• It is murder

    In order to test it people will inject the problem into the animal and then test the cure. If the cure works there my be side effects and if it doesn't work it can kill the animal. The side effects can also kill the animal or cause unnecessary suffering, thus creating another problem that we need to cure (or just kill the animal then creating more death.

  • This is not okay

    The animals have unwritten rights, that we need to learn to respect. It isn't fair to kill an animal to find out things that we would like to know. The human population is higher than any animal, and humans need to start learning to take care of and respect the nature and outdoors.

  • Eskeeeeeeti teskeeetit they are a bit noncy

    They kill and harm animels and dat innit man doesn like how they do dat they have bare feelings innit gosh darn it exuce me im a catholic. Anyway bare times it dont even work like uno yeh and imagine you are animal yeh that is all i got to say

  • Jakeb grant is a legend

    Women should be paid the same as men because they are also human and should have the same right as men because if it was the other way around it would be a massive argument and there would be a lot of protest and the government would be in a lot of trouble.

  • Jakeb grant is a legend

    Women should be paid the same as men because they are also human and should have the same right as men because if it was the other way around it would be a massive argument and there would be a lot of protest and the government would be in a lot of trouble.

  • Why must we cause unnecessary suffering?

    Testing on animals causes suffering and death of innocent animals. Why should we force another animal to suffer purely for our own benefit?
    Today we have many alternatives to animal testing like InVitro, computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic testing methods, and non-invasive imaging techniques. These numerous techniques have been proven to be more reliable and accurate than testing on animals. InVitro tests can be done as quickly as 3 minutes while animal tests can take several months to conduct. Additionally, some of these alternative methods cost less than half of the costs required to store and test on animals.
    We realized that it was cruel to forcibly test medicine on black people and Jewish people. When will we come to our senses and realize that animal testing is just as bad? Why do we still make animals suffer when we have other methods?

    Posted by: izz0
  • Medical testing on animals is cruel.

    It's pretty much animal abuse. Most of the tests fail on people,
    but works on animals. To many animals, a rain would be toxic,
    but to a human it is just fine. This shows how animals and pe
    -ople are very different. So when medical testing harms animals,
    it is really bad.

  • Yes it’s cruel

    They also use low income people and drug addicts as guinea pigs it’s morally wrong to do these experiments on animals and humans there are better methods of testing things if Man is so brilliant and how many cosmetic products do they need they already have all this information done in the past bunnies go blind have you ever had shampoo or any kind of chemical in your eyes, How does it feel? To subject animals to excruciating pain is sadistic and inhuman for profits and funding more than anything besides if you haven’t seen the commercials all those cure all meds pills have side effects which hurt humans especially children on drugs for just being kids

  • Animal testing isn't always accurate.

    While I can understand why some people think that animal testing is necessary, I also know that it is not always the most accurate. We can choose any animal with a similar genetic or physiological makeup to humans, but these creatures will never be truly identical to us. Therefore, not all drugs can affect them the same way that they will affect people. Studies show that about 86% of the drugs that are tested positive on animals are not approved for humans, because of undetected side effects. Do we not remember what happened with a wonderful drug called Thalidomide? It was working just fine on animals, but it caused severe birth defects in humans. Even after animal tests, human testing is also done for medicine. We really should work on enhancing our technologies in order to prevent mistakes that are made in animal testing, as well as on making human testing more common.

  • Stand for animal rights

    Animal testing is equivalent to non-consensual experimentation on humans; animals cannot choose to participate in medical procedures, nor can they decide to stop participating. Another problem is difference in physiology; animals have different systems than humans. Just because an experimental drug may produce an intended result in animals does not guarantee it will work on humans.

  • Humans are the ends.

    As most people know, there are three parts of an action, the intent, the means, and the ends. In testing potential drugs on animals, the intent is to ensure health and well-being to our posterity; the means is testing the drugs on the animals; and the ends is healthy, more prosperous humans.

  • It's a necessity

    Frankly, though it pains me to say it, there are no reasonable alternatives to animal testing in order to develop life-saving drugs. The alternatives are simply ineffective. In vitro systems cannot replicate full organisms in any meaningful way. Simulations are still a long way from being able to accurately predict interactions between drugs and the human body, and other techniques are similarly limited. There is no doubt that we need effective medical testing, and the day that one or more of these options produce results meaningful enough to obviate the need for animal testing is one I look forward to seeing, but medical testing is necessary, and this is the best way to do it, despite being flawed itself.

