Welcome to Gaia! ::

Are you for it or against it?

This includes both cosmetic and medicinal purposes.

I don't agree with it for cosmetic purposes, but that doesn't really matter to be cause I don't wear make up. But I do agree with it for medicinal purposes. Sure, there may be alternatives, but the take longer and cost more money so that's unfair to everyone who may benefit from it.

Animal testing is mutually beneficial. Through it, not only have we gotten to learn about human diseases, animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia. It's obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are all able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.

Have you all been vacinated? Because of animal testing, we are safe from the measels, mumps, chickenpox, scarlet fever.. all sorts of nasty things. Now, some people might follow old PetA's motto...
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
But I don't agree. People are the stewards of animals. It's our job to take care of them, and ourselves. If a rat dies so a person might have a higher chance of surviving cancer...isn't that worth it?

I've heard, again and again, that animal testing hurts animals.. that it's horrible and cruel. But riddle me this.. what purpose would abusing lab animals have? Animals that are in pain won't give accurate test results, and so the whole purpose of the test would be worthless. In fact, most of the testing done on animals is painless. Animals are given painkillers and medicine that take care of the side effects of most testing. And you wouldn't believe how many tests products have to go through in order to be able to be tested on animals. It's not as if people are going to just take a random chemical and test it on an animal. It'd be pointless.

Many animal rights' groups say that the alternatives to animal testing would be more efficient, and less expensive. But this isn't true. They campaign mainly for "invitro" testing, which is done on eggs and human cells. They also advocate the use of computer models. But tell me this.. how can a computer tell you how something will react? That is the whole point of a test.. we don't know. Therefore, we can't program a computer to give us results. And invitro testing is all good up to a certain point, but it can't be used for everything. And testing on animals is the most efficent way of testing. That means lower prices on medicine and medical treatments for us, too.

Medication works different on different species. So no. I don't agree with it.

You want to save humans? well kill humans in the way to find the cure.
You want to save animals? kill animals to find a cure

I dont know, i see it like the us army sending a bunch of foreigners to fight and die for the states cause they dont want to kill their own race rolleyes

lol so you think its ok that the cowards send foreigners to fight for them?(oh well i guess thats another argument) i know races and species are not the same but i think its a fine example, test humans to save humans, test animals to save animals.

humas are not gods, or royalty, i dont know why you worship us 'a great scenario cause a human was saved' that's our problem, we think we're superior, we think that because we speak we just have the right to kill everything around us, thats why the earth is dying, if its such a heroic act why dont we sacrifice for teh sake of humanity and let em test us? cause we're cowards and we go after the ones who cant say anything about it.

aaand i wouldnt, i dont respect humans...even thou im one (obviously) rolleyes

btw sentience is the ability to suffer...and animals do suffer

humans have souls and animals dont? xd
i guess i gotta give you credit fro that, people normally say 'humans think animals dont'
There's not even proof that humans have souls (i believe we do, but still, theres no proof rolleyes )

and by gods i mean superior, why kill living creatures to save us, who gave us that right

oh so i can get a gun and shoot a random person on the streets? i mean i can do it, do i have the right?

its not a rational argument because i dont support your point?
And sure ill go kill myself =D should i send you pics as proof or something?

course i wont do it, i mean humans can decide if they want to die for others or not, i just dont want to die for people, what can i say, i was not born a hero, and not because i dont support the theory of testing humans for humans, but because i really dont belive in the good of people like anne frank and im not willing to die for them, as im not expecting anybody to die for me, but i know that if i have a terminal disease and they tell me 'hey we're going to kill 20 dogs to save you' i will say 'at least let me die with a clean conscience'

lol

1:We may not be killing in self-defense but we are killing in self-preservation.

2:Are you saying that it's the same to kill an ant as it is to kill a human?