Debate discussion

37 views
The Government > Animal Experimentation/Testing

Comments Showing 1-39 of 39 (39 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Liz (new)

Liz Should the government test medicine and products on animals if it will help humans? Or is it utterly cruel and awful for them to think animals their inferior subjects to dispose of at their will?


message 2: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments I don't know...One second I lean one way, the next the other. But it sounds like you're for the latter.


message 3: by Liz (new)

Liz No...I really don't know...On the surface it appears to be cruel and awful, but it also saves lives of humans and enables further medical research and advancements.


message 4: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Yup. I don't know.


message 5: by Brigid ✩ (new)

Brigid ✩ Hmmm ... tricky subject here. On one hand, it's horrible for the animals, but it does help a lot of research. Of course, not all animal testing is cruel. It depends.


message 6: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) it depends on the testing and stuff.

medicine i think i alow testing for but cosmetics not so much... althoug i don't stop using cover girl and stuff...


message 7: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) OMGS i HATE zoos and aquariums, even the ones that "rescue" injured animals. its like, its the wild people! they are going to get hurt and you can't use that as an excuse! zoos are awful and wrong and should be illegal.


message 8: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) i sorta disagree. i like them, but they chould be in there natral habitat. in alaska they have an animal reserve where the have rescued animals when they are being taken are of that you drive throgh


message 9: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) wait how is that disagreeing? and the animals are still caged and the smog is bad for them.


message 10: by [deleted user] (new)

Smog is bad for those animals, if anything that's even worse. Testing is just horrible. Why hurt animals if they haven't done anything to you? I find it hard to use a dressage whip let alone test make up on a helpless animal. Testing is very very very wrong. How can you live with yourself if you know that you've harmed an animal for, what, a new make up? Ugh!


message 11: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments For medicine...


message 12: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) its not going to cure the animals!


message 13: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) Emma the Dork wrote: "wait how is that disagreeing? and the animals are still caged and the smog is bad for them."


yes but they are in there natral habitat, when they are being rescued- its not a zoo realy, they let them go after they are done makeing them better.



message 14: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments It's going to cure us. And why kill humans. No offense but do animals win Nobel prizes or anything us humans do? I mean, I'm against makeup testing on animals but for medicine it's necessary.


message 15: by Emily (new)

Emily (emilyamazingxx) | 2237 comments Nobel prizes are pointless. They're just another award given by the government and whatnot with a bunch of money and congratulations..


message 16: by Liz (new)

Liz But the people who achieve them work extremely hard and it is a huge honor. Don't downplay Nobel Prize Winners and their hard work.

I agree. Cosmetics should not endanger the lives of animals but for medicine...testing on animals isn't a good thing, but sometimes very necessary. But does it really save lives? Thats another point to consider. Animals could have very different reactions than humans. Something could end up killing many more animals by being tested than humans if it went untested and was completely safe. Its a tough situation.

But I do think a human's life matters more than an animal's and untested medicine could be extremely dangerous.


message 17: by Brigid ✩ (new)

Brigid ✩ Yeah, I would rather that it was tested on rats than on humans, although the thought is still sad. But we have to make some sacrifices, I suppose. I agree about the cosmetics, too; I think it's reasonable to test, say, vaccines on rats or something, but testing cosmetics is kinda pointless.


message 18: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Yeah. I personally think we should start going without makeup. If people acted like who they really are, the world would be a lot better.


message 19: by Brigid ✩ (new)

Brigid ✩ that would be nice ... unfortunately, it's not really human instinct. everyone is too obsessed w/looking good, because -- let's be honest -- we all want to attract mates, if you know what i mean.


message 20: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments :P yes, I know what you mean. Yeah.


message 21: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments How do you think babies are made? From the storks (and all you people under 10, yes babies do really come from storks. Very nice storks too.)


message 22: by Emily (new)

Emily (emilyamazingxx) | 2237 comments Hopefully no one under 10 is on this site...all kids between 10-11 are lying about their age :P
u have to be 12+ to join this site..


message 23: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) 1st, maria/marsha: you are required to learn about sex & stuf when your 9 or 10 (5th grade)

