Is animal testing humane?

[Cactaur]

Do you think animal testing is humane?
Don't know what I am talking about be advised it is not your happy go lucky video. (Only the registered members can see the link.)

I think that personally, testing for things that are 100% necessary is fine. Like a cure for a disease or etc. Now testing how long a mouse can be in a microwave is unacceptable. Your thoughts?

PS If you "lmao" at the video, just don't even post to this. Be serious.

[A Panda]

Do you think animal testing is humane?
Don't know what I am talking about be advised it is not your happy go lucky video. (Only the registered members can see the link.)

I think that personally, testing for things that are 100% necessary is fine. Like a cure for a disease or etc. Now testing how long a mouse can be in a microwave is unacceptable. Your thoughts?

If your gonna wash them down with hairspray or like test a fire proof fabric no, but like you said for diseases i think it is fine.

Like what if the fabric does not work and you burn them to death ;o i would mob the place!

[samuraiblood2]

I find nothing wrong with even human testing, so long as the test pertains to something useful. If its something useless like the above video, or your example, then no.

[Zykev2]

Survival of the fittest, we are on top of the food chain, I don't know about you but I would much rather a rabbit get cancer than a real human.

[A Panda]

Survival of the fittest, we are on top of the food chain, I don't know about you but I would much rather a rabbit get cancer than a real human.

So i am guessing we are all on the same opinion that disease cures are fine to test on animals ;o

[Trey]

Do you think animal testing is humane?
Don't know what I am talking about be advised it is not your happy go lucky video. (Only the registered members can see the link.)

I think that personally, testing for things that are 100% necessary is fine. Like a cure for a disease or etc. Now testing how long a mouse can be in a microwave is unacceptable. Your thoughts?

PS If you "lmao" at the video, just don't even post to this. Be serious.

Sorry but I totally lol'd.

Anyway, I guess it depends what kind of testing it taking place. Punting kittens to test boot durability wouldn't exactly be favorable, but testing chemicals on an animal to better ensure its safety can be worth it in the long run. Sorry, but I'd honestly rather have a few test subjects die or suffer injury from something then people who use an untested product. I know that's an unrealistic case for the most part, but I as much as people don't like testing, there's a reason it's done. Testing isn't done just because people want to harm animals.

BTW: Don't put code in your signature if you can't even get the most basic logic correct.

[A Panda]

Sorry but I totally lol'd.

Anyway, I guess it depends what kind of testing it taking place. Punting kittens to test boot durability wouldn't exactly be favorable, but testing chemicals on an animal to better ensure its safety can be worth it in the long run. Sorry, but I'd honestly rather have a few test subjects die or suffer injury from something then people who use an untested product. I know that's an unrealistic case for the most part, but I as much as people don't like testing, there's a reason it's done. Testing isn't done just because people want to harm animals.

Yeah i loled as well, cat looked like it was trying to break dance, but honestly i completely agree.

[Dean]

Ask the kitten if (s)he wants to be tested first.

Hi.

[A Panda]

Ask the kitten if (s)he wants to be tested first.

Hi.

Kitty says yes, and takes the could-be-fatal cure for something like cancer, if it works thousands of people live, if it does not one cat gets hurt or dies.

Kitty says no, and does not take the could-be-fatal cure for something like cancer, thousands more die and one cat lives.....

You decide ;o

[Fly]

Who cares about animals. Test away!

[A Panda]

Who cares about animals. Test away!

So i am guessing you do not have a cat or a dog, so lets imagine your best friend, or girlfriend, if they took him/her away and did testing on her you would not be bothered ;o

[Fly]

So i am guessing you do not have a cat or a dog, so lets imagine your best friend, or girlfriend, if they took him/her away and did testing on her you would not be bothered ;o

I had a few pets before. Human testing? Will not happen. You can't even compare humans to animals.

[A Panda]

I had a few pets before. Human testing? Will not happen. You can't even compare humans to animals.

Well something you loved ;o, i can compare humans to animals if i want, i know alot of people i would rather see get stuck with lots of needles then a rabbit ;o

[Cactaur]

I had a few pets before. Human testing? Will not happen. You can't even compare humans to animals.

Just because humans are more advance than animals doesn't mean we can't be compared..

