Do you defend animal experimentation for the development of medicine that can save human lives?
Only if the experiments are proven to be important and have to be done.
No. As we all know, there are various diseases that only affect certain species, so trying to cure something in a different species is not really a viable option most of the time. Different creatures will react differently to things and while something is going to cure a mouse of cancer, it may not have the same results with a human. Bananas share 70% of their DNA with us, why not test on them?
No. There are possibilities to test invitro or in other ways.
No, I believe in the Golden Rule (volunteers only).
No, because today's science and breakthroughs recently made in equipment now prove that something as simple as dissecting a frog is unecessary. Computer simulations actually can provide students with more fulfilling and well-founded "dissections" and al those frogs don't have to die so they're poked in the eye by a 14-year-old.
Similarly, I believe that we should and CAN learn whatever we want medicinally on WILLING participants. Prison populations have been willing participants in the past, and they speak English which animals do not, so they can consent. Wouldn't it be BETTER to experiment on PEOPLE (humans) who volunteer than on animals who cannot speak our language?
Yes I do because I believe it is a necessary evil. I wish it were not.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>