2nd, emily: everybody fakes there age now adays


message 24: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) animals in a way are FAR more superior than humans and why do you ask? animals have never EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER done ANYTHING that hurt this planet and you wanna know what we are doing? tearing it apart tree by tree, oxygen cloud by oxygen cloud, forest by forest. its simply incredible how ignorant people are! animals did in no way deserve any of the things we have done to them (i.e., test possibly dangerous chemicals on them) and many of the breakthroughs scientists have found are completely pointless! like dynamite, cars, telephones, electricity, iPods, and all that idiotic crap!

and anyway, i don't believe in conventional medicine. if it weren't for conventional medicine, people would have shorter lives, and the earth wouldn't be so overpopulated! i am sorry, but i see NO reason to test medicine on totally and completely innocent rats which in NO way at all deserve to die for the humans that are destroying the world we live on.


and yeah emily, you even have to lie to get an email.


message 25: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Sarah jean wrote: "1st, maria/marsha: you are required to learn about sex & stuf when your 9 or 10 (5th grade)

2nd, emily: everybody fakes there age now adays"


Masha, guys seriously. And whatever, like I remember being 10/9!




message 26: by Emily (new)

Emily (emilyamazingxx) | 2237 comments Sarah jean wrote: "1st, maria/marsha: you are required to learn about sex & stuf when your 9 or 10 (5th grade)

2nd, emily: everybody fakes there age now adays"


I know, I did it too. Like not on here but on facebook I did and on AIM i did.


message 27: by Brigid ✩ (new)

Brigid ✩ i didn't learn about sex until i was eleven!!!
*cough* gee, thanks for TELLING me, mom and dad *cough* i learned from The Video that they showed us in fifth grade. >.<


message 28: by [deleted user] (new)

what makes an animals life more valuable than a human's?



message 29: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Uh...nothing. I think you meant to reverse that...


message 30: by Liz (new)

Liz Masha, did you really have to bring sex into an animal testing/experimentation debate?



message 31: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments So, Sitian, assuming your argument was:
"What makes a human's life more valuable than an animal's?" I will leave that alone because I have the same view.


message 32: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Liz wrote: "Masha, did you really have to bring sex into an animal testing/experimentation debate?
"


*shrugs* I guess I just have a gift!


message 33: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) well liz we are kids..its kind of hard to stay on topic.


message 34: by The (new)

The Pyromaniac00 (pyromaniac00) It's wrong. The animals have done nothing to hurt us and are innocent. They should not be tested on. View everything in this world but also as parrellel. If we were those being tested on by animals would you like it?


message 35: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
That's irrelevant, because animals aren't smart enough to do that.


message 36: by The (new)

The Pyromaniac00 (pyromaniac00) Lauren wrote: "That's irrelevant, because animals aren't smart enough to do that."

If they could though! Think about it in their position! If one of the two objects don't do it! It's unfair!


message 37: by Adam (new)

Adam Andy wrote: "Lauren wrote: "That's irrelevant, because animals aren't smart enough to do that."

If they could though! Think about it in their position! If one of the two objects don't do it! It's unfair!"


We test on humans all the time also. With their consent. I think some animals would be willing to help, especially if it benefits them as well (i.e. curing diseases animals get).


message 38: by The (new)

The Pyromaniac00 (pyromaniac00) Fine. If they already have it and it is 75%+ sure to work to cure it, fine. If it's a human disease test on humans with it and if it's an animal disease then only help animals who already have it. People need to stop testing against human diseases on animals!


message 39: by Adam (new)

Adam Andy wrote: "Fine. If they already have it and it is 75%+ sure to work to cure it, fine. If it's a human disease test on humans with it and if it's an animal disease then only help animals who already have it. ..."

But diseases can mutate between humans and animals, so the more we know about a particular disease is useful. Also animals are so genetically similar to us we can narrow down some specific things very fast, because it may be easier to isolate certain diseases in smaller animals that breed very quickly. For example, rats breed at an alarming rate, so if you want to do some trending on if something will affect later generations rats are a good way to go. That's not really realistic with humans because we don't breed fast enough.

I mean, I'm all for unnecessary testing on animals. But I seriously can't think of a better way to solve these problems. With more advanced mathematical modelling we can get to solutions faster, using less animals to test... but I don't see how it could ever realistically be zero. It's either we test on some animals, including humans, or we don't test at all. (For the record, not testing at all is a worse idea than doing some testing.)


back to top