[Relapse]

Jails are overcrowded in america... test on those humans :P

Not the petty crimes but the "hard-asses"

edit: as opposed to testing on animals

[2kbarrows]

I lol'd.
Notice that this post was made to piss off the thread maker.
A some time of this video he looked like he had a seizure, then i felt bad.
And it's not humane, but their not animals ZING!
But i think it's wrong.

[Fly]

Jails are overcrowded in america... test on those humans :P

Not the petty crimes but the "hard-asses"

edit: as opposed to testing on animals

This is a good idea. We should test on the humans who are in jail for life or have received the death sentence.

[Network]

Don't think it's bad to do animal testing. Rather not have them testing on deer or horses. But hey, rats, I could care less.

[Cart]

Humans are animals, why don't we test on our own kind?

Why make another animal suffer.


Who cares about animals. Test away!
this is a debate forum, not post4Count forum.

[A Panda]

Just do not hurt the pandas, rats are fine like he said, and we are not animals we are MAMMALS.

[Subi]

All sorts of regulations have been tied onto animal testing, so a test like that cat one would breech a handful of ethical codes by today's standards.

Personally I see animal testing as a trade-off between the suffering of the animal and the benefits of the study. Long term results take precedence over short term consequences.

[A Panda]

All sorts of regulations have been tied onto animal testing, so a test like that cat one would breech a handful of ethical codes by today's standards.

Personally I see animal testing as a trade-off between the suffering of the animal and the benefits of the study. Long term results take precedence over short term consequences.

Yeah considering the rules and regulations these days, you would probably go to jail or get sued for doing that.

[Jon]

Rotfl haha lol good thing im coding a rsps, i can just spawn one ! lets see if this baby works now! ::pickup WTF IS THE ID!!!! Amount

Damm yo i dont kno the id -___-

Well bro... Dump a list then and why are we talking rsps? This is rl shit.

OT: I don't think it's right to test on animals such as cats and dogs as they have quite a long lifespan. They want to test something they made? they should put it in their fucking self.

[Trey]

Stay on topic.

[Saiad]

i think its very wrong, to test on animals

[A Panda]

Well yeah we all know it is inhumane.

look at this for example...
Only the registered members can see the link.

That sounds bad too me...so it should sound bad to anyone else ;o

[Dean]

I just watched Marley & Me and it made me think of this thread.

I honestly love animals, but not when I'm about to die from one. lol I'm sure everyone thinks the same o.0

I don't really think it's necessary to test this stuff on animals.
?

[A Panda]

I just watched Marley & Me and it made me think of this thread.

I honestly love animals, but not when I'm about to die from one. lol I'm sure everyone thinks the same o.0

I don't really think it's necessary to test this stuff on animals.
?

Sorry this is OP, but like when Marley and Me came out on DVD me and my mom watched it with my brother, he came out for the weekend, My Nan and Pops dog of 13 years had died just a month before we watched it, he was very close to my brother, my brother had always been tough about it, but he broke out crying when Marley died, you just made me wanna watch that movie, look out Google here i come.

[mumups]

yeah. animals are BREEDEED to be tested on. so yeaa they wudnt even be here unless animal tetsin was here

[Matty]

yeah. animals are BREEDEED to be tested on. so yeaa they wudnt even be here unless animal tetsin was here

So animals wouldn't be here if animal testing wasn't here? LOL.

[Ficho]

lol @thread... testing on animals?
test on few animals may be helpfull to million people, or more..
the testing on animals isnt in huge amounts.. dont worry.
testing on animals was, it is, and it will be.. ye I feel sorry for them but.. we are humans lol (sry for epic fail english, that was failest english text iv ever did)

[mumups]

So animals wouldn't be here if animal testing wasn't here? LOL.

The animals tested on wouldn't be. there made to be tested on, they don't know any different.Therefore its all good :)

[Slik]

The animals tested on wouldn't be. there made to be tested on, they don't know any different.Therefore its all good :)

Where do you draw the line? According to your theory, morally it is satisfactory if you 'breed' humans to be tested on since they too would not know any different.

[Sethy]

Mumups, that's just cold. Animals feel, and animals think. They feel pain when test are run on them, they know something terrible is happening to them.
Why not test it on the faggots in death row?

Like the video, that's wrong. How could you put any sort of animal in such a state?

