General

the world is over populated; let people die.

Animal testing has saved millions of human lives, so I support it.

well it's either them or us.........

[quote=Sikiru]These people are just as bad as vegans or vegetarians who refuse to eat meat to "save animals". I'll respect them if they're doing it for their own health benefits.[/quote]
Its healthy to eat meat. They will never convert the entire population of Earth to be a vegetarian either. The people who do it to save animals are idiots because thousands of animals will be killed for food regardless of if they eat meat or not. We have those sharp little teeth for chewing up meat, not munching down on some salads. We're omnivores, not herbivores.

[quote=BIueee]I'll say no. Why should animals suffer for something that will help humans?
"Everyone is equal"[/quote]
-Dreamy sigh- Ah, to be young and ignorant. Those were the days.

I'll say no. Why should animals suffer for something that will help humans?
"Everyone is equal"

[quote=seanvs]Yes, and it also costed the lives of millions of animals. That's why I said that it's hard to argue because people who view humans as superior will never find a reason to be against animal testing. Yes, medicine has progressed massively with animal testing, but we are capable of finding alternatives in 2013. I'm not saying they are as effective as animal testing as of right now, but that should not stop us from trying. It's not an unachievable feat.[/quote]
If the time comes and they create a form of testing that avoids animals entirely, that would be all fine and dandy. I'm not going to hold my breath until then and cut back on the current amount of animal testing going on right now though. You even admitted to it advancing modern medicine by leaps and bounds.

Human beings are superior. We are the top of every food chain. Our species has to come first because if it doesn't people will die. Its selfish and cold, but its reality.

animal testing is cruel for the animal, but what do you expect?
animals are going to die anyway. even if we leave them in their natural environments, they will still die from their natural predators. that's why the people who cry about humans slaughtering and eating animals are stupid. humans eat a bunch of animals but they also protect them too. with or without humans, animals are going to die naturally anyway.

[quote=seanvs]Lol, I love how you act smart and accuse me of fallacious reasoning after shooting me a false dichotomy. How bout none dead? Science is advancing and non-animal experiments can be done with tissue culture, computer simulation, etc. Although there a limitations to these types of testing for now, many centers concentrate on finding alternatives to animal-testing. Just because animal testing is the cheapest and easiest way, doesn't make it justifiable.[/quote]
Those alternatives aren't going to be nearly as accurate as testing it on a live animal. Animals have vast and complex systems, and testing something on a couple of cells isn't going to give you nearly as accurate data.

If animal testing never came into existence, countless number of lives would have been lost. Every pill, vaccine, or shot you have ever received in your life has gone through animal testing to make sure it doesn't harm you. I love animals, but unless they are endangered somehow, I don't mind testing on cats, dogs, mice, rats, ect if it keeps our species alive and well. Call me cold hearted if you must, but you cannot deny that animal testing has saved a lot of people.

[quote=seanvs]Lol, I love how you act smart and accuse me of fallacious reasoning after shooting me a false dichotomy. How bout none dead? Science is advancing and non-animal experiments can be done with tissue culture, computer simulation, etc. Although there a limitations to these types of testing for now, many centers concentrate on finding alternatives to animal-testing. Just because animal testing is the cheapest and easiest way, doesn't make it justifiable.[/quote]

mmHmm. Yes. Science, right now, is advanced enough to run a simulation of every idea of vaccination perfectly to cause no deaths. ("none dead&quot And even though we do run a simulation, how reliable can it be?

For medical purposes only, but not cosmetically

[quote=seanvs]I guess arguing is pointless. Long as you view animals as objects, there are no cons to animal testing. I just don't think its justifiable to cause so much pain and suffering to innocent beings for the sake of human medicine. You guys probably think its fine to set up sweat shops to pay 10 bucks less on your jeans.[/quote]

Then who or what should we test on to find cures and vaccines? Would you rather let an animal be dead, or yourself dead? And that last sentence is a fine example of fallacious reasoning

Testing on criminals or animals?

Guys, guys...why not both?

