Forgive me if someone already uploaded this thread.

Today in Art class, while we were doodling away, we brought this topic up amongst my table. I said, "I don't like how they treat the animals, or how they make them be tested for the stupidest things, like make up, BUT I think animal testing has benefited humanity." Of course, they took this as a personal insult, despite my conclusion, "If I had to pick between a rat and a human, it'd be the human, because rats don't have souls."

They said, "Yeah, the rat DOES. How would YOU know?"

And apparently the Bible is not a basis for my morals. But that's to be expected. Just because this ISN'T the Christian Conservatives or other religious thread, I will try to keep my religion out of it, but feel free to use yours. I don't mind hearing it. Personally, I think religion is a good basis for morals. And that's not just because I'm religious.

Whups, off topic there. Anyway- what do you guys think? Is it worth it to test on animals? Is animal testing good or bad?

I'll add more of my arguments in response to yours.

I dont believe in the soul.
Regardless of whether someone does id expect them to empathise with the animals due to their suffering.

Its one of the few areas where i am still undecided. I have major objections to a lot of the stuff they use animals for, frankly i wouldnt allow it for non medical purposes.

The common argument is that computer simulation can replace animal testing effectivelly but iv never seen any evidence for this, and i cant understand the reluctance to switch over if it really was that effective.
Iv been on the fence for a long time and i cant imagine that changing anytime soon.

thenumberone : Actually, that's close to my stance. I believe in souls. But I also KNOW that animals go through a lot of suffering that, quite frankly, isn't fair, and as you pointed out, computer simulation and skin grafts haven't been proven to be anywhere near as effective.

It's been a subject that is talked about for awhile now about people testing new things on animals rather on other human beings, and this has cause PETA mad about, although how much I hate PETA to death, I do in a way agree with for once, I to don't really like animals being tested on because I don't think it's immoral, but to put into more of a scientific form, humans have a lot of different things than any other animal has so that's going to prove some false information. In a way, Animals shouldn't be treated like how people wants to treat them like to forcefully test on these animals for like a competition is just wrong as well, or just testing out on the effects an what a normal human does on an animal.

So all I got to say about this is that animal testing is wrong at a certain extent, most of the animals are defenseless, even know some will fight back, but still, I don't think it's right for an animal to go through this.

It's still wrong even if there's good intentions. The animal no matter what cannot defend against itself while being forced to test these new products. Furthermore I think its kinda stupid to test on animals. Animal's skin is different than human skin so if there is a reaction on the animal skin what's to say that there wont or will be a reaction on the human skin. Granted that it is bad to test it out on humans first but if they absolutely needed a tester why not let someone willing to volunteer try the product out? I'm sure there are people out there in this crazy world that are willing and able to test out products just for the sake of trying them out. 

I don't really mind the idea of testing things on animals if there's an actual point to what they're testing. If it has to be tested on something then I'd choose animals over humans.

I'm kind of on the fence about this subject, but I would say I'm leaning towards the side that is against testing products on animals. I wouldn't want to be forced to test products, and I would imagine animals don't like it, either.

Chewedmint : Well, yes, that is most people's argument. But if we don't test it on animals, then WHO do we test it on? Humans?

That's the problem. We don't really have any other options at this point in time. I'm sure the products would never be tested on humans, though.

Chewedmint : Well, some people volunteer. The problem is that there is too much demand for test subject and not enough supply of volunteers. Hence, the animals. Even in the case of volunteers, the product has usually performed well with animals before they decide to allow humans to test it.

I love animals. I grew up with them, and will always own some.

That being said, if we are to progress scientifically, then yes, a little bit is required. Some might ask "why do we need to progress scientifically?", and I suppose that is a valid point. But I look to the future, and I like to see change.

I think as long as it is done in a safe and respectful manner, some animal test is ok. I don't mean shampoos, but things like testing medicine that could improve lives, should be tested first... though I would rather see human volunteers that force animals into doing so, but that is just not possible most of the time.

I really love the animals and wouldn't want to see them suffering at all!

Regarding the auestion, I would say "yes" but with one single condition: scientists won't make the animals to suffer! In case this happens, I will go with a big fat "No!".

Sorinkun : Yes, most people's problems with animal testing happens to be that the scientists don't treat the animals well before they test the products. Some pain can't  be avoided, but the ailments that CAN... should, of course, be prevented.

Light Knight :
"I think as long as it is done in a safe and respectful manner,"
Thats the problem, half of them dont. My blood boils when i see them kicking and punching the animals. If its to continue i want a lot more accountability. Unanounced inspections, the right for governments to view any lab recordings on demand, and a ban on testing for any corporation found to be causing unnecessary suffering to the animals.
I think theyd take a lot more care if their right to test their products was taken away.

thenumberone : That's a good idea, actually. It might make the activists stop chomping at the bit a little. Some compromise is needed at some point if we are to make both sides anything *near* happy, and I think discontinuing testing of non-necessities such as makeup and bringing codes up to an ethical level, animal testing will not be seen as such an evil, evil thing. Which it isn't. The idea behind it is good. The means to bring that about is not good. The end does NOT justify the means.

thenumberone : Oh I agree. I don't for a second think that all organizations (or even most) treat their animals with care. And like you, I think there should be stricter rules and assessments. 

I don't agree with testing on animals and there should be more guidelines and some punishments for those that do not follow the guidelines. This would probably help a bit.

There has been discussion on this more than thirty years and there are in many cases alternatives to animal testing. The problem is that it just aint as cheap.

Brigand : Nor as effective. While skin grafts show reactions to certain areas of the skin, it doesn' t show how the drug/product relates to the whole body. A patch of skin is not a complex system with entire organ functions. But you're right, alternatives exist but are quite pricey.

Dragonlord Stephi :

Perhaps I should have mentioned also that there are differences in cancer research and cosmetic research. For example. While the other is important, the other might not and perhaps the other has ran its cource, while the other might not so.

But I have to admit, I am an anti-vivisection as if it can be humanly possible. And if it makes sense.