[Twisted]

Mumups, that's just cold. Animals feel, and animals think. They feel pain when test are run on them, they know something terrible is happening to them.
Why not test it on the faggots in death row?

Like the video, that's wrong. How could you put any sort of animal in such a state?

No animal is equal to any human.
A pig is not equal to a person in death row, no matter what he/she did.
We feel pain to.

I would haft to say, it depends.
If it is a cure for a disease, cancer etc, go right the fuck ahead.
1 rats life to save millions of people, if it was for make-up or sham-poo, something that probably won't kill us, test it on humans. This is why so many of us have stopped doing exactly that.

[Twisted]

How is it selfish? they rape, murder, steal, and much more, its just true.

No, its not just true.
No one on this earth, needs to die. No one. I don't care what they have done, it would be more human to let them rot in prison then to kill them.
Fix the problem, don't kill it.
Death-row is murder, we are being hypocrites EVERY time we kill an inmate on death row. We are no better then the person who is on death row.
You putting animal life over human life, is selfish. Most animals, like tigers, meat-eaters, kill other animals all the time. Yet your putting their life over an inmates.

[Sethy]

IT's what they do. That's nature.
Animals are equivalent of humans. The only difference is that they aren't as intelligent as we are.

[Slik]

No, its not just true.
No one on this earth, needs to die. No one. I don't care what they have done, it would be more human to let them rot in prison then to kill them.
Fix the problem, don't kill it.
Death-row is murder, we are being hypocrites EVERY time we kill an inmate on death row. We are no better then the person who is on death row.
You putting animal life over human life, is selfish. Most animals, like tigers, meat-eaters, kill other animals all the time. Yet your putting their life over an inmates.

No one on this earth needs to die? Are you fucking kidding me? Go down 100, 200 years down the line when there isn't sufficient food for people to eat, enough clean water for people to drink. Death serves a purpose, creating space for new life. It is part of a cycle, the cylce of life, if you take out death out from the loop it doesn't flow.

Regardless of whether or not is right for someone to die because of their crimes, if they are going to die why not test on them before they do die?

[Twisted]

No one on this earth needs to die? Are you fucking kidding me? Go down 100, 200 years down the line when there isn't sufficient food for people to eat, enough clean water for people to drink. Death serves a purpose, creating space for new life. It is part of a cycle, the cylce of life, if you take out death out from the loop it doesn't flow.

Regardless of whether or not is right for someone to die because of their crimes, if they are going to die why not test on them before they do die?

Maybe you didn't understand.
No-one NEEDS to die, if there is nothing wrong with them.
We have enough disease, famine, war, etc etc killing enough people to complete the life cycle. Killing someone just because us PEOPLE can play god (I am an atheist, don't take that to heart, it was a metaphor) and choose when and when not to kill people.
Just going "Hey, for the sake of being hypocritical and contradictory, we are going to kill you for killing him. Win, 2 wrongs don't make a right, didn't your parents teach you that?

[Dean]

Sorry this is OP, but like when Marley and Me came out on DVD me and my mom watched it with my brother, he came out for the weekend, My Nan and Pops dog of 13 years had died just a month before we watched it, he was very close to my brother, my brother had always been tough about it, but he broke out crying when Marley died, you just made me wanna watch that movie, look out Google here i come.

Sucks man, good movie, showed it on HBO :)

[Twisted]

IT's what they do. That's nature.
Animals are equivalent of humans. The only difference is that they aren't as intelligent as we are.

O hai dur.
Sorry I haft to bring the food-chain argument into this.
If you can honestly say that I am equal to say a PIG.
I can create art, entertainment, love, masterpieces. A pig shits, eats, sleeps and on occasion, fucks.
If you can say that humans are equal to a pig, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Don't get me wrong. If no animals had to die, It would be great.
But your telling me that if some guy had a gun to the head of a pig and a person, you had to pick who had to die.
Has the same effect as if it was a human or another human.
Which it doesn't. It it was pig vs human, pork tonight.
Human on human, I would NEVER pick. NEVER pick.

[Dean]

Humans are mammals, so are Animals.

I think that's what he was trying to say? idk

[Twisted]

Humans are mammals, so are Animals.

I think that's what he was trying to say? idk

What in the fuck did you even just say.

[Dean]

What in the fuck did you even just say.

Aren't humans & animals mammals?

lol???????????????????????

