Amazon.com Widgets

Animal testing: Is it morally acceptable for humans to experiment on animals?

  • Better Them Than Us

    It is morally acceptable to experiment on animals before we experiment on humans because we are the top of the food chain and are capable of abstract thought. Animals aren't humans and we should test certain things on them before testing science and products on us. Yes, animal testing is cruel. However, this has been going on for thousands of years so we just need to accept animal testing as a fact of life.

  • Yes, in some instances, animal testing is acceptable.

    I personally think that animal testing should be done very rarely. As an example, there's no real reason to test cosmetics on animals, because doing so isn't going to potentially lead to some sort of medical breakthrough. But in rare circumstances, animals offer more humane testing subjects than testing on humans would. I think most people would agree that testing a drug on an animal first, and that animal passing away, is less of a tragedy than a human research subject dying. In rare circumstances and for drugs that may lead to medical breakthroughs, I feel we have to make an exception and allow animal testing. But we must also make sure that the animals have good housing and are treated as humanely as possible.

  • It is morally acceptable.

    I think that, even though it is a tough question, it is morally acceptable to use animals as an experimentation study. The reason is that we need to be able to test our medicines and technologies before they are used on human beings. As long as the studies are humane, it's okay.

  • Yes It Is

    I believe it is morally acceptable for humans to experiment on animals, because the alternative is to test strictly on humans. Given that we test things on animals first, we are ensuring that, if there is a problem, we may avoid the possibility of losing human life, because of it.

  • Some Animal Testing Necessary

    In some cases, humans do need to test experiments and products on animals. It isn't always morally acceptable, but non-invasive and non-harmful treatments on animals are perfectly acceptable. Without such experiments, we wouldn't have many products that we use daily now. These products were tested on animals and didn't harm them.

  • It does create a way to understand why certain drugs work the way they do, instead of using humans as experiments.

    Despite people's thoughts and ideas on animal testing. The outcry from human experiments would be so extreme that medicine and technology would not advance. Although a bit inhumane. It is a necessity to further understand advancing medicines for cures to diseases that were once called incurable. It is understood that nobody wants to see a human suffer under testing.

  • Yes, but under certain guidelines

    Animal experiments have historically been cruel, and their continuation can only be justified under certain criteria - particularly, to save human life. Furthermore, what ever experiments are being conducted should be developed enough to ensure the minimal amount of risk and pain would be caused to the animal. Locking a rat in a room full of radioactive waste is not immediately necessary to save human lives, nor is subjecting animals to various toxic health products. However, testing a new HIV vaccine on animals before risking the life of a human is a moral thing to do.

  • Animal Testing Is NOT Morally Permissible

    Animal's are sentient beings and it is immoral to cause pain and suffering to a being who is capable of processing sensory input. Animal's have become part of many families and should be treated as such. Science has also advanced so vastly that there are ways to test substances in other ways. Humans should not have the right to decide whether an animal - who is a sentient being like us - will live in peace of pain.

  • No it is not okay

    Animals have feelings too and should be treated with the respect that we treat humans with animals are important and to treat them like experiments and not living things is disgusting and personally I think that if it might be harmful than why make it people should use safe chemicals so it won't hurt animals or humans.

  • Experiment unnecessary on animals

    Many of experiment done are unnecessary.And since alternatives have been created in place of these tests it makes all the more unethtical .It is immoral to conduct experiment on sentient animals. It is certainly true that animals share good deal in common terms of genetic makeup .However this does not make experiment more acceptable.

  • What the heck? No!

    If animals could be forced to experimented on, why shouldn't we? PETA says that 'animals aren't ours to experiment on.' Many religions, for example Jainism and Islam, consider animal testing a great sin.
    Imagine you're an animal, living peacefully in the wild. Some blokes catch you, trap you in a cage, ship to a laboratory, force your mouth open (hurts, doesn't it?), insert some horribly disgusting substance (you want to spit it out, but those gits won't let you), and if you're dead, RIP, and if you're alive, mazal tov, but you have to live through hell again.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>