No one relishes using animals for experimentation, but the medical community has long insisted that such research helps develop potentially life-saving drugs and treatments. Is this justification compelling enough to continue using animals for medical research?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Animal-Based Medical Testing is Unreliable
- From PETA
By PETA - People for Ethical Treatment of Animals
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
NOOOOO
animal testing is so wrong its inconclusive and there are better tests out there that down involve animals suffering every day of their lives.
- yella23eh
July 11, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hey, Yella23eh
In addition to my lifetime goal of responding to every post on this site, ever, I should probably tell you that the idea behind this site (I think) is for informed, reasoned discussion. So you can take the position "Animal Rights Testing is inconclusive, and thusly should not be used", but you have to provide evidence and facts to back that up.
- quantummechanik
July 11, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
stages in testing
Animal testing is one stage out of many that drugs have to go through before they are released to the general public.
Though it is not a pleasant task it is a needed one.
- MrBook
August 22, 2009 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why is it a needed one?
I think you need to provide some sort of argument for why it is ok to use animals in testing to begin with. It may be the case that animal testing helps save human lives but that doesn't necessarily justify it. We wouldnt tolerate involuntarily experimenting on humans so why is it acceptably to do this to animals? Animal testing kills millions of animals a year and sometimes in unspeakably cruel ways. Why is this testing justifiable in order to alleviate some human suffering?
- jordon
September 5, 2009 11:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
alleviate
Animal testing is justified because it does alleviate human suffering... without it there would be no way to bring test needed medications.
If you oppose animal testing then you cannot use virtually any modern medication or medical diagnosis tool without using something that benefits from animal testing.
- MrBook
September 6, 2009 7:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How does this justify using animals?
What is it about alleviating human suffering that justifies torturing millions of animals to achieved? Shouldn't the animals suffering and death count?
- jordon
September 6, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nah
We should test on New York rats. Do they count the same as a horse or cat or dog?
- ttut21
September 7, 2009 2:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why wouldn't they?
If they are able to suffer comparably than they count the same.
- jordon
September 7, 2009 5:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
humans
What justifies it is that we are humans.
Why torture and kill billions of plants every year just to feed and cloth us?
- MrBook
September 7, 2009 8:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again, why is being human so special?
I fully support most efforts to end suffering of all sorts. However when it comes to medical testing, I think everyone needs to place themselves in the position of the animals . They do not want to be subjected to often painful experiments. They don't want to die. We wouldn't involuntarily do these experiments to humans, so why is it ok to do them to animals?
In regards to us killing plants, I think that this line of reason runs into some problems. First plants don't have a central nervous system, there is no credible evidence to even hint that they can feel pain or that they have any conscious thought. This seperates them distinctly from animals. The second problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't help your case. If it were wrong to kill plants it would also be wrong to kill animals and thus wrong to experiment on them.
- jordon
September 7, 2009 11:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.