How Do You Guys Feel About Animal Experimentation

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
for the people saying death row inmates should be used,...........

do you guys know how many death row inmates there are in the states? it's like roughly 3000

do you guys know how many animals die in a year from experiments? I don't know the exact number but I'm confident the number is higher than a million

you'd run out of human subjects the first week if you're conservative

if someone has exact numbers feel free to post.
 
and that is aside from the fact that in the US, humans have rights here, it's what the country is built on. even the scum of the earth rotting in a cell have rights.

i'm no expert but I would say it would be impossible to do involuntary human experimentation
 
Eclipse390 said:
As a member of the veterinary field & seeing some of it first hand - I'd prefer to test on prisoners. My animals are treated better than I am, I do not use any products that are tested on animals & encourage my family & friends to do the same.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I believe that you've avoided using things that have been tested on animals
 
You forfeit your "human" rights when they're about to fry/lethally inject you. 3000 death row inmates PLUS those with life in prison with no opportunity for parole PLUS volunteers is enough to cover it. I would bet your life saving there's far more lifers who contribute nothing to society or the prison then there are on death row. You gotta expand your number


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
It is unethical to test first in humans. It was done in history and shall never be done again. Period.

As for animal alternatives: they have a place in pre screening and, thus, reduction and refinement of the next step. But they are by no means an equal substitute for animal studies.

Best example is dioxin: you cannot kill a cell alone with dioxins. Yet, they are highly toxic to animals and humans by affecting metabolic state. On a molecular level, they interact with the same receptors as broccoli and red wine... not much help.







Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
It's unethical on humans but not on animals? Why?

Sumo, I believe they'd be less careless with their tests if they used humans. They wouldn't go through as many as they do rabbits, mice, dogs


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
HarleyK said:
It is unethical to test first in humans. It was done in history and shall never be done again. Period.

As for animal alternatives: they have a place in pre screening and, thus, reduction and refinement of the next step. But they are by no means an equal substitute for animal studies.

Best example is dioxin: you cannot kill a cell alone with dioxins. Yet, they are highly toxic to animals and humans by affecting metabolic state. On a molecular level, they interact with the same receptors as broccoli and red wine... not much help.







Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Click to expand...

exactly. I mean I get that some are just saying they'd be ok with involuntary human testing on these inmates

but to actually make it happen is practically impossible. the US would have to have gone thru a post apocalyptic civil war type even that ended in a dictatorship to even be possible. kim jong un would have to come lead the US for involuntary human testing to occur
 
ballinouttacntrol said:
It's unethical on humans but not on animals? Why?

Sumo, I believe they'd be less careless with their tests if they used humans. They wouldn't go through as many as they do rabbits, mice, dogs


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Click to expand...

I still say you'd run out of test subjects.

from a quick research, I read that the number of animals used are ridiculously higher than a million because they don't even count rats and mice or something like that, lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom