digibutter.nerr

[Lord Krump]

First of all, this is a serious thread, intended for deep philosophical and intellectual conversation, and it shall remain this way. If you disagree with another member's opinion, explain why you disagree with logic and reasoning, and do not resort to flaming.

Second of all, this thread is not about cosmetic or aesthetic animal experimentation (There could be another thread on that issue, but, in my own opinion, it wouldn't turn out as interesting, because there wouldn't be many varying views), but rather, scientific and medical experimentation that could, possibly, improve general human knowledge and life.

What are your views on animal testing for scientific and medical purposes? Do you disagree with it because it may harm or kill animals? Or do you support it because of the potential positive outcomes and breakthroughs? Let's discuss.

[ohclizlE]

I always find this topic hard to talk about >_<
Although some tests are incredibly harsh to animals and seem to yield little to no positive outcome, I believe that is sometimes balanced out by those that have an outcome beneficial to both humans and animals.
If this generation of animals has to go through lots of pain and suffering so that all the future generations of that animal live much better, painless (or near painless) lives, then testing on animals of this generation could be 'balanced'.
I understand that it is unfair on this generation of animals that they are forced to being tested on, unlike human volunteers who have this choice. But since there are little human volunteers, the only other option appears to be animals, however unfair it is.
Since I know very little on the subject, I believe my opinions would probably change the more I knew.
(I'm really not used to writing this much >_>; )

[Anti-Guy]

Well, i believe that some animals are highly intelligent, such as dogs or(maybe soemtimes) cats. but i believe that doing violent and painfully test on an intelligent animal is cruel, unless its really a HUGE contribution to life, like ther cure of cancer(i know thats exaggerating)

but on lesser animal such as rats or.... fish(no insult of rat/fish lovers, it really isnt HORRIBLE becasue it as being an unitreligent animal, dosent TRULY concept the idea of pain, but im not it so i wouldnt know:/

[Lord Rattata]

You already know.


I disagree 100% every time, nothing can stop.


In fact, the more they do this, the more humans I will kill.

[Lord Krump]

[R. S. Buzzy]

At least they're not testing on the homeless and the disabled.

[Lord Rattata]

[Lord Krump]

[Super Maiq the Liar]

[Lord Rattata]

[Arson]

I dislike animal testing, for the most part. I'm not one of those people who will murder you if you use shampoo on dogs, but it IS cruel to do it against their free will, especially since they're just innocent animals. You know, why don't they just use people on death row? I mean, even if it's a fatal experiment... they're gonna die anyway. Those people are expendable. And if it's something like an immortality potion, test it on something like a fly. nobody cares much for those, even if they are, "animals". Also, even if the experiments on animals aren't fatal, who knows if the same thing that worked on the animal will work for a person? They are seperate entities, different lifeforms that work differently, e.g. A dog can't eat chocolate while a person can, and a dog can eat his feces and behave normally, whereas it will kill us. We should only test on animals if it involves a non-surgical bodily application that we are SURE will not harm, or if it's a weapon that is MEANT to kill dangerous animals.

So yeah, I'm both ways, but I lean towards no.

[Tails Doll]

I don't agree with animal testing, since not only is it cruel, when scientists could put forth more energy into animal welfare instead of little to none, but at the state of the world, it's pretty unnecessary. We already have prevention for AIDS, and it's not like cancer or the Bird-Flu is really overrun in developed nations, where most of the outcome of testing will go to, anyways. Some things are ridiculous, such as vivisecting, however, which is live dissection of an animal without medication of any sort. Then again, the largest available control group is animals, so there isn't too much of a choice. Also, about animal testing, studies and experiments can't be limited to only certain smaller animals, because obviously a very, very, very different outcome comes with every animal species, and not only does this totally change experiments, but it requires alot more than usual studies.

[Paper_Waluigi]

[Ligador]

[Legendary Mashine]