[Cjay0091]

Testing on animals is alright, we would be classified as animals aswell, except the only difference between humans and animals is intelligence, but I do find animal testing to be fine as long as its not doing something stupid, but helpful to society.

[tedhead2]

I like testing on animals, as long as they aren't cats!

I say we should test guns and stuff on dogs! *hates dogs alot*

[Gawdz]

total opposite of what you said lets test on cats

[Twisted]

Aren't humans & animals mammals?

lol???????????????????????

Noooo...
We are all ANIMALS.
Mammals are a type of animal, we are mammals.
So are these animals:

Only the registered members can see the link.

Not all animals are mammals.

[Slik]

Maybe you didn't understand.
No-one NEEDS to die, if there is nothing wrong with them.
We have enough disease, famine, war, etc etc killing enough people to complete the life cycle. Killing someone just because us PEOPLE can play god (I am an atheist, don't take that to heart, it was a metaphor) and choose when and when not to kill people.
Just going "Hey, for the sake of being hypocritical and contradictory, we are going to kill you for killing him. Win, 2 wrongs don't make a right, didn't your parents teach you that?

Your bringing another arguement into this one, about capital punishment. Since people are sentenced regardless of whether it is ethically correct, they are going to die. Why not test on them if they are just going to die. Again, this isn't about whether or not it is right, but instead just saying thats how it is.

Contradictory? lol... If a person who is mentally retarded (no offence to anyone on this forum who is), and kills 50 people before they are caught and they would be released after just 20 years that person has a high chance of committing the same offence therefore for the safety of others killing that person could save the life of others. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it can prevent a third wrong from occuring.

Let me guess at your response, we need to help that person instead of killing that person? If there is no form of help known to us, which in many cases there aren't then why attempt to, just a waste of money. Perhaps this should be left for another debate, this has swayed off topic.

It is intresting how we value the life of some animals differently in comparasion to others. We treat dogs and cats differently because they are family pets, yet see rats as virmin therefore it is ethicially correct to test on them. Simply a question of moral, you can't satisfy the entire audience so a fine line between the two is fine. The testing has to be done, and since the majority of people morally accept it, rats are ideal to test on so it is a win win situation really. Sure some people are going to be upset, but what is the alternative. I agree with testing on people who are termenally ill and don't want to live any longer, along with people who are sentenced to death since it is what it is there is no point in wasting a person. The only time I would disagree with it is if their organs could save lives, most common when criminals have rare blood types.

[A Panda]

Your bringing another arguement into this one, about capital punishment. Since people are sentenced regardless of whether it is ethically correct, they are going to die. Why not test on them if they are just going to die. Again, this isn't about whether or not it is right, but instead just saying thats how it is.

Contradictory? lol... If a person who is mentally retarded (no offence to anyone on this forum who is), and kills 50 people before they are caught and they would be released after just 20 years that person has a high chance of committing the same offence therefore for the safety of others killing that person could save the life of others. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it can prevent a third wrong from occuring.

Let me guess at your response, we need to help that person instead of killing that person? If there is no form of help known to us, which in many cases there aren't then why attempt to, just a waste of money. Perhaps this should be left for another debate, this has swayed off topic.

It is intresting how we value the life of some animals differently in comparasion to others. We treat dogs and cats differently because they are family pets, yet see rats as virmin therefore it is ethicially correct to test on them. Simply a question of moral, you can't satisfy the entire audience so a fine line between the two is fine. The testing has to be done, and since the majority of people morally accept it, rats are ideal to test on so it is a win win situation really. Sure some people are going to be upset, but what is the alternative. I agree with testing on people who are termenally ill and don't want to live any longer, along with people who are sentenced to death since it is what it is there is no point in wasting a person. The only time I would disagree with it is if their organs could save lives, most common when criminals have rare blood types.

Thanks for that Slik, that is exactly what i think, i just couldn't explain it.

[Redcen1]

Absolute disgusting, and cruel

[Twisted]

Your bringing another arguement into this one, about capital punishment. Since people are sentenced regardless of whether it is ethically correct, they are going to die. Why not test on them if they are just going to die. Again, this isn't about whether or not it is right, but instead just saying thats how it is.

