Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?
- Thread starter Sephirothalpha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No I havent got anything against vegetarians, I was just wondering if you were one.
I could argue that as the dominant species on the planet we have a right to test on animals to develop new vaccines and medicines for a better world. A cure for Aids could be found and save millions of lives at the expense of a few dead rabbits. Ridance I say.
I could argue that as the dominant species on the planet we have a right to test on animals to develop new vaccines and medicines for a better world. A cure for Aids could be found and save millions of lives at the expense of a few dead rabbits. Ridance I say.
To U;tima
sorry about that last sentence, but yeah, it's like we discussed in Computers today, just because someone can do something, that doesn't mean that said human should do it
sorry about that last sentence, but yeah, it's like we discussed in Computers today, just because someone can do something, that doesn't mean that said human should do it
To sephirothalpha
that doesn't give give us the right to murder. that gives us nothing, only bragging rights.
At one stage in life, lions were one at the top of the food chain, that didn't give them the right to kill off animals, no matter the cause. (that was just an example)
Just backing you up. I fully agree
Well, I am.
And what do you mean my that 'Ridance I say'?
that doesn't give give us the right to murder. that gives us nothing, only bragging rights.
At one stage in life, lions were one at the top of the food chain, that didn't give them the right to kill off animals, no matter the cause. (that was just an example)
Just backing you up. I fully agree
Well, I am.
And what do you mean my that 'Ridance I say'?
Last edited:
If theres no alternative, and theres only one, and it a bad one, don't do it. (i learned this from all those years of gaming, told my Mum i would learn something useful)
But it did, lions could kill what they wanted because they were the strongest. Now humans are and because we are more intelligent than lions we have to make the decision to test on animals if it is for the greater good for man-kind.
But what you just said completely contradicts what you say here
Ah, you said the word could, but they didn't, did they?
No! They had that power, but they didn't use it, they only used it to survive, eat, sleep and drink, not test on rabbits
If you guys like animals so much, why dont you abandon your homes and go and shack up with an animal in the wild.
And lions werent intelligent enough to test on other animals. C'mon this is basic knowledge.
And lions werent intelligent enough to test on other animals. C'mon this is basic knowledge.
Hm..thats what im on about - if its for survival not vanity. Although even so, I would prefer there to be an alternative to testing on animals.
What you said was funny, but its the people like you that are destroying the ozone layer, driving tigers to the edge of extinction, and people that I can't just stand.
Anyway, If we did that, it might hurt the animal, and scare it to death,
Don't test on animals, there you go, test on people who are being paid
Last edited:
Define your definition of intelligent! Anyway, they were, they only did what they needed to keep itself alive(the singular lion)
I'm actually quite eco friendly and support saving animals from extinction.
I merely believe that animal testing should be allowed if its for the greater good.
I merely believe that animal testing should be allowed if its for the greater good.
What is the greater good? selfishness? one life (or many) is not worth one. If you say your eco friendly, try to think of another way to test, avoiding animals. I can think of one, human, animals should not be sucked into human problems
I have to go now, see ya tomorrow, please keep this debate alive, it's fun, especially you two, Ultima and sephiroth
I have to go now, see ya tomorrow, please keep this debate alive, it's fun, especially you two, Ultima and sephiroth
Last edited:
Why not? One of the tests might be for a cure to foot and mouth, thats not a human problem. Tests are done for the benefit for both human and animals.
dimmufan
Tauren Hunter
It is spelled d-e-b-a-t-o-r. I think you mean master debator.
Testing products on rabbits is way different than than human testing. If you want to test on an animal then you would have to choose either a pig or a chimpanzee. The pig's internal organs resemble humans' organs better than any other animal. However, the chimpanzee's DNA is the closest to humans in terms of structure and coding.
Maybe the scientists could do some DNA testing before the chemical testing to come out with a pig/chimpanzee hybrid.
Erythritol
Smoke and Arrogance
Hey, so who here likes not having polio or small pox?
Sorry everyone, but for serious medical research, there is no other way. And scientists don't go outside with nets to nab cute little furry creatures. These animals are bred in labs for this sort of thing. Is it unfortunate? Yes. But animal testing has helped to eradicate really crippling and deadly diseases. Hell, without animal testing, I'd bet that some of you wouldn't even be alive, thus you wouldn't be able to sit there at your computer and argue against it. Irony?
As for testing on people, that's ridiculous. Inject people with cancer? AIDS? No. And don't suggest testing on people who already have those illnesses. It's too dangerous and obtaining their consent or familial consent is very unlikely. Once, through animal testing, a potential cure has been discovered, doctors DO try the cures on people. But animal testing is inherent to the process of discovering a cure.
Sorry everyone, but for serious medical research, there is no other way. And scientists don't go outside with nets to nab cute little furry creatures. These animals are bred in labs for this sort of thing. Is it unfortunate? Yes. But animal testing has helped to eradicate really crippling and deadly diseases. Hell, without animal testing, I'd bet that some of you wouldn't even be alive, thus you wouldn't be able to sit there at your computer and argue against it. Irony?
As for testing on people, that's ridiculous. Inject people with cancer? AIDS? No. And don't suggest testing on people who already have those illnesses. It's too dangerous and obtaining their consent or familial consent is very unlikely. Once, through animal testing, a potential cure has been discovered, doctors DO try the cures on people. But animal testing is inherent to the process of discovering a cure.