Animal Testing

Do you think that we should allow animal testing for scientific research?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 77.8%

  • No

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    18
Ryan Miller

Ryan Miller

Active member
Poll of the day. Also, by animal testing, I mean using animals as test subjects in order to conduct scientific trials instead of using people.

 
Sargun said:
Yes, albeit I await the day when it will no longer be necessary.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.

I would also say that human ethics should extend to animals to a certain extent. We, as people, should not subject other species to large amounts of pain or deprive them of necessities of life in the name of science unless completely necessary for whatever reason. I just think they is always going to be a better way

 
Anyone who'd say no is so anti-human I don't know why they even live instead of jumping on a compost pile and strangling themselves with some hemp rope. Of all the ways that animals are hurt as a result of human activity, people go after research?

 
Woot said:
Anyone who'd say no is so anti-human I don't know why they even live instead of jumping on a compost pile and strangling themselves with some hemp rope. Of all the ways that animals are hurt as a result of human activity, people go after research?
Click to expand...


lol how ironic that those who are against animal testing are living off of the benefits that modern medicine has made.

 
Woot said:
Anyone who'd say no is so anti-human I don't know why they even live instead of jumping on a compost pile and strangling themselves with some hemp rope. Of all the ways that animals are hurt as a result of human activity, people go after research?
Click to expand...
We got to start somewhere, and everywhere.

If the death penalty isn't allowed due to the fact that we have no say in others peoples life and death,

Then we can't force other animals because that is what we are, animals , to act as test subjects and possibly die.

 
Milord said:
We got to start somewhere, and everywhere.

If the death penalty isn't allowed due to the fact that we have no say in others peoples life and death,

Then we can't force other animals because that is what we are, animals , to act as test subjects and possibly die.
Click to expand...
Then we can't eat an apple because that's what we are, living being, and eating an apple is like causing an abortion!!!

And one day a bald kid with cancer who can barely walk approaches you asking why he has to suffer and you will answer "but I saved a mouse!"

You need priorities

 
Ryan Miller said:
lol how ironic that those who are against animal testing are living off of the benefits that modern medicine has made.
Click to expand...


Not really fair. If scientists cut up a live person to learn to fix heart problems, it doesn't mean people opposing the technique shouldn't be able to get heart surgery. Most of us still live off the benefits of WW2 human experimentation.

Smith said:
Yup. Which is why for me it also depends what is being tested for. Shampoo vs cancer research etc
Click to expand...


Yeah usually when I see people oppose it, it's not something that causes death, but a lot of pain. Like dropping shampoo in the eyes of rabbits, who have much more sensitive eyes than humans. If you grind up a thousand rats painlessly for shampoo research, I'd probably still be fine with that.

 
Ryan Miller said:
lol how ironic that those who are against animal testing are living off of the benefits that modern medicine has made.
Click to expand...
It's ironic how the people who are against slavery are living off of the benefits that the industrial revolution has made.

This kind of logic doesn't hold up, though I do agree with you that animal testing is a necessary thing.

 
Rin said:
Not really fair. If scientists cut up a live person to learn to fix heart problems, it doesn't mean people opposing the technique shouldn't be able to get heart surgery. Most of us still live off the benefits of WW2 human experimentation.

Yeah usually when I see people oppose it, it's not something that causes death, but a lot of pain. Like dropping shampoo in the eyes of rabbits, who have much more sensitive eyes than humans. If you grind up a thousand rats painlessly for shampoo research, I'd probably still be fine with that.
Click to expand...


Oh I wouldn't agree with that at all

 
Woot said:
Anyone who'd say no is so anti-human I don't know why they even live instead of jumping on a compost pile and strangling themselves with some hemp rope. Of all the ways that animals are hurt as a result of human activity, people go after research?
Click to expand...


this is a useless argument and you have said nothing of value

the fact that there are issues larger in scope does not have any bearing on one's ethical/moral position on smaller issues

Micchan said:
Then we can't eat an apple because that's what we are, living being, and eating an apple is like causing an abortion!!!

And one day a bald kid with cancer who can barely walk approaches you asking why he has to suffer and you will answer "but I saved a mouse!"

You need priorities
Click to expand...


one day a man with blonde hair who can walk fine will approach you and ask why he had to suffer and you will answer "but i just had to make this horrible post!"

this is not how sentience or science works

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top