show that they have any way of registering anything as more than reflexive.

If you walk into your house and strut right past your pet without looking at it or acknowledging its existence it won't be hurt or offended, and if it wants your attention it'll likely make some noise about it - something most pets learn quickly as a way of getting you to take notice, just like a baby. The only difference between a human baby and most animals (in terms of sapience of course not body hair and claws) is that the human baby we know to have the potential to learn what feelings are, whereas animals adapt only in a way that reflects how their owner reacts to things they do, in which case either they don't really feel, or they do so innately from birth and are our intellectual superiors. One seems rather more likely than the other

[Seatherny]

I may be using the wrong term, as sentience can be portrayed as simply giving the illusion of distress as animals tend to do. Sapience might be a better word as it's defined more as an understanding of such things rather than just the capability to react. What you're describing is a simple procedure of anthropomorphism - we see an animal whimpering and assume that it's feeling unhappy, because it's showing physical signs of displeasure the same way we as humans do, but there is nothing at all in conclusive proof to show that they have any way of registering anything as more than reflexive.

If you walk into your house and strut right past your pet without looking at it or acknowledging its existence it won't be hurt or offended, and if it wants your attention it'll likely make some noise about it - something most pets learn quickly as a way of getting you to take notice, just like a baby. The only difference between a human baby and most animals (in terms of sapience of course not body hair and claws) is that the human baby we know to have the potential to learn what feelings are, whereas animals adapt only in a way that reflects how their owner reacts to things they do, in which case either they don't really feel, or they do so innately from birth and are our intellectual superiors. One seems rather more likely than the other

Their facial reactions, crying of animals, screams etc all show that they can feel pain. A dog gets shot if it harms a human but its ok for a human to harm a dog.
Humans always think they are the cleverest, but don't you think its because of our body shape? A dog has saved many humans, that shows they have feeling, a brain which can think and skill.
No human can say if animals can feel pain or not because we aren't a dog or because there is no speaking dog. Otherwise I can beat you up and go you don't feel pain so its ok.