Is Animal Testing for Human Products morally right?
156574
I don't think we should test such paltry things as beauty products on animals.  I don't think we should use animals for research of any kind UNLESS we can show that it is a study that will possibly save or extend human life, and that no human beings are willing to participate in the testing.  Any animals used for this purpose should be put into a state of sleep or made insensitive to pain.  They should be rewarded with everything they like best.  They should be given names, and these names should be listed on the products for all people benefitting from these tests to read.
429288
It has been proven numerous times that animal testing is pointless, because more often than not, when tests of a product are performed on humans, the results are very different that they were when the tests were performed on animals, so the animals were tortured by souless people for no reason.\n\nMurderers, rapists and child molesters should be used for testing.  At least then they could actually be giving back from the society that they took from, instead of just enjoying themselves in prison.
725511
Because animal systems operate in a very similar manner as that of humans (after all, we're animals, too), testing on animals reveals the most information about how a chemical will work inside our body.  Animal testing results in products such as vaccines, medicines, and other materials to be marketed safely to improve the lives of the people that use them.  Animal "torture" and "murder" is practically unheard of in a professional lab, and many regulations ensure this.  Animal research cannot be conducted by just any person off the street.\n\n\n\nPS- Notice how all the web sites against testing are PETA-sponsored????
526845
Well if we don't test on animals then we won't find out that our new drugs are harmful until humans start dying.\n\nThe death of a thousand non-sentient animals is worth it if one human life is saved.  Now consider that without animal testing thousands of humans would be dying that otherwise would live and it seems pretty clear that the terrorists at SHAC, et. al. need to be opposed.
502947
Scientists do. They may work for a pharmaceutical company, government or on their own. They test it on lab animals until they can prove that they have enough justification to start testing on humans. Then they have to get it approved for testing by the FDA.
450503
Ok, this is the thing. As far as morality is concerned there is no real right and wrong. That is totally determined by the person who is in the situation. Society has a grander scale on which they see things as right or wrong but then again society doesn't enter into this question.
513439
I can't watch any more of that - it's making me sick. I don't agree with treating animals that way. However, I don't think that means we should not eat meat. It means that we should be treating the animals differently while they are alive and killing them in humane ways. The people that don't abide by that should be prosecuted. It's no different than someone who abuses their dog.
721657
It takes a while to get to the animal rights part...\n\nFirstly, one thing is I think most liberals (and most people in general) do care what happens to unborn babies, even if they support women's rights to abortion.\nIt's just that an abortion supporter is also considering the negative impacts of a mother giving birth to a child she isn't ready for, or doesn't want. When this is taken into consideration, a decision (of whether to have the child or abort) is a weigh up between the good and bad outcomes on each side. Someone's opinion on this then depends on what sort of being they perceive an unborn child to be at different stages of development - how aware it is, etc. It also depends on how they feel the mother and child's lives will be if the child is born. To me it is morally fair for a mother to abort, if she has given the matter enough thought. I certainly feel compassion for an aborted child (and a little for a wasted sperm or egg when I think about it), but I also think lives would come out worse in general if mothers weren't allowed to abort.\nIt seems there are certain positive things we do in terms of  actively caring for unborn babies: medical things, dealing physically and mentally with pregnant mothers, and educational things, improving how everyone acts, like promoting safe sex, etc. (I think abortion actually falls under the first category. Although it doesn't immediately "care" for the child being aborted, I think it brings more positive benefit for mothers and children in general.) So I suppose one's perception of how we treat unborn babies depends on whether they think we are doing well in these areas. No doubt they could be improved...\nAnimal rights activists clealy believe we are not doing well in our treatment of animals, so spend time and energy trying to change this. However, this doesn't mean that they don't care for unborn babies. But they may well spend more effort in promoting animal rights than promoting unborn babies' rights (which they might have done by promoting safe sex for instance). So an observer might think the activist cares *more* about animal rights than unborn babies, however this might be false. The activist might simply think we are already treating unborn babies fairly well, but animals very badly, so feel it's more important to act on the animals issue. So I don't think it's twisted that someone does this, it depends on subtle perception differences. In fact it's probably important that there are people specifically involved in each of these (and of course other) issues. That way they can do a lot to promote that one issue, and someone else can deal with other issues. All of these things do need improvement.
