• I'd rather save a human than an animal.

    Testing is the only way to know if they've really learned the material. Seriously, It's better than testing on humans. And it's certainly better than not testing at all and not developing new medicines. How many humans should die to prevent a rat from dying? And dying from lack of a disease can be just as agonizing for a human as dying from testing is for an animal. Also, The knowledge gained from testing on animal could lead to cures for animal diseases, As well.

  • It doesn't matter

    A lot of people say that its inhumane to test on animals, And to that i say read the definition of inhuman lol. Would you rather have a human death during testing or a animals death? We already eat animals and so that's already a lot of death and mice are usually experimented on and who care about them.

  • Not needed anymore.

    There are already advances in replacing animals with cell culture, Computer models and voluntary donations of tissues from people. Testing on animals is becoming inefficient, "the standard test on pregnant rats to find out if chemicals or drugs may harm the developing baby can only detect 60% of dangerous substances. But a cell-based alternative (EST) has 100% accuracy at detecting very toxic chemicals. " There is more reading in following links: https://www. Crueltyfreeinternational. Org/why-we-do-it/alternatives-animal-testing and https://www. Niehs. Nih. Gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/index. Cfm

  • Testing on animals is cruel

    Testing on animals leads to ethanizing a one of the most common form of ethanizing is putting the animal in a chamber where the animal will inhale gas and die. This is the same thing the nazis did to the Jews they put them In a gas chamber so I ask you was that humane?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.