A Debate On Animal Testing

[iGuest 3]

/txtmngr/images/smileys/smiley7.Gif Animals are like human, though.  They eat  and sleep.  They also need shelter and LOVE.

[iGuest 3]

can you imagine your dog getting very sick and you want to find a cure for him so you decide that it is ok to test on your mom or aunt betty, becuase they seem to be the most compatabile to your dog. does that sound o.K with you?

I would just like to point out that animals have a very different body chemistry than us humans, our metabolism, or immune system doesnt work like theirs. Eaamples: cats cant have ibprofin becasue of a chemical that they produce cant digest it, (but we can)  Dogs cant have chocolate becuse its is very toxic to them (but we can). There are some diseases out in this world that humans can catch but animals can not. Example: dogs can contract  the provovirus but it can not be contracted to humans or other animals but dogs. Humans can contract hepititus and pass on to one another but no animal can contract it

I just pointing out that animals feel pain too and God (yes I said God!) put them here for a reason and I can tell you that he didnt put them on this earth to have us test on them, for our own benifit.

[iGuest 3]

Easy reponse. Would you prefer these painful possibly mutilating test, of drugs or other products be tested on a human? would you prefer seeing a human die in place of an animal that can be replaced... Reproduced.-reply by F red A lex K evin E dger nameKeywords: animal testing debates

[iGuest 3]

Informed?A Debate On Animal Testing

Look, CURELTY to animals is wrong, right? Hve any of you people in red actually been to a medical research center that uses animals? I've seen testing at Henry Ford (I know a vet tech there) and the people who work there do everything in their power to help these animals. If they weren't used for MEDICAL testing, they would be put down. Shelters give the hospital animals that haven't been claimed or micro-chipped. Would you rather this dog to be out down with no purpose in life, or be step to curing cancer.Rats have saved more lives than 911. It's nnot the research that bothes me, its the treatment of these animals. It's enough they may have to experiance pain, but to live a miserable life in a dirty smelly cage? BUt medical research isn't like that. Cosmetics are unimportant and should not be tested on animals. Pay a human. But in the end, if a dog is saving someone's life and it would be put down anyway, which would you choose? Medical research on animals is not perfect, but I think its more sensible than euthinasia on that animal.

 Emma, 13 yrs.

-reply by Emma

[iGuest 3]

Do we really need another mascara or lotion? is it worth thousands of animals rotting away and dying early painful deaths? the answer (in case your conscience is enept) is NO!  I understand that these animals don't have a home but that doesnt mean that we can just abduct them and use them as our little lab project! Animals and humans are not the same! but they DO feel pain like us they DO feel lonely, they DO want to live! So lets boycott products that test animals together so hopefull in the future animal testing will be extint instead of another spesis on animals!

-reply by An_eye_for _an_eye

 

[iGuest 3]

animal testingA Debate On Animal Testing

Although animal testing has its negatives it is important to the; doctors, patients, and people because, The use of animals in medical research and safety testing is a vital part of the quest to improve human health?? Without animal testing, there will be no new drugs for new or hard-to-treat diseases.So, I strongly believe that animal testing is a scientific process of testing products and medicine on animals. However, a lot of people have negative feelings about animal testing, because what happens in animal testing is that some of the animals that are being tested on may or may not die in the process of being tested on these commonly known products like; Cover Girl?, Neutrogena?, Suave?, Vicks?, Lysol?, and Clorox?. These products all have been tested on animals so when people use them they won?t be harmed during the use of the products.I want people who think they know ALOT OF about animal testing to read thisWithout animal testing we would have to the Blue Babies Blue...Helping babies with heart defects. Without that discovering who the heck knows were we would be in the medical stages. And that was tested on animals trying to see how giving these poeple knew hearts so that they can have babies without it doing it to there babies. So really Animal testing has made its possible everyone should be thankful. For the medicine they take like VICKS which is an animal testing product or CLOROX,Lysol(wipes,liqid,disenfect)So, if your really against animal testing an u use one of these products your all hypocrites.

