Should Testing on Animals Be Banned?

THIS was the bad joke...

Testing on non-human animals is pointless, immoral, unreliable and not productive. Everything tested on animals has to be tested on people anyway, before it can be completely released (Why do you think there are so many "experimental" drugs and recalls?) Penicillin has saved many lives, but if it hadn't been tested on humans after it was concluded to be UNSAFE on the animals they tested it on, we would have never gotten it and many people would have died. The only way to know for sure if something will be safe for (the majority of) people, is to test it on other people. We have plenty of scum (murderers, rapists and abusers) sitting in our prisons. Test them instead.

How else will we be able to tell the smart ones from the dumb ones?

But if it is...then we should do the testing on marijuana dealers and other harmful drug dealers in prison.

Marijuana is not a harmful drug and the scum (murderers, rapists, and abusers) are the ones we should be testing on.

I will agree that some testing, such as for cosmetics, should be stopped, but, as for important research, such as the search for a cure to cancer as well as many other diseases, sorry, but, testing on animals for that, is quite justified.

No, it's not. It's pointless, unreliable, non-productive (and immoral). All things tested on animals must also be tested on people before they can be labeled "safe" (which is why there are so many recalls and "experimental" products). If we didn't test things on people, we would not have any advancements in medicine (such as penicillin). It would save time, money and lives if we skipped the entire process of testing on non-human animals.

It is still a step in the process. Sorry, but, if we have to sacrifice a few animals to cure something like cancer, test on.

But what is the point in wasting all of that time, money and effort, when it could easily be bypassed so that what is saved can be used for other beneficial things?

That's just it, it is not a step that can be bypassed. Look, I do not take this lightly, but, I'm sorry, when it comes to finding cures to many horrific diseases, it is a necessary step and it, sadly, does outweigh the fate of the animal involved.

It could, our government just won't let it.

Well, I must respectfully disagree on that point. But, I thank you for continuing our debate in a civil manner. Much appreciated.

Agree completely

Thanks Nathan

Yes!!!!

Yes I suggest using P.E.T.A. Reps instead

(more)

Dude Relax, I am On your side, I was Obviosusly being fecitios.

Animal testing should be banned because its just like animal abuse.

I only picked that because you did not have a third option of sometimes it is okay, for life saving treatements and human welfare yes, for cosmetics or non welfare? no. I do love animals and I hate cruetly of all sorts whether directed to a human or animal. as science (true scientists) learn about how things work thorugh animal testing they have bought time for people so we can learn hwo to prevent and treat condtions in a way that works inharmony with our design take diabetes type 2 that has progressed to using insulin, and other drugs, now we know through experienced by those with this condition what works and doesn't and how many lifestyle changes and increase of peoples nutrtional status reverses type 2 when it has not progressed passed the point of totally damaged pancreas. people forget one other little tidbit human experienmantion is happening all around you. it is called business, like vaccines, different pollutants allowed into the atompshere, when they alter the flora and fauna of a country, use of different products and services, altering of the food supplies, farming practices, use of water, its alteration and changes of paths, like dams, (don't assume I am against dams by the way)or harvesting of resources or lack there of, legalized counterfieting of money that sorta thing,which causes harm to our health/welfare indirectly. I won't even mention man made virus released secretly either.
rose

you wanna have the test done on you?

At least not until we have a better alternative.

Animal testing is what's known as a necessary evil. We know we shouldn't be testing on animals, we know they can feel the pain and should be allowed to live. However, we have no other way of advancing medicine. In order to survive as a species, we must be able to advance our medical knowledge. Otherwise, our other technologies will very likely kill us off before long.

Once we have found a better way to advance medical science, I would be more than happy to vote on stopping animal testing. Until then, I see no reason to ban the only thing we've got that is advancing our medicine.

No animal should ever be tested on. never.I don't know what kind of people would want to. It is much more than inhumane ! All testing shpild be done on all who enjoy doing testing on animals. Iy does not do a thing for human's at all since their bones and organs are mmuch different than ours. Why do we make them suffer when they don't wear makeup, drink or smoke ! I have MS and I do not want them tested on even if doing so would cure my MS.God did not put them here for such a nasty thing. If there is a heaven, only anumals will be there and no cruel nasty humans at all. !

Maybe when Lions give this up?

So, experiment on animals because Lions eat meat? You DO know that humans eat meat too, don't you?

Oh GEEEE Really?

Yes, animal testing and animal eating should be banned. Yes, they can test on the politicians instead of animals-why make animals suffer to produce drugs that will usually harm people. Many people live irresponsible lives eating unhealthy, and they need drugs to heal them which they want tested on animals. Animal eating is like animal testing as it hurts animals agaist their will. It makes animals suffer

Agree with the animal testing, but animal eating? Eating animal products is healthy, and natural. Most animals eat each other. I agree we should make their living environments more suitable before they are killed, but to say we should stop eating animals all together? That's a bit unrealistic and irrational.

Yes! Yes! Yes! and Yes!

We should find ways to produce 'fake organs' more efficiently, both for medical purposes and for testing products.

Not unless you want the testing done on you. Testing on animals has saved lots of lives.

Testing on people would save more lives. They could test on murderers and rapists and pedeophiles.

Actually animal testing has ENDED lots of lives.

No offense, but the "pro-animal testing" folks here are knuckleheads. Hello, McFly? Think, McFly, think: Have you NOT heard about genetic testing, tests involving cells, computer simulations, cloned skin, etc? All of which, by the way has produced FASTER and more EFFECTIVE results than massacring animals.

The above comment wasnt directed at only jabo, but to everyone in favor of vivisection.

WOW, 779 people said YES.
look we can't test on humans. "Prisoners should be the ones tested on..." etc
NOT a bad idea, BUT governments WON'T (YET) agree to that. so... FOR NOW, it's the animals who'll be tested on.

Our only LOGICAL option would be to test on animals. We can not progress any other way.

The issue is we have three options: Test on humans, test on animals, or not make new medicine and have people indirectly die as a result.

we are not testing on normal humans, nor death row prisoners because i dont like the death penalty, and 1/7 people on death row since 1976 have been exonerated. thats not including those who had sentences commuted before exoneration, or innocence pardons. Plus testing, but not the death penalty (the 5th amendment mentions it) on people is cruel and unusual.

Test on Animals, the animals are bred for Animal testing, so if you didn't have testing you wouldn't have animals, it is like killing them in advance.

Maybe use homeless people. What, you don't like that answer. So I guess it's animals.