Is it ok? - Animal Testing

The Quran says pretty much the same thing. And I'm sure just about every major religion prohibits animal cruelty

 

Were not testing on the animals for no reason. If you were to test a drug on a rat, and the drug caused the rat organ failure, you potentially saved hundreds of thousands of human lives. Experimentation on animals is completely justifiable. Who else is gonna test the drug? Lets make some lucky volunteer test this new drug, that sends them into coma for the rest of their life, when we could have tested it on a replaceable rat. But because were fair minded people, who care about nature and the feelings of a rat or a pig, or a monkey, our human volunteer just lost the chance at ever living a normal life again, or even living. A single human has a greater role in human society than a single rat has in a population of rats.

 

Quite the thought provoking topic :grin: I'm not too sure how I feel about this.

I don't think animals should be used to test beauty products. You don't need beauty products to survive. Despite what some of the population might say, I know it's easily possible to live without it. It's a want not a necessity.

As for testing pharmaceutical products on animals...on the one hand, I understand why animals are used. It makes sense to test it on someone other than the human race, right? Killing/harming one rat could potentially save hundreds of lives. There's a whole process and experimenters need to meet the requirements and get the correct approval before testing on animals. Anyone doesn't just pick up a rat and decide to inject some stuff and see what happens. However, I can also understand the other side of the fence. They might be an animal, they might be 'inferior' to us but does that give us the right to subject them to harm and possibly death?

I believe it comes down to what science is about. Is it about furthering the human race? Is it then okay to kill animals to further that goal? How much room is there for morals in science? Should we let feelings get in the way of potentially life changing medicine/products? Should humans have the choice to participate instead? And if so, where does it stop? Do we test on prisoners? Encourage the poor to participate by giving them money? Which is better, humans or animals? How far are we willing to go in the name of science? And us such, perhaps it's better to restrict it to animals?

Sorry for all the questions :lol: I don't expect answers for my ramblings :grin:

 

I hope no child ever has to hear the words, "Your father was killed during experiments to try to find the cure for HIV/AIDS because we didn't want to do it on the rat, because he can't talk or give us his consent."

 

Support

 

Bc we try not to straight up kill humans? Most of the drugs never make it out of animal trails Bc they killed to many or effects outweighs the benefits.

 

I doubt I'll ever see straight up human testing in my lifetime. Human life is always going to be seen as superior and more valuable for the foreseeable future, IMO. And even if it does happen, the human will need to give consent. They wouldn't just do it on anyone they picked off the street. So no, no child will hear that because the human will have made a choice.

But as I said, I can't see that happening in my life time. There are ethical standards that need to be upheld for animals, human ethics for human testing would eclipse that easily.

 

I have very much thought about this in the past if u were pretty much blind your kid is gonna be pretty much blind and their kid it Carries on and we are making it worst every day but as far as disease the deadly ones no human can really live without medicine and animal testing is the reason our kids mostly live rather then 1/10th of them. Bc we were able to kill them b4 they start. Such as smallpox.

 

What makes humans less important than a tiger they very harshly and painfully kill their prey. We don't eat yes y eat poison but animal like in wildlife is not a walk in the park it's Violet and vicious.

 

Humans kill other humans on a daily basis. Animals (generally) kill to survive so they can eat and to protect their herd and their young. So what's your point? According to this argument, some humans are no better than animals. So which is it? Humans are more valuable? Or only in certain situations?

 

Well without animal testing 90% of this argument wouldn't even be able to be had Bc we would have been killed by disease there is a reason in only the last 100 years humans have grown far to fast it's Bc we are dropping like flies though poison anymore tiger kills to live we kill to leave maybe not for food but for drugs now as far as Beauty products.... Ugh to a point ok but that's gotten out of hand... But still to stop all animal testing we are saying animal are more important then humans and then we shouldn't eat them either or for that matter eat at all all food comes for living animal or plant are we gonna gives plants rights also Bc they are living?

 

Animal testing has allowed us to advance products, I'm not disputing that. I can understand both sides of the argument.

But your reasoning for human life being mire valuable is that animals viciously kill their prey. Humans kill each other on a daily basis and isn't for survival (I'm not talking about self defence type situations). Ergo according to your logic, certain human life is less valuable than other humans because their behaviour is worse than an animals. Then is it okay to test on those humans? I mean, they go around viciously killing so that's okay? That's why animal life isn't as important, right? :roll:

I support animal testing to an extent because I understand it's value and why we need it. Humans aren't trying to be vicious, they're trying to survive just like animals do.

 

More of Animals are painfully killed they grow old and weak then they become prey they aren't that often dying just Bc they get to old they die Bc of weakness trapped eaten or no longer able to hunt nice we test on a lot are one of a few that are able to live till they die in your house due to not being hunted down unless u have cats so what makes us different from the tiger and hunting the weak (everything is really weaker then human) To help humans? Same as the tiger does?

 

Also as far as humans that kill to kill such as these mass shootings and ect as far as I care they can be used as Guinea pigs as soon as they plan to take human life for sport and nothing but sport they gave up every right they had. I state sport such as mass shootings are plan to take mass human life to take it not Bc of things like self defense or they killed someone that wronged them or had a half augment to even put there as lines go very grey there and they are still humans. As humans should stay out of even the grey areas.

 

Yes I said we're not that different because we both do what we need to do to survive.

Again, if animals are prey because they're weaker, older, can't fight back etc. Is it okay to test on humans that are considered weaker? Tigers hunt the weak to survive? Are we allowed to 'hunt our weak' too?

If what you're trying to say is what I said earlier that we are both doing what we need to survive, then I agree. But you can't argue it's okay because animals kill other animals because we do the same thing.

 

Ever goes to a hospital? There isn't much there that wasn't tested on animals first even the "super glue" and stitches were tested on animals first

 

Do tigers hunt weak tigers?

 

Let's be real here? Who cares about animals? Kek