-reply by trina

 

[iGuest 3]

a debate on animal testingA Debate On Animal Testing

Replying to FreedomOverdose

I am very against animal testing of any kind. Recently I am against "Mars" brand of candy. For example they produce m&ms, Dove chocolate, Starburst, Skittles, Snickers, etc. They do animal testing that is completely unessasary. There was one test that was explained that they inject some sort of coco into a mouses heart make them swim through water with white paint mixed into it. They have to get to a platform, and if they make it there they just end up getting killed anyways. Now can you tell me why that test is needed? is any human going to be injecting coco into their heart and going for a swim in some white paint? didnt think so. Animals are not like humans. Why test on them when they cant tell you what is going on? they cant talk. They have different bodies. I'm one of the biggest animal lovers on this earth. I couldnt let anyone test on my rabbit or my dog, inject coco into my hamsters heart, make a coat out of my chinchilla or harm my love bird. If you have a pet and are for animal testing. Look at them and tell them that you wouldnt care if they were tested on. Animal testing is terrible, and one of the things that gets me raging mad and sick to my stomach.

-reply by Holly

[iGuest 3]

I am for it!

Ever since we find lot's of medicences to cure diffrent kinds of cancer- But if you are not willing to take out a life out of animals just to save your own life, well tough luck, you die and I live! There are two main things that the animals doesn't have what humans got, they are soul and concious. The people who are against it, stop being so emotional! You people eat chickens, well; at a chicken farm the chickens are stuffed and crampy in the cage and then they'll be slaughterd so you can just eat it. This is much worse than animal testing! Just think about it for a momment.

[iGuest 3]

I am a strong believer in not doing test on animals. In this generation and day and age, we have the technology so that we don't have to test on animals. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we have made some progress with the use of animal testing, but little progress. It is Disgusting to note that less then 2% of all human illnesses, known to men, are on record in the animal kingdom, and yet we use them to find cures to self inflicted, that have been invited upon us with unhealthy and restructured living and eating habits. Animal testing cost the American public over $136 Billion annually.

Another fun fact is drugs that pass animal test end up harming or killing humans about 61% of the time. Also, when animals are testing on, they not only test for Medication, but also many other things including external and internal injury's. When an the scientist want to test and see how the flesh of the animals skin reacts to certain beatings, they don't give the animal anything to help sooth the pain.The scientist hit, beat, cut, smash the animals body, break the bones, and leave them in a small cage to suffer.

I, of course, do not think that we should test on humans, but there are other ways. America is so very much advanced in technology that there are whys we can do this all with computers, or ever make models so that they can torture the models. For example, with tools from molecular biology biochemistry and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. We are far past the use of animals to test on, we know the results of drugs now on humans, so there is no need to test on animals, and I am a strong believer in the fact that it should be stopped.

-reply by Rebecca Kay

 

[iGuest 3]

animal testingA Debate On Animal Testing

I think it should be done.. Because without animal testing we would still have blue babies and they would die because people wouldnt know what to do or how to operate the babies heart. And only because of the heart operation that were done during the testing on dog's heart we could ever achive that. Alot of dogs died and I realize that they felt big pain but they didnt die for nothing they died to saved millions of people in the future. But yeah I disagree with testing animals for the cosmetics and stuff. I only agreed if it is nessesery, because animals have alot of oragans that are very similar to human's oragans. And sorry for alot of mistakes my spelling sucks really bad.

-reply by igor

 

[iGuest 3]

1) "Humans and animals are too different for results from animal tests to be extrapolated to humans."While it is true that every species is unique, all mammals share commonalities (mammals are the most highly represented group of animals in medical science). This is because all mammals are descended from a group of common ancestors. In general, all mammalian bodies operate in the same basic way (eg. Circulatory, vascular, digestive, endocrine and immune systems are all quite similar in mammals). Obviously, however, there are differences between species, but these tend to be at the level of the cell, rather than at the level of the various sytems. This is important because it is reasonable to then say, "Well, drug x poisons this animal. Therefore, it is unlikely to be safe in humans, however further tests should be done to prove this."

2) "Animal testing is morally bankrupt. It is not justifiable under any circumstances."True. Ethically, animal testing is largerly indefensible, except on the grounds of providing life-saving medical advances to human patients, which, to me, seems like a fairly good position to take.

3) "There is inadequate government regulation of animal testing."While some activists claim that there is no regulation and that researchers are able to do as they please, this is simply not true. The Home Office, for example, administers extremely stringent laws regarding the use of animals in research. Other countries have similar guidelines.

