what do u think of animal testing?pro or con?
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.
769508
Well... at least for now that's true.... until some lame-brain from PETA gets civil rights for animals. \n\nHowever you will need more than just an animal's lack of rights to win a debate. Though a good starting point, you will need to build on that primes. Tout the benefits derived from making sure drugs are safe before using them on Humans...
300196
Absolutely! I think that the should develop a more cost efficient way to test hair samples---that way results cannot be falsified. After all, the only people that have to worry about them are people that are doing things they should not.
263723
You can't prevent animal cruelty. Just like you can't prevent people from doing anything else. If people are going to be ***holes enough to be cruel to animals then they're going to do it regardless of what you try to do to prevent it.
543063
For those of you that do not consider testing on animals is necessary, please contact me and I will put your names forward for the next round of clinical tests.\n\nYou can choose from Anthrax, Botulism, Aids, Lassa Fever, Ebola virus, and many others.\n\nStill interested?
892895
I am a huge supporter of animal rights. I do almost all my high school projects on animal rights. The answer why is too long to state.. and it's obvious that the people who support it care for animals. The people who don't are the opposite.
824393
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights\n\nhttp://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?splash&oid=3
797569
A definite no.  I couldn't..not ever.  I'm a vegetarian and I love to see real fur on an animals back where it belongs.\n\nIt's is so unnecessary and so cruel.
333986
i don't think there is anything wrong with wearing fur, but i would like people to hunt the animals them self's and use the entire thing.  Or at least do the research and find out if the place the fur came raised the animals humanely and they did something with the rest like made it into dog or cat food or something like that
1055671
I am all for animal rights. The bulls have been mistreated. Let the animals have their day.
1019853
Yes, it's very effective. In vivo studies gives us a much better understanding than any in vitro study could reproduce. The amount of animal testing now, compared to say 50 years ago is way less. Efforts have been made to improve handling of test subjects, but science has not advanced to a point yet where we understand biological systems well enough to do without in vivo testing. \n\nThe majority of what we understand today about psychology, physiology, medicine, and other biological sciences have involved all sorts of animal testing. It's unfortunate that many of these animals had to be sacrificed in the name of science, but the quality of life medically that we enjoy today can be attributed immensely to animal research.
343177
With animal rights and animal cruelty, it's often not a simple 'yes' or 'no' question, not a simple matter of 'right' or 'wrong'.  There are many degrees.\n\nIf you are talking about animal rights, what rights should an animal be afforded?  Does an animal have the same rights as a human?  Do all animals get the same levels of rights?  Does a single ant have the same right to life and liberty that a human, or even a dog does?  How about a starfish?  A sponge?  An amoeba?\n\nAt what level do you make the arbitrary decision that 'this organism has a right to exist, but this one doesn't?'\n\nDoes the Ebola virus have a right to exist and propagate itself?  If you don't agree a virus has the right to live, how about Cochliomyia hominivorax, the human screwworm?  Should you allow treatment of humans infested with intestinal parasites?\n\nWhere do you draw the line?\n\nThe same can be said for animal cruelty.  Who gets to decide what's cruel?  How exactly do you define cruelty?  Is dropping a kitten in boiling water cruel?  Most people would say yes.  How about dropping a mosquito larva in boiling water?  Or a lobster?  It's cruel to keep a kitten in a jar on your desk, but how about a goldfish?\n\nAs with most things in life, there is no easy answer.  Certainly, there should be some benefit, some gain to humanity that must be demonstrated in order to justify killing another organism, but what level of justification is required?  \n\nIs squirting caustic substances in a bunny's eyes justified if it means we can develop a substance that won't burn a child's eyes?  \n\nIs killing hundreds of thousands, even millions of mosquitoes justified if it keeps one person from dying from West Nile virus?  How about if it means you can have a backyard BBQ without being driven inside by biting flies?\n\nIs shooting a deer justified if it means that a family can eat for a month off the meat?  How about if some guy just really wants to kill something and put its head on his rec room wall?  How about if the deer are so overpopulated that they are becoming diseased and the overall health of the whole population is declining because they have eaten all the available forage?\n\nThere are no easy answers.
65162
I'm against it. \n\n1)There is way too much error in our system (just since dna testing has been a available in a small percentage of capital cases, a large number of convicted people have and to be released.)\n\n2)It is the wrong thing for society -- there are many people that need to be locked up for life, and it would be no great loss if they were dead.  It is a great loss when society kills them. It reinforces the notion that humans have the right to kill each other.\n\n3)All studies have shown little to no deterrant effect, across all societies.  No one about to kill another stops to think "Wait, if I get caught I'll be executed -- better do this where there is no death penalty." Killers in the act don't think they will be caught, or don't think they care.\n\n4) While the system must be more efficient if any deterent is to occur, there is a limit to how quickly and efficiently executions can occur and still be just. Therfore executions will always be  years after the fact, and thus have even less deterrent effect.
336613
Yes.\nFor now it is the only relatively accurate way to assess \ntoxicity of a new substance to living organism.\nIt should be controlled and kept to minimum but no other way, unless those that say "No" would agree to replace suffering animals.\nI simply can't understand people who think that it is wrong to experiment but OK to eat or take away they habitat, poison they environment but when it comes to using them for saving lives of others - no way.\nSimply visit hospital near u and see the suffering of those that cannot be saved - answer is clear (at least to me).
891097
agree 100%\nno animal is at fault\nexcept the human animal\nthe owner of the animal should be jailed & fined for what his/her animal did\nthe animal is only defending itself
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...
583604
first my background- 50+, white male, outdoor sportsman, horseman, several pets over the years, some education past high school but no degree. \n animal welfare is based on what we as a society have decided are the minimum standards acceptable for care and feeding of animals. this can include food , shelter, vet care, and treatment. to my way of thinking it is a legal concept and it is enforceable by law. \n animal rights is a fiction. rights flow from a compact between the parties involved. the phrase "god given rights" is a catch all phrase that refers to rights generally thought to be universal but still based on some sort of agreement between peoples. since there is no such agreements between people and animals there can be no rights conferred thereby. if we look at behavior in nature there are no examples of rights to be found beyond pack or herd law and these are founded in force and never extend to outsiders. \n having said that we should also realize that as humans we do have certain responsibilities to animals. we need to allow for the impact our actions have on them and try to reduce any adverse impacts as much as we can within reason. if we choose to own animals we have a duty to ourselves if not to them to do so in an ethical manner. this means meeting their needs for food, water, shelter, medical care, and proper treatment. the standards for this are not fixed nor universal. a draft horse on a working farm lives a very different life that a pampered show horse due to the differences in time, money, and other conditions. every owner has his own standards and abilities but he should attempt to do as well as he can up to and including realizing that he may not be able to care for his animal and to give it up if that is the case.\n hunters have self imposed ethics to follow. fair chase and a clean quick death are the two major ones. without fair chase hunting becomes just killing and any hunter that is not willing to pass chances where a clean kill may not be possible cannot call himself ethical. very few wild animals ever die quietly in their sleep. nature is cruel. most die either by being ripped apart to be eaten, hunger, exposure, or disease. an ethical hunter may very well give his kill the easiest kindest death to be found in nature.