Do you support animal testing?

For pros:

One thing you can say is that people do not understand how important animal testing is until a family member is impacted by a disease or allergy.

It is a very symbiotic relationship that is also a very integral part of medical research. Testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection. In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures related to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung diseases.

Cons:

The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice.

Oh boy Do I. I sometimes go out into the woods and just start giving animals I see pop quiz's on biology. Stupid animals.

I know, terrible joke, but I'm tired and about to go to sleep.

I guess so.

Not painful tests.

Yes, as long as it is not abuse.

Hell no. What gives a human the right to experiment on other species?

I'm working as a research associate in a university (microbiology, particularly in microbial biotechnology for drug discovery) and testing potential drug compounds in vivo is very important. Lab or in vitro tests is nvever enough because it is very hard to simulate the conditions of the body. For example, i currently work with breast cancer cell lines (and some pathogens) and test drugs that are capable of killing these types of cells. A positive result does not necessarily mean that its the cure for cancer because the compound may also be harmful (cytotoxic) to other cells (and cell lines which are propagated in the lab) and each cell is different. The drug should be tested on how it interacts with other factors that are difficult to include in the laboratory, such as hormones etc. That's why drug discovery could take decades.

And the mice that tested on are BALB/c mouse which are laboratory bred.

Yes, it is a necessity for science. And the lives of people are far more important.

Not at all. Hulk think it's cruel.

Yes, as long as we're not going out and killing animals for some crappy experiment. I'm all for animal experimentation if it helps further medicine or anything like that in a beneficial way for everybody. You gotta do what you gotta do.

But surely Banner has lab tested animals.

yes I support it

Sometimes

Killing an animal for medical research is as justified as eating an animal for food.

Both are for survival and to keep people alive, we wouldn't test on humans like we wouldn't eat humans.

pros and cons for animal testing is like pros and cons for legalizing cannabis, so many pros and 1 con,"some people dont like it"

By what authority do animals claim rights?

I concur.

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: Get the hell off my thread!

@mistresssobeautiful: Your thread? This is my thread. You haven't been paying your CV taxes. I'm afraid we are confiscating all of this. I'm going to have to ask you to...

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: This is a free account. I'm going to ask you nicely to leave this thread- I don't know why the hell you are messing with me ;(

No.

By that logic, what authority do humans?

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:

@mistresssobeautiful: Your thread? This is my thread. You haven't been paying your CV taxes. I'm afraid we are confiscating all of this. I'm going to have to ask you to...

Ha ha ha ha!

Good point/points.

Free?

FREE?

I do not

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: Please check up on the latest Mental Hospital you need you crazy b*****

If it's necessary, sure.

I do wonder why humans are so arrogant though. We see ourselves as some higher form of life. What if an extraterrestrial presence were to show itself? Incredibly more advanced than ourselves? Next to which our towns and cities looked like mere ant-hills, and humanity an ant? Would we expect them to experiment on us because we shared similar DNA? Obliterate us to harvest our world as we harvest wood from fauna's habitats? The answer is no, so why do we assume we take precedence over an animal?

You may label this as reductio ad absurdum but I think it a fairly appropriate metaphor.

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: @mistresssobeautiful: This is funny, one would expect a girl to get special treatment in what is essentially the sausage fest known as Comicvine

@rogueshadow: AMEN!! Seriously I agree. Just because we are more advanced does not mean we can just take advantage of all the other creatures on the Earth. Everyone here saying that animals aren't as important as us would all of the sudden call it cruel and unfair if someone in turn did it to them.

On topic: No I don't unless extremely necessary and it's not going to kill the animal.

I'm crazy, but I ain't no female dog!

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: Nonono, you read it wrong. The "b*****" would be "b_ _ _ _ _" which has too many spaces for the "Bitch" word. Therefore I have concluded that she called you a "Banana".

Sincerely,

Kinda.

@jokergeist: Canada?

The shouldn't have to claim anything, it should be common sense to not impede superiority over any other living thing

This thread is full of trolls but my answer is:I'm against the animal testing except if tests are made on the so called trolls (On here).

It's not about rights at all.

What gives a lion the right to eat a Zebra? Nothing, but he does it anyway for food.

It's called nature people, the stronger species using the weaker species as a means of survival. Like a human would test medicine for the survival of the human race.

When the stronger species (humans) have an option to not test on animals it becomes not so simple. A Lion doesn't really have a choice

S by your logic if an advance alien species were to come down to earth they have every inherent right to enslave and run tests on you?? Good to know.

This type of animal testing I approve of :)

A completely implausible and fake hypothetical situation...nice.

Also, there are no rights in survival, rights are man-made to dictate how we live in society. In survival, it's do or die. If an [this is so stupid] alien race was on the brink of death, and the only way to ensure survival was to kill humans, you bet they are going to kill humans and feel justified doing it.

Furthermore, what if humans don't have a choice? What if a new disease was ravaging the Earth, and they needed test subjects? Not testing on animals for the betterment of mankind is idiotic.

@ximpossibrux: sounds like you are winning the argument

Without animal testing, millions of people could not currently be alive. The only people I can imagine that would fight so ardently against animal testing are those that haven't had to rely on the benefits of it. Anyone old enough to remember when the polio vaccine came about? Does anyone know how the vaccine came about?

You read my mind.

I concur with your concur.

But do you concur-er?

Mixed Feelings

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:

@ximpossibrux said:

Killing an animal for medical research is as justified as eating an animal for food.

Both are for survival and to keep people alive, we wouldn't test on humans like we wouldn't eat humans.

I concur.

I concur with your concur.

But do you concur-er?

I am conqueror!!!

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:

@norrinboltagonprime21 said:

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:

@ximpossibrux said:

Killing an animal for medical research is as justified as eating an animal for food.

Both are for survival and to keep people alive, we wouldn't test on humans like we wouldn't eat humans.

I concur.

I concur with your concur.

But do you concur-er?

I am conqueror!!!

A Canadian Crusader?