Contradictory? lol... If a person who is mentally retarded (no offence to anyone on this forum who is), and kills 50 people before they are caught and they would be released after just 20 years that person has a high chance of committing the same offence therefore for the safety of others killing that person could save the life of others. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it can prevent a third wrong from occuring.

Let me guess at your response, we need to help that person instead of killing that person? If there is no form of help known to us, which in many cases there aren't then why attempt to, just a waste of money. Perhaps this should be left for another debate, this has swayed off topic.

It is intresting how we value the life of some animals differently in comparasion to others. We treat dogs and cats differently because they are family pets, yet see rats as virmin therefore it is ethicially correct to test on them. Simply a question of moral, you can't satisfy the entire audience so a fine line between the two is fine. The testing has to be done, and since the majority of people morally accept it, rats are ideal to test on so it is a win win situation really. Sure some people are going to be upset, but what is the alternative. I agree with testing on people who are termenally ill and don't want to live any longer, along with people who are sentenced to death since it is what it is there is no point in wasting a person. The only time I would disagree with it is if their organs could save lives, most common when criminals have rare blood types.


Do you know what some tests do exactly? Do you know even WHY they do the tests?
To tests them, ofcourse. A first time, a possible cure for something, could have EXTREME side-effects. Over-whelming pain is one of them.
Your telling me if that a guy is one death row, and is going to die anyways, that we should put him threw possible over-whelming pain before he dies? That is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane for you.
That is why we do it on animals. They might react differently to the drug. And if it was a cure for cancer, it would be MORE moral to do it to an animal who could be killed easier if in extreme pain, then to kill a human who would want to fight both the pain and death. We are at the top of the food-chain for a reason good sir. Putting rats and pigs etc ABOVE US wouldn't be the best idea.

Wow..
I'm going to destroy your argument in 1 simple link.
Only the registered members can see the link.

Win :D

And your last argument, testing on people who are terminally ill? REALLY? Holy shit dude, are you listening to yourself?
Sure, lets try a drug that has NEVER been tested before to a cancer patient who is already in enough pain, to put them threw possible even more pain.
Its "win win" situation.
Wow dude.

[Cactaur]

Do you know what some tests do exactly? Do you know even WHY they do the tests?
To tests them, ofcourse. A first time, a possible cure for something, could have EXTREME side-effects. Over-whelming pain is one of them.
Your telling me if that a guy is one death row, and is going to die anyways, that we should put him threw possible over-whelming pain before he dies? That is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane for you.
That is why we do it on animals. They might react differently to the drug. And if it was a cure for cancer, it would be MORE moral to do it to an animal who could be killed easier if in extreme pain, then to kill a human who would want to fight both the pain and death. We are at the top of the food-chain for a reason good sir. Putting rats and pigs etc ABOVE US wouldn't be the best idea.

Wow..
I'm going to destroy your argument in 1 simple link.
Only the registered members can see the link.

Win :D

And your last argument, testing on people who are terminally ill? REALLY? Holy shit dude, are you listening to yourself?
Sure, lets try a drug that has NEVER been tested before to a cancer patient who is already in enough pain, to put them threw possible even more pain.
Its "win win" situation.
Wow dude.

Agree!

[Slik]

Do you know what some tests do exactly? Do you know even WHY they do the tests?
To tests them, ofcourse. A first time, a possible cure for something, could have EXTREME side-effects. Over-whelming pain is one of them.
Your telling me if that a guy is one death row, and is going to die anyways, that we should put him threw possible over-whelming pain before he dies? That is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane for you.
That is why we do it on animals. They might react differently to the drug. And if it was a cure for cancer, it would be MORE moral to do it to an animal who could be killed easier if in extreme pain, then to kill a human who would want to fight both the pain and death. We are at the top of the food-chain for a reason good sir. Putting rats and pigs etc ABOVE US wouldn't be the best idea.

Wow..
I'm going to destroy your argument in 1 simple link.
Only the registered members can see the link.

Win :D

And your last argument, testing on people who are terminally ill? REALLY? Holy shit dude, are you listening to yourself?
Sure, lets try a drug that has NEVER been tested before to a cancer patient who is already in enough pain, to put them threw possible even more pain.
Its "win win" situation.
Wow dude.

Ok, so according to your destruction of my arguement people who are mentally retarded and comit crimes should be placed in psychiatric hospitals, which the tax payer pays for. That person should be left as a burden on the tax revenue, opposed to paying for their crimes with their life which relieves the problem. A person who was raped by a man as a child should be expected to pay for their meals? There is more to this in terms of morals then you might think.

