Should testing on animals be banned?

[Simple]

Animal research has been used for several centuries as part of efforts to better understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research on animals at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard to measure, but according to some estimates it could be as high as 115,000,000 animals per year, with the vast majority of these being euthanized at the end of the period of experimentation.

So, ForumKorner, in your opinion should animal testing be no longer allowed?

In my opinion I think it should because some of the animals used for testing are really close to humans (dogs/cats) and they don't deserve to be "treated" like that.

 

[Bump Bot]

I'd rather test it on animals than humans like the germans did to the jews during ww2.

 

[Profanity]

I say no but I have no real explanation on why I say no.
I deal with lots of exotic animals and s*** and I feel as if they should be treated as living things so I guess that's it.

 

[Ace]

No because when you take a look at the world as a whole and on human survival a couple of animals dieing is no big deal if it is needed it is needed

 

[Yeezus Christ]

In the bible it states that animals don't have souls. Period, end of discussion.

 

[cas]

Humans are often categorized as animals, doesn't mean they don't have souls idiot. Both eat, sleep, mate and fight for survival. How many times has the bible been altered? Okay.

 

[Hitmarker]

In my opinion, it ultimately depends on how the testing is being done, and for what reason(s).

For example, if people are making a new hair-loss restoration pill, and test it on animals it's pretty stupid, and it should be tested on Humans, as that's what the main purpose is for.

If they were to be making it for a specific type of animal, then it should be tested on that type, and that only.

 

[Raptor]

If only we could test on the species of fish that are thought to not be able to experience pain. It depends on whether the testing is humane and under any conditions where the animal may be injured or killed. Testing on animals eliminates bias in the testing sample and increases the ability for results to be empirical.

 

[APHEX]

In the bible it states that animals don't have souls. Period, end of discussion.

You're using the Bible to justify testing products on innocent animals? That is just plain stupid.

 

[Kill]

Then you have to look at the world and think, which ones are the animals? Humans deserve to die as much as animals. We are a barbaric diseased species, so I am going to propose a better solution. Test on prisoners. Not like bank robbing or anything minor... more like repeat offenders such as Pedophiles, Murderers, or Rapists. Crime rates would drop substantially and the trillions of dollars spent a year for upkeep of Jails and such would be lowered, providing money to things that matter.

 

[Yeezus Christ]

You're using the Bible to justify testing products on innocent animals? That is just plain stupid.

Animals don't have souls therefore killing them or doing tests on them doesn't fucking matter because at the end of the day they don't have any significance in the world because they never bore souls.

I like animals and doing tests on them is wrong but God put them on this Earth for man to survive. Not for us to have sympathy for them and whine over a few tests that were performed.

 

[Kill]

Animals don't have souls therefore killing them or doing tests on them doesn't fucking matter because at the end of the day they don't have any significance in the world because they never bore souls.

I like animals and doing tests on them is wrong but God put them on this Earth for man to survive. Not for us to have sympathy for them and whine over a few tests that were performed.

The news told me to wear underwear on my head so I'm doing that now.

 

[cas]

Ever think that not the whole world believes the same religion as you? Do you know that cats were associated with royalty, in egyptian times? Oh wait, you believe there's only one religion, clearly you're aware.

 

[APHEX]

Animals don't have souls therefore killing them or doing tests on them doesn't fucking matter because at the end of the day they don't have any significance in the world because they never bore souls.

I like animals and doing tests on them is wrong but God put them on this Earth for man to survive. Not for us to have sympathy for them and whine over a few tests that were performed.

If I'm not mistaken, beauty products are not necessary for the survival of mankind. You're using an unproven story, full of contradictions, to support your claim that animals have no souls. May I remind you that humans are also animals, therefore in your line of thinking we must have no soul either. Here, let me rub some new untested shampoo in your eyes and see if you don't mind due to your lack of a soul. I mean hey, it's not like your eyes might corrode or something similar?

 

[Yeezus Christ]

Wow we must have a lot of atheists on this site.

 

[Simple]

Wow we must have a lot of atheists on this site.

I think most forums are filled with atheists. (Except religious forums..etc..)

 

[Aura]

I dont think there is any correct answer to this question.

 

[Envy]

Human Testing vs. Animal Testing
I guess it just comes down to whether you like your best friend or your pet more.

 

[Joey]

test it on pigeons and cockroachs theyre nasty lol

 

[Envy]

test it on pigeons and cockroachs theyre nasty lol

DNA must be comparable to humans for testing and a cockroach is a insect.