825667
My view is that if it can save a human life by killing a few dogs and cats then im all for it.\n\nIf you are talking about dogs and cats used in beauty test ... i say let humans test em, lol.\n\nok some big words coming but bear with it and keep reading.\n\nnow seriously, if you want to make a case for pro-animal test, then look up "Something the Lord Made."  It is a film about the first doctor(s) who did open heart surgery. The main doctor in the film was able to find a cure/treatment for Traumatic Shock that has saved countless lives. This procedure was tested on animals. Later this same doctor tested on animals to try and cure "Blue Babies," AKA children born with the tetrology of Ferlo (i didn't spell that one right). His procedures were once again only able to be tested on animals. This to has saved countless lives as today there are about 130,000 heart surgeries done yearly. All possible by the poineers who tested on animals first.\n\nSorry i don't remember their names out write but looking up the movie you will be able to find their names.  Your teacher might even let you use the movie as one of your sources for your essay.
195979
In psychology, researchers must pass an ethics test before conducting research using human participants.  Both ethics and values can be taught, but not all will follow them.
66118
Kindness and respect.  \n\nI think we have a responsibility to care for all animals with kindness and respect.  That includes the care and treatment of our pets as well as the care and protection of wildlife.  Although I often raise animals for meat, I believe that even an animal that is to be used for food should be treated with kindness and respect.  \n\nWhile I think that it is prudent to treat vegetable life with respect, I believe there is a difference.  Animals are living, breathing, thinking creatures.  They have relationships within their own social groups.  Many times within those groups other creatures rejoice in their birth, enjoy (and often share) their care, and mourn their passing.  Additionally, many of these creatures relate to us on terms we can appreciate and enjoy.  Therefore, they are valuable to others in their own group, as well as having value to us.  For that reason alone, their ability to "build" relationships, I feel we are ethically obligated to should show them kindness and respect them as living creatures.
778963
I totally disagree with animal testing. They do not only use unadoptable animals they use specially bred dogs, maily beagles. These animals have a miserable existence and some suffer abuse from the lab technicians if they don't tow the line i.e. allow blood to be taken from the vein in their necks without struggling. I have suffered a great deal of trauma from what I have experienced first hand of this practice. It's no good saying only necessary experiments can be done as this is just too ethically difficult to decide so a blanket 'permission' is given to the drugs companies. Each study uses about 50 dogs who only stay alive for 6 months and are then all euthanised. Some of the technicians find this funny....I have seen this! These animals respond to love .... I tried to give it to them....but it didn't save them, probably made it worse for them to accept the cruelty and suffering.
109467
Many people both Vegetarians and Non-Vegetarians avoid products that have been tested on animals.Animal rights groups try to expose such companies.Such as People for Ethical treatment of animals.Animal testing is extremely cruel and uneccessary.
390764
While I am not in favor of either (Pro-life,own a pitbull), I do know that mankind has a tendency to use things such as extreme animal rights activism as a dumpimg ground for the suppressed guilt they feel because of having mistreated humanity in some way or other. \n\nDeep down inside, our society feels that animals are equal to (in some cases,like PETA) or are superior to humans. \n\nThis notion is clearly evident in legislation, where killing a child is okay and a matter of "choice" and where you end up fined/jailed for killing a pet. This a complete reversal of nature. We are to love one another above ourselves and have rulership/dominion over animals. This is the true natural order.
1044795
I would stop all animal suffering from humans.  They are so innocent and we are greedy.  Because of our Greed others suffer.\n\nThere is no BALANCE by torturing animals for our own aesthetics.
372546
Personally I think we should treat those cruel to animals the same.  If they beat an animal...they should be beaten.  Starved, maimed...all the same.  Humans are supposed to have a higher intellect.  Well, I sure havn't noticed it.  I view cruelty to animals as some impotent man trying to get his jollies somewhere else...
346647
Of course not.\n\nBecause who's ethical codes to you follow? All have their flaws and their good points!\n\nBest to just do what you feel is wrong and right and hope for the best.