What are your views on animal testing?

[paddy]

Don't remember this being discussed before but it probably was at some point.

Personally I'd never allow testing of cosmetics on animals, as it's unnecessary and it isn't realistically going to help the world or anything.

But as for medical testing, as selfish and harsh as it sounds, I don't care how many rodents they have to kill to find a cure for cancer. And maybe it's just because I've got it, but I think I'd have thought the same before. But if it will help find a cure for cancer or alzheimers or AIDS or any of the major diseases then I can't see how that doesn't justify animal testing.

Although it's not rational, I'd feel a lot less comfortable doing medical tests on dogs or chimps, but I guess that's the way we're brought up or the way our mind works or something and we can easily become fond of these animals. This kind of contradicts my previous paragraph, but people aren't rational are they?

I know a few options have been left out such as drug testing on everything but anything on rodents but still, didn't want to make it too complicated.

edit: I managed to vote for the wrong option on my own poll, I'm the definition of incompetence.

[Gingerlad]

If a million animals die and they find a cure for Cancer/AIDS etc then thats fine with me.

Cosmetics, no.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Nope. Test on humans.

Good use of criminals if you ask me.

[Milfner]

Did this in Psychology a while.

Drugs yes, cosmetics no.

[ronk-villa]

I find they can't usually hold the pens, never mind write their names on the paper!

[Stevo985]

I have no problem with animal testing for medical purposes. In my opinion, human life is worth a lot more, and if testing on animals can get us cures for life threatening illnesses the I'm all for it.

Needless animal testing, for cosmetics for example, can be very cruel. But again, I'd rather those products were tested on animals than humans.

[Chindie]

For medications - anything. As much as I love animals, if the animals are raised to be tested on to better the standard of life for humans, then that is fair enough, provided the animals aren't mistreated outside of testing.

Cosmetics, on the other hand, can **** off.

[paddy]

Nope. Test on humans.

Good use of criminals if you ask me.

But knowing that realistically this isn't ever going to happen, would you condone it then?

And also if it wasn't you who voted for not under any circumstances, I'd be interested to hear from who it was to explain why. It's not a witch-hunt, and I'm not going to slate your beliefs. But I wonder if you've ever had someone close to you who's had a serious illness that could potentially be saved by research done on animals.

I'd admire your morals in a way if you did, but would find it hard to understand how you would rather watch a loved one die than test on animals to potentially save them.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Nope. Test on humans.

Good use of criminals if you ask me.

But knowing that realistically this isn't ever going to happen, would you condone it then?

And also if it wasn't you who voted for not under any circumstances, I'd be interested to hear from who it was to explain why. It's not a witch-hunt, and I'm not going to slate your beliefs. But I wonder if you've ever had someone close to you who's had a serious illness that could potentially be saved by research done on animals.

I'd admire your morals in a way if you did, but would find it hard to understand how you would rather watch a loved one die than test on animals to potentially save them.

Yeah it was me that voted not under any circumstances.

I don't believe that humans are any better than the animals around us, what makes us so deserving of life and them not?

We are smarter and evolved far more, no doubt. But I am not questioning that. I just don't believe we are any better and are more deserving of life than any other animal on this planet.

I'd rather test on other humans. And even if a family member was close to death (which is a situation my family has been in) and there is no cure at that time, I still wouldn't condone it.

But i understand my view is in the minority, and as such i have accepted animal testing as a way of life. Do i support it? No.

[Rodders]

If a million animals die and they find a cure for Cancer/AIDS etc then thats fine with me.

Cosmetics, no.

there is a four letter word that sums up my thoughts with respect to the above post. And it begins with T.

[ClaretMahoney]

Testing for animals for the sake of humanity, yes. For cosmetics, a big NO.

And really I hate any animals getting hurt in any way, but if it means we learn the cure to AIDS, then so be it.

[paddy]

Nope. Test on humans.

Good use of criminals if you ask me.

But knowing that realistically this isn't ever going to happen, would you condone it then?

And also if it wasn't you who voted for not under any circumstances, I'd be interested to hear from who it was to explain why. It's not a witch-hunt, and I'm not going to slate your beliefs. But I wonder if you've ever had someone close to you who's had a serious illness that could potentially be saved by research done on animals.

I'd admire your morals in a way if you did, but would find it hard to understand how you would rather watch a loved one die than test on animals to potentially save them.

Yeah it was me that voted not under any circumstances.

I don't believe that humans are any better than the animals around us, what makes us so deserving of life and them not?

We are smarter and evolved far more, no doubt. But I am not questioning that. I just don't believe we are any better and are more deserving of life than any other animal on this planet.

I'd rather test on other humans. And even if a family member was close to death (which is a situation my family has been in) and there is no cure at that time, I still wouldn't condone it.

But i understand my view is in the minority, and as such i have accepted animal testing as a way of life. Do i support it? No.

Yeah I can understand your point of view, thanks for answering my question.

So I assume you're vegetarian also?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Nope.