You should understand that people creating these drugs actually know the level of risk before they test it. You act like pain is common from these tests, you have no clue on the outcome. Ultimately tests are often done for effectiveness, they generally know of substances which will cause harm.

What about testing pain relief drugs? I don't see a problem with testing pain relief drugs on a person who is suffering a great deal from a terminal illness. Like I said they may be testing it for effectiveness, I see that as a win win situation. Get it out of your mind set that all tests involve pain. I am not stating that all tests have no pain, but instead there is a vast range of tests from minor things to major things. You get feedback from testing on humans, which is why people argue testing on humans in low risk situations in certain circumstances should be allowed and accepted, and it is in some places.

[Twisted]

Ok, so according to your destruction of my arguement people who are mentally retarded and comit crimes should be placed in psychiatric hospitals, which the tax payer pays for. That person should be left as a burden on the tax revenue, opposed to paying for their crimes with their life which relieves the problem. A person who was raped by a man as a child should be expected to pay for their meals? There is more to this in terms of morals then you might think.

You should understand that people creating these drugs actually know the level of risk before they test it. You act like pain is common from these tests, you have no clue on the outcome. Ultimately tests are often done for effectiveness, they generally know of substances which will cause harm.

What about testing pain relief drugs? I don't see a problem with testing pain relief drugs on a person who is suffering a great deal from a terminal illness. Like I said they may be testing it for effectiveness, I see that as a win win situation. Get it out of your mind set that all tests involve pain. I am not stating that all tests have no pain, but instead there is a vast range of tests from minor things to major things. You get feedback from testing on humans, which is why people argue testing on humans in low risk situations in certain circumstances should be allowed and accepted, and it is in some places.

Yes, they should be placed in psychiatric hospitals, THEY ARE MENTALLY INSANE.
They cannot physically stop them selves from doing anything. Its not their fault they where born that way. They don't know what they are doing wrong. You act like they should be placed in jail for something they didn't have control over.
And if they are placed in psychiatric hospitals, they might be able to gain control over what they did. Apologize greatly, try and make it up to their victims. The scare will always be there, just not the pain.
And I don't know about America or where ever you live, but I'm quite sure Australian taxes don't go towards psychiatric hospitals..I don't know, could be wrong tho. Doubt it.

Err, no, they don't. Pain is common from drugs that have just been first tested. If there is no pain, why the fuck would we not test it on animals? See, I got ya there :)
If there is no pain from the drugs, and the doctors know the side-effects of the drugs, why do we test it on animals first? Cause we know there is still a HIGH risk of the drug going wrong and causing pain.
This than if there was pain, would go back to my previous argument. Causing a person EXTREME pain and putting them to death, is fucked, no matter how you swing it.
Same for a person who is on their death bed, still fucked.

As for your last argument, read the above.
If it was a PAIN relief drug, why the fuck would you not test it on an animal to make sure it doesn't kill the person? Which, they do. I personally would rather see an animal in pain than a person in pain, I really don't care if that makes me look like a monster, but we got to the top for a reason. Caring about our own kind.

[Slik]

Yes, they should be placed in psychiatric hospitals, THEY ARE MENTALLY INSANE.
They cannot physically stop them selves from doing anything. Its not their fault they where born that way. They don't know what they are doing wrong. You act like they should be placed in jail for something they didn't have control over.
And if they are placed in psychiatric hospitals, they might be able to gain control over what they did. Apologize greatly, try and make it up to their victims. The scare will always be there, just not the pain.
And I don't know about America or where ever you live, but I'm quite sure Australian taxes don't go towards psychiatric hospitals..I don't know, could be wrong tho. Doubt it.

Err, no, they don't. Pain is common from drugs that have just been first tested. If there is no pain, why the fuck would we not test it on animals? See, I got ya there :)
If there is no pain from the drugs, and the doctors know the side-effects of the drugs, why do we test it on animals first? Cause we know there is still a HIGH risk of the drug going wrong and causing pain.
This than if there was pain, would go back to my previous argument. Causing a person EXTREME pain and putting them to death, is fucked, no matter how you swing it.
Same for a person who is on their death bed, still fucked.

