Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, Because it's hypocritical to say "no".

    We kill thousands of poultry, Fish, Beef, And other farm animals on a daily basis in order to satisfy society's want for protein, Yet it's not like anyone would go out of their way to say that "we should care more about the lives of our livestock". If you're willing to kill in order to feed your stomach, How hypocritical would it be then for you to say that "animal testing should be banned because it's a violation of animal rights? "

  • But only for medical testing

    Agree this is necessary to support advancements in science and hygiene. Use for cosmetics testing is cruelty in support of vanity. Also need to consider animal pain as a higher cost than it's considered now. More regulation should be in place to assess whether the benefit of an outcome merits the imposition of suffering through more extreme testing.

  • What else would we use?

    What else would we use? Humans? Testing medicine on animals gives the medical society proof on what will happen. Using humans would potentially kill them or hurt them severely. I need some more words so I am typing to get the word limit down. Yay, I'm done now. Thanks!

  • If It Is Meant For Humans, Use It On Humans

    Sometimes when a drug is tested in animals, The anima, S get through testing perfectly, But then once it is cleared for human trial, The results can be catastrophic. Instead we should test on people who need it as a last ditch effort, Patients who are suffering, And this could save them, And if not, Well they were going to die soon, And at least they die knowing that they helped advance medical knowledge.


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.