4) "Animals are exposed to unnecessary suffering."Activists tend to quote slogans such as "STOP ANIMAL SUFFERING" "COMPANY X BRUTALLY TORTURES ANIMALS", while showing a picture of a badly treated kitty from 50 years ago. Obviously, there are areas of research which require the animal to experience some degree of pain, but this is minimised as much as possible. In most cases, animals are anaesthetised when undergoing painful procedures, and receive post-operative anaelgesia.Others will say that anaesthetics are not used becasue they are "expensive." Just a spoint of interest, anaesthetics are actually rather cheap.Again, the Home Office (and other agencies in other countries) strictly controls the conditions animals are housed in, as well as conditions relating to scientific procedures.

5) "There are alternatives to animal testing."There are alternatives to animal testing, and a lot of money has been invested in the area. However, it is ludicrous for activists to claim that all animal testing should stop because we have alternatives. Certain things can only be tested in a live model. Activists claim that we have computer models, cell cultures, and tissue cultures in which to do any and all testing. Research is done using these methods, in fact, most medical research does not involve animals at all. But, for example, measuring an immune response, or levels of inflammation following administration of a particular drug or procedure are only possible in a live model. It seems silly to point it out, but animals are not a beaker of cells, or a petri dish of tissue. Animals are a complex interaction of many systems composed of many different types of cells.

Replying to iGuest

-reply by Muumipeikko

[iGuest 3]

ANIMAL TESTING IS HORRIBLEA Debate On Animal TestingI beileve that animal testing is cruel and unjust! how would you like someone caging you up for a prisoner than testing various things on your skin or injeections into your body?? you wouldnt like it at all! animals arent nonliving "objects" they feel pain! don't ANIMAL TESTT! ITS WRONNGP/s if your still for it maybe we should test on you next.-reply by Mariah C.

[iGuest 3]

I agree with everyone...

animal testing is good for humans, but bad on the animal part...

cosmetic testing don't AGREE... We have enough make-up products okay...

food... Only if it free range... NOT factory farms...

And for helping humans with caner and pains... Yes because everyone in the world has some

kind of pain medication or drug in there house...

Animals have rights... But would you rather have your child die? or a mouse?

you choose...

this is a very tuff subject.

[iGuest 3]

 I AM APART OF A DEBATING SQUAD,

I know some little things about animals that you don't know

for exampe 

1. Rats/mics have 48% of human genes not 99%.

2. Would you like to be tested on? THINK ABOUT IT !!

3. Rats/mice normally lie up to 3-7 yrs of age and humans roughly live up to 99 yrs of age and may die if they are  tested on, but because there are so many animals bred to be tested on, there  are about 19 % of humans thay may live and 80% of animal that will most probably live

-reply by CRIPP-SCI

[iGuest 3]

animals testing A Debate On Animal Testing

Animal testing should not be allowed.

I don't think that it should be ok to test products on animals. Animals don't get a choice, whereas humans do. Animals have as much right to life as human beings. A lot of experiments are tested on animals like rats and mice. I think this is not acceptable and it should be stopped.

 

The reason why I believe that animals testing should not be allowed because animals are living creatures too and they deserve to have a chance to live. They cannot tell us what they want but I?m pretty sure they wouldn?t like to be tested on and have a 74% chance of dying. Each year, over a million animals around Australia are being used in tests for the purpose of science.

Scientists are testing animals on products such as cosmetics, drugs, food additives, household products, industrial chemicals and many more. Some animals have been bred specifically for testing or have been captured in the wild so that scientists can examination on them.

There are no laws saying that scientists are abusing animals. But in my opinion if anyone hurts or kills an animal it should be recorded as an abuse to animals and nature. Animals have as much right to life as human beings. God made earth filled with animals so that we could watch over and protect them, no use then to experiment on. Animal testing is not necessary at all!   

There are other ways that scientists can test their product, instead of gabbing needles in to animal and putting tubes down there troughs. For instance, fake skin called corrositex, computer modelling and improved numerical designs are all options that scientist can use besides animals.

More than six million animals are used annually in research and teaching in Australia and New Zealand. It was expected that over 50,000 animals had been used and 74% had suffered side effects and even died due to their treatment. Many tests result in pain, suffering and even death of the animal. Between 600,000 and 1.2 million animals will be killed for every 1,000 chemical tested.

There must be a better way to test products, because this is just horrible. I believe that animal testing is cruel and that they should put a law up saying that its cruelty to animals.

Dayna kalikas