Guest
asked 3 years ago
17 Answers - Sort by: Date | Rating
Animal testing is a really difficult issue. Is it right that animals should be bred just for experimentation and lead lives with no freedom, no quality of life and then be induced to have cancer, mental health issues, heart disease etc etc?
Do we not have a moral responsibility to ensure that we do not inflict horrendous suffering daily on millions of animals worldwide?
Yet the pros are also strong. When we are all well, healthy and those we love are ok, we are more likely to condemn animal testing. But if our partner, spouse or child has a life threatening disease and a doctor said that testing on a monkey could save that person, how many of us could say that we would let our loved one die? Every day we all take medicines and treatments which have been tested on animals and these drugs have been created, due to the suffering of animals !
There is no definitive answer to this dilemma, but perhaps instead of being blind to the issue, we should be more aware of just how drug companies work and exactly how tests are carried out. This may make us a little more grateful for what we have !
Do we not have a moral responsibility to ensure that we do not inflict horrendous suffering daily on millions of animals worldwide?
Yet the pros are also strong. When we are all well, healthy and those we love are ok, we are more likely to condemn animal testing. But if our partner, spouse or child has a life threatening disease and a doctor said that testing on a monkey could save that person, how many of us could say that we would let our loved one die? Every day we all take medicines and treatments which have been tested on animals and these drugs have been created, due to the suffering of animals !
There is no definitive answer to this dilemma, but perhaps instead of being blind to the issue, we should be more aware of just how drug companies work and exactly how tests are carried out. This may make us a little more grateful for what we have !
1
0
Fore word:
I have been informed on both sides i was once a member of PETA but i soon found out that many of the people in PETA were not supporting animals in the proper fasion. I am also a scientist whit a Docterate in Forensic Toxicology, i have tested on animal before but the animals i tested on were dead of natural causes
Now many people say it is "unethical" to test on animals, i agree in most cases but when you look at some of the statistics online from PETA or anywhere else they are taking things from the 50's where there were very very few reforms and laws on animal testing, and testing facilities. Nowadays we must (even for dead animal [once again natural causes]) put our plan of action, experiment, and staff through a board of supervisors and then a board scientists and then our facilities are checked by government officials and other scientist. Also we must purchase animals through certain government approved companies.
Yes there are alternatives to animal testing, but they can be dangers for the experimentors and the results arent as accurate as others portray them to be.
Skintex/Eytex-Any of the beams used for the research can put out radiation that can cause from a bad rash to skin cancer
EdiPack-I myself have never used this alternative but i have been told that cloning is an extremely unefftive way to test because clones themselves are unstable and produce skewed results
Now there are many other alternative but i am tired and do not feel like typing that much for i am olny human..
so to wrap this up
Pros: saves many lives every year,animals are not harmed (anestesia), helps scientist and police solve crimes, helpes doctors learn how to body will react to certain procedures (sorry i didnt mention that in my above explaination)
Cons:Unessisary in some cases, Animals have no chance to do anything aginst it (then again they are animals and if they wanted out theyd find a way)
I have been informed on both sides i was once a member of PETA but i soon found out that many of the people in PETA were not supporting animals in the proper fasion. I am also a scientist whit a Docterate in Forensic Toxicology, i have tested on animal before but the animals i tested on were dead of natural causes
Now many people say it is "unethical" to test on animals, i agree in most cases but when you look at some of the statistics online from PETA or anywhere else they are taking things from the 50's where there were very very few reforms and laws on animal testing, and testing facilities. Nowadays we must (even for dead animal [once again natural causes]) put our plan of action, experiment, and staff through a board of supervisors and then a board scientists and then our facilities are checked by government officials and other scientist. Also we must purchase animals through certain government approved companies.
Yes there are alternatives to animal testing, but they can be dangers for the experimentors and the results arent as accurate as others portray them to be.
Skintex/Eytex-Any of the beams used for the research can put out radiation that can cause from a bad rash to skin cancer
EdiPack-I myself have never used this alternative but i have been told that cloning is an extremely unefftive way to test because clones themselves are unstable and produce skewed results
Now there are many other alternative but i am tired and do not feel like typing that much for i am olny human..
so to wrap this up
Pros: saves many lives every year,animals are not harmed (anestesia), helps scientist and police solve crimes, helpes doctors learn how to body will react to certain procedures (sorry i didnt mention that in my above explaination)
Cons:Unessisary in some cases, Animals have no chance to do anything aginst it (then again they are animals and if they wanted out theyd find a way)
thanks u really helped me 2 do my hmwk lol!
This is question is very emotive and upsetting - for others there is no debate.
