While I do support animal rights, and definitely think it should be limited and heavily regulated to life saving research, preferably as non-invasive as possible, subjecting any human to that kind of treatment is completely contrary to the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Not only that, but who do you think this would really affect? Murderers, rapists, and pedophiles; or wrongly convicted individuals and minorities? Personally it depresses me that an animal had to suffer for us to progress in life saving care. But if I were to compare the amount of poor innocent animal lives that are subject to this kind of treatment, and the amount of innocent people who were saved or even cured because of the sacrifice of these animals, then I would argue that the benefits outweigh the loss.
@9KCLMH42mos2MO
It's not a sacrifice they choose to make - the stats alone that animal testing does not prove useful in human efficacy, ON TOP of the fact that the animals are completely innocent and should not be being exploited, should be enough for anyone to agree animal testing needs to stop in all forms.
@9GXT4L4 2wks2W
I agree on the basis that we shouldn't need animal testing for most things like cosmetics, food products, etc. Also the fact that testing on animals doesn't help our understanding of how it would affect humans as much as people might think. But in certain cases like developing vaccines, it may be necessary to test on animals. Because the only alternative would be testing on humans, since software just isn't advanced enough for that yet. While it definitely is cruel to the animals who did not and could not consent to being tested on, it would still be much worse if we enforced mandatory human testing. I love animals, but at the end of the day, a human life is more valuable than an animal life.
