Should animal testing be legal for medical research purposes???

Asked by: stanley_king
  • The most humane way of testing.

    To say animal test is wrong is inhumane. If we didn’t test on animals thousands of HUMANS would suffer or die. Yes animals dying because of side effects is bad, but it is no where near a human dying because of some horrible side effects. I don’t care what you say human life is far more valuable than a rat.

  • Lesser of the evils

    Animal testing saves people's lives. If we could only test humans finding willing volunteers for something that has never been tested on animals would be incredibly difficult. Medical research and progress would halt.

    Unnecessary suffering for animals should be avoided, so if possible the medical testing should avoid causing the animal pain (i.E. Use anesthesia). But human life should come first.

  • The lesser of two evils

    It is regrettable that animals must be tested on for medical purposes, but it is indeed absolutely necessary. We can't go straight from a petri dish to a human test without first testing on animals; better a rat dies of some horrible side-effect than a human.

    Anyone who thinks it's not okay to test on animals for medical purposes but who isn't also an outspoken vegan is an incredible hypocrite.

  • It is purely inhuman!

    How would you like to be a scientific project and be subjected to cruelty. Although it may benefit others due to medical breakthroughs, I don't believe that it makes it OK to sacrifice the life of an animal. I believe that it is simply quite rude how people could just push aside the rights of poor animals for our own benefit.

  • Only if it was intended to help the welfare of animals.

    However, it wasn't the case for animal testings because its purpose of animal experiments was to check the safety of products for human usage. There is a lot of products tested on the animals so it's an example of animal cruelty.

    I'd give my support if the products were tested on human beings. Hell, it'd be profit for human test subjects.

  • Sdl;gkrgl;hkl[pr,jkmnmm ghk hkg hig

    Alsanlfankflsjflkasjfnaslfnalsk dfkgkfmgsndfiog dfiguiodfguio sdfigjirg rimirmg grigmirmgir gmrigim m rgrig oofgoo gokrog orkgokropggmgopl hi hi hih hih hih hih hih hih hi hih ih hi hi hi hi hi hih ih ih h ih ih ih hih ih ih ih ih ih hi hih ih ih hi hi hih ih f fasfnmlfnkeflfnekf.Dkfj

  • Torchure inhumane JERKS

    Just because animals can't argue with us about it doesn't mean it is okay. Animals can't speak or stand up for themselves . Would you like it if somebody came up to you and sprayed you with deadly gases;no you wouldn't . It's just wrong. I would rather smell bad then use perfume that was tested on a bunny rabbit. Animals have feelings too!😡

  • To ask this question should be to answer it.

    "the question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?" - Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832.

    Do I want to live if I can be given some medicine, the development of which caused horrific suffering to thousands of rabbits? No thanks, I'll take death, with a clean conscience.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Skeptical1 says2016-09-10T13:08:34.257
"I believe I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. "

Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain.