Quantcast

Is animal testing OK?

Tim Terror 2012/09/19 09:54:10
Related Topics: Animal Testing, Testing
You!
Add Photos & Videos
I think not
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Latsh 2012/09/20 16:27:48
    yes
    Latsh
    +3
    Essential for medical research and human lives. Tiny amount of animals compared to farming for food. By far the most cruelty to animals is enacted upon so-called 'pets'

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Zach 2012/11/27 17:52:11
    yes
    Zach
    +1
    I support it out of the simple fact that there is no ethnic alternative.
  • Carol 2012/10/11 17:49:09
    no
    Carol
    +1
    I'm wondering about using brain dead human specimens to replace animals? It seems that would be the most logical choice. Since we already can donate brain dead human organs, why shouldn't we be able to use them for research as well.
  • Piperpc 2012/09/20 17:54:24
    no
    Piperpc
    +2
    Whether it is a necessary evil for human medical advancement, I am unsure. I've read many educated opinions on the subject, and there are convincing arguments on both sides of the issue.
    What I DO know for sure, is that many of the tests are redundant, and of no benefit to anyone except the researcher getting the funding. Many could be accomplished without involving the suffering of animals.
  • Latsh 2012/09/20 16:27:48
    yes
    Latsh
    +3
    Essential for medical research and human lives. Tiny amount of animals compared to farming for food. By far the most cruelty to animals is enacted upon so-called 'pets'
  • Dryth 2012/09/19 16:43:07
    yes
    Dryth
    +2
    Animal testing is upsetting to think about, but we owe our medical industry to it. Without animal testing, many who now live would not be here. The truth is hard :(
  • MJ 2012/09/19 14:13:33
    no
    MJ
  • charlcye 2012/09/19 13:08:04
    yes
    charlcye
    +3
    Everyone is opposed to it on a basic human level of empathy, but when tasked with curing disease you become aware that there ARE rigorous ethical standards and animal models ARE the safest & most effective way to perform the research... Research that's made us healthy & saved the lives ourselves & our loved ones more than we'll ever know. Testing on pedophiles tells you it works on pedophiles. There is no way to test humans in a controlled environment for much necessary research-- You're definitely not the first person to come up with that brilliant remark.
  • sky blue pink - American 2012/09/19 12:50:44
    no
    sky blue pink - American
    +2
    I just had an idea, instead of testing on animals, why not conduct the testing on prisoners that are on Death Row. That way they will be contributing something.
    Have a nice day !
  • quantix sky blu... 2012/09/20 02:29:08
    quantix
    +1
    lulz because what if they are innocent



    also find me 100 death row prisoners with sicle cell anemia and then we will talk
  • sky blu... quantix 2012/09/20 06:20:45
    sky blue pink - American
    just a suggestion.
  • TessHM sky blu... 2012/09/28 22:16:31
    TessHM
    Because to most people at least, a human life is still worth more than an animal's.
  • sky blu... TessHM 2012/09/28 22:56:18
    sky blue pink - American
    Did you forget that we the tax payers take care of all their needs, such as 3 meals a day and medical if necessary ? I was referring to Death Row Inmates.
  • Zach sky blu... 2013/01/04 15:39:03
    Zach
    Well yeah we pay for them woud you rather treat prisnors like they did in the middle ages and keep them in a dungeon
  • tomholder 2012/09/19 11:43:23
    yes
    tomholder
    +1
    Animal Research remains essential to medical progress. There are rigorous ethical standards that must be passed so that any pain caused to the animal must be justified on the grounds of future benefits to humans and animals. Only today chemotherapy (developed using mice) is helping to save an orangutan with cancer.
  • catpop24 2012/09/19 11:19:02 (edited)
    no
    catpop24
    +2
    animal testing is bad =(
  • tomholder catpop24 2012/09/19 16:22:40
    tomholder
    because ...?
  • catpop24 tomholder 2012/09/19 22:41:43
    catpop24
    it can hurt or kill animal duh.
  • quantix catpop24 2012/09/20 02:30:05
    quantix
    +1
    indeed, it is very sad. But without it we would not have many medical interventions like vaccines that save thousands of humans



    whether you value a human or animal life more is your opinion but I prefer the human, they live longer
  • catpop24 quantix 2012/09/20 02:36:12
    catpop24
    well im an animal lover and i don't like to see them hurt =(((
  • quantix catpop24 2012/09/20 03:04:52
    quantix
    +1
    A very good point, and I love them too, however at the same time I feel that it is an acceptable trade off. I would rather see an animal die from a neck snap than have a little girl crippled by polio. Of course the debate is more complex than that, but I think it illustrates the moral position of the pro-test side. they believe it is a neccessary evil
  • catpop24 quantix 2012/09/20 03:14:10
    catpop24
    I see.....
  • JackSchitt 2012/09/19 10:41:33
    yes
    JackSchitt
    +1
    Absolutely. I have no confusion about the value of human life versus animal life.

    If they have to kill a thousand baboons to perfect a surgical procedure that will save ONE human life...that's fine with me. If it were my child dying .....there is no number of animals i could possibly imagine that would equal the life of my child. They're only animals - God will make more.
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/09/19 10:15:29
    yes
    Rusty Shackleford
    +2
    If you are opposed to animal testing, then stop using products or services that made it to market by using animals in their research.

    THAT INCLUDES MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND MEDICATIONS.

    If you want to lecture me about it while at the same time using those products yourself, you are by anyone's definition, a hypocrite.
  • Tim Terror Rusty S... 2012/09/19 10:16:11
    Tim Terror
    Why do you assume that I do?
  • Rusty S... Tim Terror 2012/09/19 10:19:37
    Rusty Shackleford
    Did I assume that, or did you just make an assumption?
  • tomholder Tim Terror 2012/09/19 12:53:53
    tomholder
    +1
    You benefit regardless - even if you weren't vaccinated during your childhood years you would still benefit from the vaccinations (made possible through animal research) of others around you
  • Saga 2012/09/19 10:05:12
    yes
    Saga
    +2
    Clicked wrongly. >.<
    I think it's horrible. :3

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/21 07:49:18

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals