Animal Experimentation (Revised Poll)

[Diane_Windsor]

Started a new poll since the other poll was poorly worded.



DW

 

[VictorianVelvet]

I am totally against animal experimentation of any kind. It isn't necessary anyway. Think of all of the animal experiments they did on the pharmaceuticals that they ended up pulling off the market because of bad side effects. What a waste!

 

[anna9559]

Thanks Diane for revising the poll, i wasn't really thinking at the time! Anyway, i'm against animal experimentation when it comes to testing cosmetics. Didn't we start out with finding a cure? Why do we have to pump lotion into their stomachs or spray perfume in their eyes? What's the point?

 

[YC Bearzie]

I voted other

I only agree w/ experiments being done on animals for medical technologies; however the animal has to have the ailment that they are testing new drugs for. I thnk that this is the only way that animals should be tested, or humans for that matter.

Quite often standard medical treatments don't work and they need to test out something new. That does not mean that it should be tested on someone or something that is totally healthy. If a human wants to test out a new cream or type of cosmetic to see whter or not it irritates the skin- test it out yourself!

 

[JesusRox]

I am against animal testing/experimentation 100% for any reason.

 

[Abner Cadaver]

I take care of lab animals. I can tell you from first hand experience the animals are treated as humanely as they possibly can.


Out of our labs alone we've developed a pill that stops certain kinds of leukemia in it's tracks, another that arrests certain forms of lung cancer, and we've helped develop open heart surgery so children's survival rate has gone from 10% to 98%, just to name a few things which are easily explained.There are many others. If you had a child born with a congenital heart disease you'd support research using animals. The lady who came to talk to us who was given a year to live ten years ago certainly was appreciative.

 

[YC Bearzie]

I am in a way appreciative of the medical technology that has become of testing on animals. But I really wish that all theses experiments were done on animals that needed the treatments or surgery. But life really isn't fair, and it never will be either.

 

[Oblivious]

I voted other. As stated (by me ) in the other thread - if animals are being used to better human life (testing for disease cures, etc.) then I don't have a problem with it. I admit I don't know enough about reseach to know if testing on animals is absolutely necessary in this case. If it isn't, then I prefer they don't use animals for testing.

 

[JesusRox]

I take care of lab animals. I can tell you from first hand experience the animals are treated as humanely as they possibly can.


Out of our labs alone we've developed a pill that stops certain kinds of leukemia in it's tracks, another that arrests certain forms of lung cancer, and we've helped develop open heart surgery so children's survival rate has gone from 10% to 98%, just to name a few things which are easily explained.There are many others. If you had a child born with a congenital heart disease you'd support research using animals. The lady who came to talk to us who was given a year to live ten years ago certainly was appreciative.

Okay, see I don't think giving animal diseases and making them suffer is very humane. I don't think it's okay at all. I don't have anything very serious (arthritis and scoliosis), but I am in pain everyday... I generally refuse to take medicine because of animal testing. My dad has a lung disease. If someone told me that if I gave up my pets or any animal for testing and they could find something that completely reverse everything and it would help me I would refuse it.

 

[Abner Cadaver]

Luckily most people are more sensible than you. Without research using animals, we'd still be in the medical Dark Ages.

 

[mycatspice]

I take care of lab animals. I can tell you from first hand experience the animals are treated as humanely as they possibly can.


Out of our labs alone we've developed a pill that stops certain kinds of leukemia in it's tracks, another that arrests certain forms of lung cancer, and we've helped develop open heart surgery so children's survival rate has gone from 10% to 98%, just to name a few things which are easily explained.There are many others. If you had a child born with a congenital heart disease you'd support research using animals. The lady who came to talk to us who was given a year to live ten years ago certainly was appreciative.

I appreciate what you're doing too!

 

[pentecostalgirl0414]

I am against animal testing 100%!

 

[Gods_princess]

most absolutely and totaly against animal testing, i love animals so much that i could never hurt them, or put them in danger

 

[Abner Cadaver]

You two ever heard of polio?

 

[mycatspice]

I wrote this on the other animal experimentation thread, so here it is again (back by popular demand! ):

Here are the types of animals that are used:

1. 85% Rats, mice and other rodents. All specially bred laboratory species
2. 11% Fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds (including many fertilised hen's eggs)
3. 1% Small mammals other than rodents, mostly rabbits and ferrets
4. 2.7% Sheep, cows, pigs and other large mammals
5. 0.3% Dogs and cats. Specially bred for research. No strays or unwanted pets can be used
6. 0.17% Monkeys, such as marmosets and macaques. Chimpanzees, orang-utans and gorillas have not been used for over 20 years and their use is now banned.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I hold the life of a human more dear than the life of a lab rat. Lab rats can be replaced, people's lives, in my opinion, cannot. I refer to scripture on this matter in which Christ tells us how we are much more valuable than sparrows in Matthew 10:29 - 31.

A wise man once said that our hearts are deceitful above all things, that is why I don't let my heart get bigger than my head. God bless.

 

[dicentra spectabilis]

I'm against frivolous or unqualified animal testing, for things like makeup and perfumes. I do not NEED a new eyeshadow, lipstick, or deodorant badly enough to have another of God's creations die testing it. Human volunteers can have skin tests, etc... and possibly get a rash from it. Freeman is a brand of shampoos and such that I use that does not engage in animal testing.

I'm definitely for animal testing in the arena of medications and medical treatments. It's not pretty, but lives can be saved by the end results, and I think that makes it worth it. These things are not safe to test on human volunteers until they've been proven safe on animals. I'm also strongly for outside oversight on conditions and treatment animals receive in a testing facility. I think we need to value these animals for their contribution, and treat them humanely. I don't think we can trust corporations to do this without oversight.

I don't think there is a black or white solution to this question, only shades of gray. Moderation and consideration are key. For instance, if you're 100% against testing, and you come down with a terminal disease, do you think you'd jump in line to be the first to test something that had never been outside a test tube? What if it was your spouse, or your mother, or your child that had a terminal condition? How would you feel then? For that matter, how many research studies have you personally participated in? Before a treatment can be tested on someone who has a disease, it needs to be tested on healthy people to see if there's an adverse effect. Have you volunteered yourself yet, and if not, who are you expecting to do it? And if you're 100% for testing, does it not then make it a slippery slope leading to testing "just to see what would happen?" A few years ago, there were a bunch of kids down at the beach feeding Alka-Seltzers to seagulls because they heard that it would cause the birds to "explode" from the chemical reaction in the stomach. Lots of birds died. Talk about frivolous, unqualified animal experimentation!

 

[Abner Cadaver]

The good news in research using animals is genetic engineering. Instead of having to use dogs or pigs or cats you can tailor mice to have the right characteristics for the experiment. For me personally it means the dogs are gone and have been replaced by a lot more rodents.

 

[GaelSong]

I hate the thought that shampoo i may use has been put in a rabbits eyes to see the effects. Makeup too. I use animal friendly products as much as I possibly can.