Animal Testing: The Slippery Slope [Pic]

More Comments >

howlingwolf Male, 18-29, Eastern US 1359 Posts	Sunday, September 11, 2011 8:19:35 AM @EgalM, Ooof, that was blunt. I fully agree that people who protest animal testing simply b/c of the "cuteness" factor of some animals (e.g. rabbits) deserve to lose those 23.5 years. However, there are people who legitimately disagree with any animal testing. And while I don't agree with their conclusion, their reasoning is often more sound than you made it out to be.

EgalM Male, 18-29, Canada 1667 Posts	Wednesday, September 7, 2011 5:56:35 AM I'd rather they test on animals than on humans. Just because your cute doesn`t mean you won`t fit well and taste good. If the testing was on snakes instead of rabbits people wouldn`t bat an eye over it. Since it`s cute and fuzzy people (should say women, the males in the crowd are just there to get laid) get upset, it`s silly reasoning.

almightybob1 Male, 18-29, Europe 4278 Posts	Tuesday, September 6, 2011 3:34:15 PM the big C is a C*. when Science finally puts that one to bed, if I'm still around, I`m going to celebrate with a bottle of good scotch raising it to people I remember fondly That will never happen without greater understanding of the mechanisms of cancer, which will never happen unless scientists can control the circumstances in which it appears, which will never happen without animal testing.

MattPrince Male, 40-49, Europe 2221 Posts	Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:14:17 AM @viralshade, I haven't expressed a view, other than that the poster is inaccurate, and that the majority of commentors are blinded by bias. I didn`t express a for or against animal testing in my posts so far. Bob - the big C is a C***. when Science finally puts that one to bed, if I`m still around, I`m going to celebrate with a bottle of good scotch raising it to people I remember fondly.

Viralshade Male, 18-29, Midwest US 45 Posts	Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:14:37 AM @ MattPrince You're missing the biggest point here. Your entire defense of your view fails to account for what we would test said medications on. We would have to test them on humans if not animals. Now, for every medical compound we find that works, assume only three of the tests before it killed the test subject. So we now are killing three people per test medication. The alternate to animal testing is human testing, and the things that kill animals, will likely kill humans. We can either kill thousands of mice due to failed medication, or we can kill thousands of humans. (There was, however, at least one famous person who tested his medications and medical experiments on humans. His name was Adolf Hitler. That went well, right?)

More Comments >