It could be argued that there is no moral justification for inflicting suffering on animals.
Animals have no power over what is inflicted upon them in a laboratry environment.
Many scientists have argued that animal experiments have no value to research into human illness and that no animals should suffer for the sake of vanity eg for cosmetics.
Some companies for example the Co-op actively supports cruelty free products and is recommended by The BUAV. The latter actively campaigns against vivisection as does PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
It could be argued that we need to experiment on animals but many people who suffer illness also campaign against testing.
Perhaps if we were made fully aware of the amount of suffering that animals experimentation involves we would campaign for the alternatives to be used more often.
Those who believe it is morally wrong can peacefully work towards pressing for alternatives.
One way the individual can help is to ensure that any household products or cosmetics are cruelty free. Obviously there will be others who don't care.
A very emotive subject indeed
It could be argued that there is no moral justification for inflicting suffering on animals.
Animals have no power over what is inflicted upon them in a laboratry environment.
Many scientists have argued that animal experiments have no value to research into human illness and that no animals should suffer for the sake of vanity eg for cosmetics.
Some companies for example the Co-op actively supports cruelty free products and is recommended by The BUAV. The latter actively campaigns against vivisection as does PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
It could be argued that we need to experiment on animals but many people who suffer illness also campaign against testing.
Perhaps if we were made fully aware of the amount of suffering that animals experimentation involves we would campaign for the alternatives to be used more often.
Those who believe it is morally wrong can peacefully work towards pressing for alternatives.
One way the individual can help is to ensure that any household products or cosmetics are cruelty free. Obviously there will be others who don't care.
A very emotive subject indeed
1
0
There are many arguments for animal testing both on practical and moral grounds. Those in favor of animal testing argue that over the course of history, animal testing has helped in the development of human vaccines against such diseases as rabies, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, rubella, and polio. Additionally, other medicines such as antibiotics, cancer treatments and HIV drugs rely on animal testing for further development. Additionally, scientists claim that operations on animal test subjects helped develop and advance both open heart surgery and organ transplant procedures and techniques.
From a moral standpoint, those in favor of animal testing also argue that the benefits to human kind trump the rights of the animals and that the animals are protected from cruelty by government regulation and oversight. Additionally, millions of animals are slaughtered for food purposes each year which is a largely accepted practice in society. How is this more humane than using animals to further medical research?
Those against animal testing will counter argue with their own practical arguments like results from animal tests can be misleading as animal reactions do not always mirror those of humans. They also believe that the abnormal stress placed on animal test subjects invalidates many results. People against animal testing also argue not all animals are used for medical testing as some are still used to test things like cleaning products and the benefits to humankind from these tests are minimal at best.
Some of the moral arguments against animal testing are that animals have as much right to life as humans, government control and oversight has not prevented all testers from abusing animals, and that these animals suffer tremendous stress and it is impossible to know with certainty that they don’t experience pain.
From a moral standpoint, those in favor of animal testing also argue that the benefits to human kind trump the rights of the animals and that the animals are protected from cruelty by government regulation and oversight. Additionally, millions of animals are slaughtered for food purposes each year which is a largely accepted practice in society. How is this more humane than using animals to further medical research?
Those against animal testing will counter argue with their own practical arguments like results from animal tests can be misleading as animal reactions do not always mirror those of humans. They also believe that the abnormal stress placed on animal test subjects invalidates many results. People against animal testing also argue not all animals are used for medical testing as some are still used to test things like cleaning products and the benefits to humankind from these tests are minimal at best.
Some of the moral arguments against animal testing are that animals have as much right to life as humans, government control and oversight has not prevented all testers from abusing animals, and that these animals suffer tremendous stress and it is impossible to know with certainty that they don’t experience pain.
1
0
People against animal testing also say that it kills a lot of animals and it costs $12 billion a year from taxpayers
O yes, there are none, wow so ignorant its sick. I guess you choose not to pay attention to all of the medicines that save lives every day that were derived from animal testing..o yea...thats not a pro.....people man.. Piss me off.
Fore word:
I have been informed on both sides i was once a member of PETA but i soon found out that many of the people in PETA were not supporting animals in the proper fasion. I am also a scientist whit a Docterate in Forensic Toxicology, i have tested on animal before but the animals i tested on were dead of natural causes
Now many people say it is
I have been informed on both sides i was once a member of PETA but i soon found out that many of the people in PETA were not supporting animals in the proper fasion. I am also a scientist whit a Docterate in Forensic Toxicology, i have tested on animal before but the animals i tested on were dead of natural causes
Now many people say it is
0
0
thanks 4 the pros and cons you really helped with my homeworks lol!