  • For the greater good

    Honestly, it depends on the vitality of said research, as well as if we already know effector not. If it's not gonna save lives, then I'd keep it to human subjects. Animal testing is used in the initial stages of researching new medicines, where it can be tested to see if it works, and if it has any general side effects. It then moves on to human testing on volunteers to ensure that it reacts the same in humans.
    Personally, if lives are saved by this drug that is being made, animal or human, I'd consider it a worthy cause. Sometimes, things must be sacrificed to advance medical knowledge.

  • Animal testing is not wrong

    Testing on animals is not very good for animals, but would you rather want humans to experience the tests? Are you valuing animal lives more than your own species?!?! If you want to test on humans, you can test on yourself. Then see if you still want to test on humans instead of animals.

  • Animal testing is better than the alternative

    When you test on animals, you are preventing humans from the faults of medical equipment. Would you rather have humans be killed by the object of the test than the animals? Are you valuing animal lives that you don't even know about more than the human race? I would rather have tests done on animals then on humans.

  • Forget Jesus, mice died so that we could be here today.

    The reality is that animal experimentation has saved more lives than people on the left side would like to admit. The obvious argument against it is that most humans would not want consent to be medically experimented on, but the difference between a human's intelligence and most animals' intelligence is vast. Animals simply would not be aware of the potential harm of medical testing, and I believe that as long as unnecessary suffering is kept at a minimum, we should not abandon a practice that has saved countless human lives and has reduced species-wide suffering greatly.

  • We need this.

    Most of our medical advances, test and health information have come from testing animals. It would be more cruel to test humans than animals in my view. What would we know about health, medications and more had we not tested animals? Test humans? Nope, unless you find a human willing to be subject to a risky experiment, it will be pretty hard. Testing and studying can be the best way to contribute to our feild of knowledge on health care and nutrition. So Between the option of testing humans or closely related species such as mice (really your going to complain about mice people!?). It minus will be more humane to test humans since we have more loved than animals(and it’s not like we’re going to take away your dog or cat ok.). Plus that dumb pic with a cute looking Rabbit is nothing more than propaganda and is used to emotionally effect you into ways of thinking “oh what a poor thing.”. Yes testing animals may not be ethical, but for the sake of a lot more humans it minus will be. Last thing is we should just be thankful that we have animals to test in the first place.

  • Humans need to be first.

    We should try to be nice to animals but when it comes down to helping mankind animals should be put second. We should weigh humans well being over animals because we should look out for one another. The animals sacrifice sad but it is a good thing for mankind. If you think that medical testing on animals is wrong you might think that eating animals is wrong as well but we need to take care of our selves then we can worry about other animals.

    Posted by: CFS
  • People are worth it.

    People can justly use any of earth's resources and creatures to maintain and extend peoples' existence. Animal life uses any and all resources available. Plant life uses any and all resources available. Microbial life uses all resources available. Plants/Animals/Microbes consume one another. It is not wrong to use animals for medical testing, as it is not wrong to use plants to build houses, or use animals for food.

  • Would you rather test on humans?

    Sometimes, I don't know if I should be laughing of whining when I see so many people sympathizing with lesser beings.

    I could point out all the medical advances that couldn't have been achieved without animal testing, the list is quite impressive and should be enough to silence all - but I'll leave it to others.

    But why do people feel sorry for those beneath them? We're better than animals, we achieved what no other species ever has before us. Our strive for greatness must not be contained by nonsensical emotional outbursts, else we'll never leave this rock.

    Get a hold of yourself and cease the misplaced empathy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
whiteflame says2018-04-23T15:32:33.187
It seems like the most common response to this on the "Pro" side is to state that animal testing isn't accurate in a lot of cases. That's true, and labs over-interpreting results is no benefit to anyone. We should always take efficacy data in animals, particularly non-primates, with a massive grain of salt. However, I think all of these arguments miss the essential reasons why animals are used. To start, the data that is actually most important is safety, not efficacy. Understanding what is a lethal or damaging dosage of a given drug is essential before proceeding to any tests in human beings. However, to all of those who say that they don't work, I just have to ask: what do you suggest gets used instead? Cell and tissue cultures do not adequately represent organs or organ systems, which means they are extremely limited in the information they can provide. Simulations are grossly inadequate, providing only data we already know about specific interactions, which is pretty poor when we're talking about new drugs and biologics. Testing that early in humans represents a dramatic risk to their health, which would put every single clinical trial at massive risk of lawsuits, since there's no feasible way someone could consent to every single unknown risk. So, how else would you handle this?