Are you against animal testing?

by ❤Runaway❤ Posted 2012/06/16 02:13:05

More polls by ❤Runaway❤

bill.fife.3 2012/07/27 17:14:08

+1
I am against all forms of animal cruelty. It's called being awake and human.
How do people insulate themselves from suffering they know they cause? And what do I really need to say here? Neither animals for food nor biological studies are still necessary. In a virtual world of high-tech and computer modeling we can now simulate and synthesize anything we want and do it better than the original. Causing pain and agony on the weak and helpless when not absolutely necessary can be and should be a crime with stiff penalties under law. We are better than this.

reply
woodnymph 2012/07/25 09:32:59 (edited)

+2
Absolutely!!! I believe that criminals should be used in stead; if you murder someone for instance then you can repay society by helping to find cures for terrible illnesses.

reply
stevegtexas@aol.com 2012/06/28 21:25:17 (edited)

+2
no, not against animal testing, test animals before they test people.....makes more sense to me.....but of course to the animal rights activists......animals have become more important than people.

reply
נυsт sмιℓε 2012/06/19 22:20:13

+2
Well, yes and no. Okay, think of it this way, would you rather an animal be tested on, or you? Would you really risk a humans life over an animal? I am not saying it's right by any means. Would you rather them test it on humans first? Or rather them just hand it out untested?

reply
woodnymph to נυsт sмιℓε 2012/07/25 09:29:48

I'd prefer that they use rapists, murderers and child molesters.

reply
Chloey Hamer 2012/06/16 17:28:46

+1
yes.

reply
Tentimesinfinity 2012/06/16 13:22:41

+1
Yes!
Just two days ago I was on this sight arguing about it.

reply
Valia-chan 2012/06/16 05:53:20

+1
Well,animal testing for stupid reasons,yes I am against it.But I do believe that we want to find a cure for a disease,testing on animals is quite right.

reply
Rowena Ravenclaw 2012/06/16 05:18:38

+1
Yes, I'm very against it.

reply
Mahala3695 2012/06/16 03:55:23

+1
Yes very!!

reply
Deliciously Melicious 2012/06/16 03:54:53

No. I'm sorry but I am not. For cosmetics, and hair products yes, but to find a cure for Cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's... I don't have a problem with it.

reply
the judgebigdogeagle 2012/06/16 03:00:03

+1
Yes Sir Reeee

reply
Flamingolady 2012/06/16 02:58:55

+1
Most definitely. Reminds me of a really good book about this a long time ago, by Berkely Breathed.

reply
nattieaug 2012/06/16 02:45:57

+3
yes, unnatural things tested on innocent species..what's so right with that? if the scientists can already make a replica of the human skin, then WHY would you even consider testing ANYTHING on animals

reply
נυsт sмιℓε to nattieaug 2012/06/19 22:23:15

+2
A replica is not a human, it's a copy. The side effects may be different from those of an actual human. As I posted above, would you rather them test it on animals or you? Would you rather be deformed or even killed for testing? An animal, as harsh as it sounds, is easily replaced. I don't believe it's right, just that it is a necessary step we must take in order to make everything safe for the people around us!

reply
nattieaug to נυsт sмιℓε 2012/06/20 21:39:30

+1
That's a good point I suppose, I'm sure they'll come up with some 'new technology' for this stuff! Yeah it does sound harsh but we can't do anything about it..
I'm just wondering.. how is animals skin any different from a 'copy' of humans skin (this is to do with side effects)

reply
נυsт sмιℓε to nattieaug 2012/06/20 21:57:53

+2
Well, for one, if you use a LIVE animal you can study it's reactions and behavior to the product/substance it is being tested with. However, with a copy of human skin, there is no reaction or behavior difference so the testers won't know how it will effect an actual human. An animal is the closest thing we will come to a human, that will have some sort of reaction or behavior change to anything we give it.

reply
nattieaug to נυsт sмιℓε 2012/06/20 23:30:28

+1
Well that might stop once and for all in the future, but yeah, you're right there :)

reply
bill.fi... to נυsт sмιℓε 2012/07/27 17:17:14 (edited)

So by your argument then for best reults we should really be testing on human subjects. Just replaceable ones, say like convicts or incurables.
Animals are what they are but all species are different and unique and so are we.
If tests can be done on something with human DNA versus something with any number of different characteristics what then is the reason for choosing something different over something identical? Entire human organs can be produced in lab culture. Isn't it good for something? We aren't rats and never were.

reply
☣Lady Gothika☣ ™ 2012/06/16 02:24:27

+5
YES!!
and animals as Food!!

reply
SovereignX 2012/06/16 02:21:16

+1
well, yes and no. what i am against is using animals to test drugs meant for humans, but i'm for testing on animals that isn't expected to cause harm to them but not for things such as biological warfare and such

reply
Barefoot Peace and Love∞ijm... 2012/06/16 02:17:21

+1
uhmmm, hard question......
I am against it to some degree.... !♥

reply
EliteAmongOutcasts 2012/06/16 02:16:43
HarleyCharley 2012/06/16 02:14:02

+1
yes...

reply