Where did you learn to spell?? For a scientist - you stink - or is that STANK?????
Guest
answered 8 months ago
Guest
answered 8 months ago
Animal Testing isn't always outright wrong.
It's improved the life expectancy of people, plus, got us through many diseases that we used to have no cures for.
Although, I also think we spend too much money on it and shouldn't experiment as excessively as some do.
It's improved the life expectancy of people, plus, got us through many diseases that we used to have no cures for.
Although, I also think we spend too much money on it and shouldn't experiment as excessively as some do.
0
0
Guest
answered 8 months ago
Uhhhh animal testing is completely wrongggg. How would you like it if someone came and took you or one of your friends or family members and tested things on them, which would most likely kill them? Yeah, you WOULDNT like it.
0
0
Guest
answered 7 months ago
Well its simple
pros - well if you hate animals so much that you could torture them, thats a pro i suppose
cons - animals are dying and being tortured for human benefit.
pros - well if you hate animals so much that you could torture them, thats a pro i suppose
cons - animals are dying and being tortured for human benefit.
0
0
Cons: It doesnt always work on humans because we arent the same as animals so it could end up killing us, it cost LOTS of money, hurts animals for some very stupid reasons, ect.
Pros: I dont really know any
Pros: I dont really know any
0
0
Guest
answered 7 months ago
Guest
answered 7 months ago
Pros: The law values human life above the life of animals, as do many religions, and therefore the majority of people would prefer drugs designed to save human lives to be tested on animals first.
Animal testing screens drugs which would otherwise kill human beings.
Cons: Many believe animal testing to be immoral as the animal suffers - in the case of cosmetics it is generally agreed that animal testing cannot be justified.
It cannot be known what amount of pain the animal is in, or whether the drugs will cause a similar reaction in humans.
Animal testing screens drugs which would otherwise kill human beings.
Cons: Many believe animal testing to be immoral as the animal suffers - in the case of cosmetics it is generally agreed that animal testing cannot be justified.
It cannot be known what amount of pain the animal is in, or whether the drugs will cause a similar reaction in humans.
0
0
Guest
answered 6 months ago
Guest
answered 6 months ago
And we wonder why animals dont like us..because we do cruel things to them.animals are important to our wildlife and by killing the animals we are killing the wildlife!!
0
0
Guest
answered 3 months ago
Many scientists also agree that animal testing should be banned since because it causes harm on the animals and only 9% of products that are tested on animals actually reach the market. Plus 94% if animals involved in animal testing are used to test cosmetics or household cleaning products, this leaves only 6% for medical research.An FDA drug assessment states, “Over half of all new medications the FDA approved in a decade were recalled or relabeled because of side effects not observed in animal experiments.”
0
0
Guest
answered 2 months ago
- How Do Sea Monkeys Survive In Winter?
- What Are Baboons Color?
- How Much Does A Hammer Head Cost?
- Are Dopins The Moat Smartest Animal?
- How Do The People Of Antartica Adapt To There Enviorment?
- What Kind Of Plants And Animals Live In Antarctica?
- What Do European Squids Eat?
- What Is A Treefrogs Habitat?
- What Was The Name Given Dy This Monarch?
- What Is The Bahaivor If The Sea Lion?
- Were Did Hopis Live?
- Why Do Foxes Live In Holes?
- How Do Animals Keep Themselves Warm In Polar Reagen?
- How Many Lions Were In The Den When Daniel Was Thrown In?
- Why Dont Polar Bears Live In The South Pole?
- How Do Insects Survive Under The Ground?
- What Is The National Bird Of Afghanistan?
- What Do Baby Cubbs Eat?
- What Is Hammer Head Sharks Food?
- Can Fish Eat Ringworm?
- What Do Pond Skaters Eat?
- What Do Mayfly Nymphs Eat?
- What Are Some Tadpoles Adaptation?
- How Long Do Blue Jays Stay With Their Mother After They Are Born?
- How Have Humans Effected The Hammerhead Shark?
- Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing. Is Animal Testing Right Or Wrong?
- What Are The Pros And Cons Of Animal Experimentation/testing?
- What Are The Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Testing?
- What Are Some Pros And Cons To Animal Experimentation?
- What Are The Cons Of Animal Testing?
- What Are Cons On Animal Testing?
- What Are The Pros Of Animal Testing?
- What Are Pros On Animal Testing?
- What R Da Pros & Cons Uv Animal Testin... Pleez, If U Can.... Help Me For My Debate?
- What Are The Pros And Cons Of Sororities?
- What Are The Pros And Cons Of Freelancing?
New Comment - Comments are editable for 5 min.