I WANT YOUR OPINION!

BillieTheBot

I'd just like to ask a favour, I'm doing a magazine for my media project and there's gonna be an article on the use of animals for medical research.

so, what's your opinion on the matter?

---

OPEN YOUR MIND...

Former Member

totally tough question. there's a whole lot of slants on this, but basically here's my view..
i think that if it's to save a life, then it should be allowed. but if its for something like cosmetics, then it really shouldnt be allowed.
i know people give you the whole animals have as much right to live as us, but at the same time, im sure if they were smart enough, and their children were dying theyd do the same thing.
bloody hell that sounds surreal <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;
shut up kayleigh!
btw, how come nobody else has said anything on this??

Girl-From-Mars

i think i kind of agree with you ickle. i mean, research for drugs thats gonna help save a life has to take place, and the effects can be studied on animals. i know theres all the arguments about how its barbaric and shoudnt be allowed... but i agree with it for cancer research and for other diseases we arent that good at curing yet.

but i dont think it should be allowed for cosmetic resaerch, i mean why are we so superior to put animals through needless pain, just to see if a particular eyeshadow is gonna give us an allergic reaction? i think you have to justify it, by saying its a worthwhile thing to do for medical research, as youre helping to save hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of lives, or improving the quality of them, and thats why research on animals is needed.

although if i were to witness medical testing and to see precisely what goes on i would probably not be so okay with it. but i guess its like showing people exactly what goes on if they have an operation, if they knew what was gonna happen they might not be so keen on it, even if they needed it really badly! okay thats a crap example... but people dont need to be shown the details of everything if it doesnt directly affect them, and if the knowledge isnt going to help them in their lives and making decisions, such as to have the operation or not.

if ive made any sense, then im shocked!!

---

If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else.

Former Member

I think it is wrong to even suggest that medical research shouldnt be carried out on animals.
What else could be used? we couldnt use computers because they are too unreliable and it is illegal to test on human beings. Using animals provides the researchers with the information they need to make an effective drug.
I think the selfish ones are the animal rights activists themselves. They are selfish hypocrites with no regard for the conscequences of their actions. The lead activist at the huntingdon research centre is the biggest hypocrite. During some stupid march she was injured and had to goto hospital, she was administered drugs that she asked for in order to relieve her pain. I think the doctors should have told her where to go and let her suffer and see for herself why we test drugs on animals. They have no idea of the economic conscequences and knock on effects if animal testing was made illegal. It would severly inhibt the UKs ability to create vaccines for illnesses like Polio and Menningitis.
as for cosmetics, if you can live without your mascara then fine, but if not then you will have to use it in the knowledge that it has been tested on an animal. If it wasn't and you suffered an allergic reaction it would be your own fault, because it hadnt properley tested. The law states that drugs and cosmetics must be fully tested before being released.

Former Member

i have to agree with ickle. it should not be used for cosmetics. Also, in an r.e. txtbk @ skool there a pic of a mouse with a human ear grown on its back as an experiment. Things like that are pointless and very very sick.

In an ideal world, there would be no animal testing but i don't think it will stop for a long time. Maybe its ok if its gonna save a life, but i'd expect that about 95% of stuff they do doesn't.

I especially hate it when they test on endangered species like monkeys (((monkeys)))

---

Another turning point, a fork stuck in the road. Time grabs you by the wrist, directs you where to go.

Girl-From-Mars

drifter, i agree the mouse thing was sick. but it did have a purpose, they were seeing if they could get tissues of a certain type to be grown artifically with cells from the person they need to transplant it into, they use cells from the bone marrow that havent turned into a specific type of cells, blood cells, brain cells, etc.

and this is really useful for transplants because you dont get the problem with tissue rejection, and there arent enough donors of organs, so this actually is a worthwhile cause.

but i do know what you mean about the pointless stuff they're just doing for the hell of it.

---

If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else.

Former Member

The ear they grew on the mouse, like GFM said had a purpose. Also, the mouse wasn't harmed. The only thing it had to put up with was the inconvienience of carrying an ear on its back.

JsT

In agreement With Ickle And GFM

---

COME ON ENGLAND!!!!

England Vs. Spain

WED 28 FEB, SkySports2