There is a difference between naturally killing animals as a source of food, thats just the way life is.

Pumping them full of drugs as a way of bettering ourselves, is not.

[Chindie]

Nope.

There is a difference between naturally killing animals as a source of food, thats just the way life is.

Pumping them full of drugs as a way of bettering ourselves, is not.

I don't think this is a valid counter point.

Humans have done unnatural things to animals for our own betterment for thousands of years. There is nothing natural about us using skins/animal derived fibres for clothing, no other animal does it. No other animal adapts other animals to our own use - the rise of the dog, for instance. Dogs don't occur naturally. Theres nothing natural about tending for and caring for a animal to be later used as food. And s on.

If your argument is coming from a position of what is natural - you either accept it is in the nature of humans to use other creatures for our own benefit, or you cannot accept much of what humanity does without being a hypocrite. The use of animals for drugs testing is simply a further extention of what humans have done since the dawn of our species, and in many ways is part of what has allowed us to be quite so successful

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Answered other cause don't know the Ins and outs.

Guarenteed Laura chooses never under any circumstances though

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Although from lack of knowledge, I'd just go with test drugs on Rodents, maybe a few other animals too. That's all really.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Nope.

There is a difference between naturally killing animals as a source of food, thats just the way life is.

Pumping them full of drugs as a way of bettering ourselves, is not.

I don't think this is a valid counter point.

Humans have done unnatural things to animals for our own betterment for thousands of years. There is nothing natural about us using skins/animal derived fibres for clothing, no other animal does it. No other animal adapts other animals to our own use - the rise of the dog, for instance. Dogs don't occur naturally. Theres nothing natural about tending for and caring for a animal to be later used as food. And s on.

If your argument is coming from a position of what is natural - you either accept it is in the nature of humans to use other creatures for our own benefit, or you cannot accept much of what humanity does without being a hypocrite. The use of animals for drugs testing is simply a further extention of what humans have done since the dawn of our species, and in many ways is part of what has allowed us to be quite so successful

Well I can accept the use of skins for clothing and such aren't 'natural' although i would say that the animals are usualy killed and eaten first then the remains are put to good use.

I don't accept hunting animals purely for clothing though, as that also is wrong in my eyes.

To me animals have just as much part to play in this world as we do, and to me they deserve to live their lives as nature see's fit. We aren't nature.

I have no problem of using animals for testing after they are dead, it is the problem of them being alive and manipulated by us for our own benefit, that is where the problem lies.

I, for some reason, just don't feel its right. I can't explain it anymore than that.

Personally i'd rather use murderers and any other useless scum filling the prisons. If it is to benefit humans why not test on humans?

[jonno_2004]

Drugs, yes. Cosmetics, no.

[Chindie]

Well I can accept the use of skins for clothing and such aren't 'natural' although i would say that the animals are usualy killed and eaten first then the remains are put to good use.

I'm assuming you've basically agreed with me it's not an argument of what is natural based on this.

I don't accept hunting animals purely for clothing though, as that also is wrong in my eyes.

I'm not great fan of fur either.

To me animals have just as much part to play in this world as we do, and to me they deserve to live their lives as nature see's fit. We aren't nature.

We are nature - we are part of it. We're a creature that has worked out how to level the playing field with nature, yes, but all that we do is derived from characteristics and abilities that nature has given us. Because of this we do, I would argue, owe a debt to nature to be mindful of our influence, however.

I have no problem of using animals for testing after they are dead, it is the problem of them being alive and manipulated by us for our own benefit, that is where the problem lies.

We manipulate cows for milk and food, and leather. We manipulate sheep for meat and wool. We manipulate many, many animals. Arguably with most we've manipulated them to the point we created them. Do you have a problem with this? If you don't, to avoid hypocrisy, your problem isn't with manipulating live creatures.

I, for some reason, just don't feel its right. I can't explain it anymore than that.

That's fair enough. It's not really what you'd said to this point mind.

Personally i'd rather use murderers and any other useless scum filling the prisons. If it is to benefit humans why not test on humans?

That would be unethical and indeed, illegal I believe. Useless scum? What constitutes useless scum?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

We are nature - we are part of it.

Yes, we are part of nature. But you mentioned milking cows, but that is a natural resource. Cows need milked (and although it is generally through calfs, we worked around that) and we just make use of it. Sheep need sheared seasonally to make their lives more comfortable, we just make use of the by product. You can go on and on listing all this circumstantial evidence of how we manipulate the world around us but one very thing undermines your point, and that is what we do is make us of natural resources. Using animals for testing, is not natural. Pumping them full of artificial drugs is not natural. I fail to see how you can't get this point.

That would be unethical and indeed, illegal I believe. Useless scum? What constitutes useless scum?

Why is it unethical? Why is it unethical to put a murderer for good use by testing drugs on them which will better our lives, but it is ethical to let them sit and rot in a cell?

By useless scum I basically mean murderers and rapists and any other really bad criminals.

I don't mean throwing a Redknapp style tax evader in a lab, if that is what you are insinuating.