Animal testing as been the method used for conducting research. Where some may have argued that it is required for medical advancement purposes, other people will say that it is wrong and inhumane to do that. What do you think of this ?
-
Welcome to ROFLMAO.com—the ultimate destination for unfiltered discussions and endless entertainment! Whether it’s movies, TV, music, games, or whatever’s on your mind, this is your space to connect and share. Be funny. Be serious. Be You. Don’t just watch the conversation—join it now and be heard!
discuss Is animal testing in scientific research ethically justifiable?
- Thread starter Unvarnished
- Start date
This thread covers all aspects of ideologies, including beliefs, principles, traditions, policies, and their influence on society and culture.
I have a friend who worked as a medical researcher. He made me witnessed how animal testing can be helpful. It has assisted in the development of life saving treatments and vaccines and other health interventions as well. I agree with your concerns but I stand for the fact that the advantages outweighs the disadvantages.
I strongly disagree because animal testing is inhuman and there should be better alternative to this. I heard that computer simulation can be used as an alternative and also in vitro assessments as well. Those are better options.
First and foremost, animal testing has the benefits because it the animals can be used in the development of products which can improve human health. Maybe there is a middle ground like regulating the experiments more.
I agree with animal testing for medical purpose and scientific studies what I disagree is killing animal or torturing animal for fun for instance hunting, rodeo, bull fighting, or even using them in circus.
I agree with you for the most part. I believe it is necessary to do animal testing for medical purposes on top of studying for preparation, to a degree, as there's always a study that may take it too far.
If we were to uncover a new chemical agent that an advisory had come up with, I would surely want to test it on animals to see their reaction, albeit a possible painful death, as well as testing substances or other protocols on how to avoid adverse reactions that can cancel out the chemical. This is so that we could push something out to the population quickly, whether it be information on what to do once exposed so that people don't suffer the consequences of what might come from an attack to a vaccine or medicine that can help in recovery or prevent human death.
However, I disagree with you about hunting. While hunting may be a sport to some, it's also a way to go back to our ancestral roots as hunters and gatherers. I come from the sticks, and plenty of my neighbors would have freezers full of meat from previous hunts they conducted. They didn't hunt for fun, but for food to consume, and, spread throughout the community (deer jerkey, etc.).
If the food is there, and "free", why is it a bad thing to get it by hunting over buying a chunk of tenderloin at the supermarket?
For our ancestors, hunting was necessity. They did not know how to mass produce meat animals. For us, hunting is just a fun activity. I like to separate eating animals for food with hunting animals for fun. I once met an indigenous man who said hunting is less cruel than killing in slaughter house. With hunting you at east give the animal to save its life. I sometimes feel that this s so true.
No, I think it's very cruel and especially unncessary in this modern age. Surely, there are other ways to test things. I think animals should be left alone when it comes to research.
How do you think drug testing can be done if we don't first test on animals?