[quote=seanvs]I guess arguing is pointless. Long as you view animals as objects, there are no cons to animal testing. I just don't think its justifiable to cause so much pain and suffering to innocent beings for the sake of human medicine. You guys probably think its fine to set up sweat shops to pay 10 bucks less on your jeans.[/quote]

We already have sweat shops which allows us to pay 10 bucks less on jeans. Pretty sure its in china somewhere.

Im ambivalent towards it.

On one hand, its not good for the animals. Cruel in most cases, being born...Then subjected to experiments until inevitably you die. thats a horrible thing.

But at the same time, it can create good, without animal testing we wouldnt have alot of the medical advancements we have today, its a good thing coming from an awful source.

animals weren't put on this planet to be our buddy pals (with some exceptions)
might as well get some use out of them

[quote=Kalemora]Sorry I can look beyond an obvious appeal to pity. Animal testing for medicinal purposes is perfectly fine.

Also lol at the people who feel bad for animals but don't care when rats are test subjects. Let's save teh animals guise! But only if their qt kk?[/quote]

This guy has common sense. Everything you said was exactly what I had in mind. And @Snicklefritz, thank you for blacklisting me since you couldn't come up with something to say back at me.

Pro animal testing. All those documentaries were aimed at making you feel bad and aware anyways, diverting the need for the cure. Sorry, did they have a better idea of how to test? Will they fund the explorations to test other things? No answers? Okay then, cheapest solution will be animal testing.

Personally...I really wanna test it on the really bad criminals...but then thinking back on past wars, wouldn't we be bad too?

Test them all...TEST THEM ALL. Hopefully to cure Lupus & autoimmune stuff first.

I also agree with @christien

[quote=seanvs]Id rather test on some criminal who killed a dozen of little kids than some innocent beagle who just came to life[/quote]

They don't really use dogs and stuff for much animal testing. It's mostly nearly identical genetically bred mice or rabbits.

OT: It really depends on what you consider ethically correct. Sure criminals have done wrong, but testing on them would make you no better than the WW2 governments who did the exact same thing. Look up Unit 731. That was supposedly in the name of science and research into the effects of chemical warfare.

I'm against it, those animal adoption commercials with the sad music always get me.

[quote=seanvs]If you can watch [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfKXq9BL29o]Behind the mask[/url] and still be pro animal testing, you're heartless and probably lived a horrible abusive childhood.[/quote]

Would you rather let the animal be tested on, or yourself be tested on

Hahaha oh I had to write a position paper on this. I argued for animal testing. When you're testing for a potentially harmful vaccine or cosmetic, just a better idea to risk the life of an animal than a human's. Though some testing practices are pretty inhumane to animals, it's more humane than endangering human lives. It's the lesser of two evils.

[quote=Quasar]What if we used criminals for testing? o.o[/quote]

That would go against the Bill of Human Rights. Unless you want the united nations coming after you, you shouldn't use humans as lab rats.

What's the point of saving many lives?

we should change animals for criminals. using animals and don't let them to live a decent life its just not ok

@Wulphs: Because I feel that its wrong. Why do I feel that its wrong? Its a feeling. I am uncomfortable with the idea of using experiments on innocent animals. Its all based on my morals, so its an opinion of mine. But rats? ...yeah idgaf bout them lol.

[quote=Quasar]What if we used criminals for testing? o.o[/quote]

Shoot.. o.o never actually thought about using criminals. And I support-....let me think about it

EDIT: One of my family members told me that testing in criminals cannot be done because according to the Declaration of Independence, " All men are created equal" so she said that we can't let criminals to be tested on because every human has the same rights

I'm with @Quasar
We should test on criminals instead

[quote=Quasar]What if we used criminals for testing? o.o[/quote]

Apparently we're okay harming other species except our own, even if they're criminals.

What if we used criminals for testing? o.o

[quote=Wanton]Against because ever since I saw an animal testing documentary it's just no okay[/quote]

Can you explain to me why you are against it?

Against because ever since I saw an animal testing documentary it's just no okay