As for your last argument, read the above.
If it was a PAIN relief drug, why the fuck would you not test it on an animal to make sure it doesn't kill the person? Which, they do. I personally would rather see an animal in pain than a person in pain, I really don't care if that makes me look like a monster, but we got to the top for a reason. Caring about our own kind.

Tests can be done to test for toxicity, this doesn't necessarily mean pain. Carbon is toxic to us and if it builds up in us we can die from it, it doesn't actually cause pain. A common mistake is that high levels of CO causes chest pain, however this is voluntary since you are attempting to relief the amount by adding oxygen.

Why wouldn't you test a pain relief drug on an animal? Can an animal give you sufficient feedback about the pain relief? No, can a human - Yes. Tests can, and are done for effectiveness and are not always about pain. Yes is some cases there shouldn't be tests done on humans first, but not always.


Edit: lol, psychiatric hospitals - Public sector. Not all but the vast majority, so yes the tax payer's money does fund it. Some are charity based - voluntary sector which are generally funded by the inmate's relatives and get grants from the government so even they have some form of funding from the tax payer's money.

I'm not saying they should be placed in jail, I am saying in some cases death is ideal. It removes the problem instead of attempting to solve it, which is cheaper and has a 100% sucess rate while attempting to resolve the problem can't say the same.

[Trey]

From my perspective, if you can't provide anything to society, get out. What's the point of a useless individual who's simply a burden to the rest of society?

[Slik]

From my perspective, if you can't provide anything to society, get out. What's the point of a useless individual who's simply a burden to the rest of society?

I agree, if they expect contribution to better themselves, they must first contribute to the system. Fair enough if someone gets help they can begin to pay tax and we can recoup lost funds but in all honesty some people are beyond help.

I personally value the life of a pig greater than the life of a pedophile. The pig can be eaten, breed or even kept as a pet (weird but it is more and more common these days). The pig can feed on waste which really benefits us. Therefore the pig can contribute to society.

[Cactaur]

From my perspective, if you can't provide anything to society, get out. What's the point of a useless individual who's simply a burden to the rest of society?

Well, the Earth was not made for our society of humans.

[Hutch]

Well, the Earth was not made for our society of humans.

Uhmm...erhm...uhmm...no comment.

I'd rather test on animals that we have no need for. Possibly killing one small creature in return of saving thousands of people is very beneficial.

[Texeh]

Well, the Earth was not made for our society of humans.

Then why are we all alive if we were not went for this planet ..
Discounting the Fat & Lazy humans who have nothing to bring to the planet as try said should go die .

As hutch said i would rather test on small stuff to help a bigger subject.

[Clayd]

I am fine with it as long as it's something necessary and the animal was raised by the lab. Like I don't want them going to the nearby shelter and picking a few cats up just to test stuff.. If the cat was raised there the whole time it wouldn't really have the feeling of a domestic house pet. So it's okay.

[GOD]

i'm for it because we need to know what drugs do b4 we abuse them.

[Trey]

I agree, if they expect contribution to better themselves, they must first contribute to the system. Fair enough if someone gets help they can begin to pay tax and we can recoup lost funds but in all honesty some people are beyond help.

I personally value the life of a pig greater than the life of a pedophile. The pig can be eaten, breed or even kept as a pet (weird but it is more and more common these days). The pig can feed on waste which really benefits us. Therefore the pig can contribute to society.

Exactly. People may argue "well it's not his/her fault, he/she was born that way". Well if it isn't their fault that they're a useless individual, why should everyone else have to pay to support them? Why would you invest in something that you'll never get anything out of? Some people simply aren't worth the effort and resources.

[Itz Optic]

There are some ACCEPTIONS in animal TESTING.

But Animal ABUSE is 100% horrible....

[Slik]

There's no such thing as "humane" in the scientific field.

This is a debate about your views and opinion on whether or not animal testing is humane, your statement is void.

[Teapot]

Just do not hurt the pandas, rats are fine like he said, and we are not animals we are MAMMALS.
Yeah we are Mammals but so are Bunnies and Cats and stuff so Test away on humans?

[Cataclysm]

Hmm.. I say test the humans not the animals 80% of this world are dumb fucks. =D

Like my father always said he had 2 kids just incase 1 dies.

Im just kidding bout the second sentence.. lmao