why we should test on animals

There are many reasons why we should continue testing various products on animals. Animal testing takes the place of human testing, and the life of a human is undoubtedly worth more than that of a mouse or rabbit (this should be a self-evident premise). Those who would argue that this is not the case should not be ignored; they should be encouraged and allowed to put themselves in the place of the animal being tested.

Animal activists have taken their cause to the extreme. Just look at this example:

On September 30, business in Springdale, Arkansas, apparently got too bloody for citizens’ taste. That day, Eduardo Aquino, 66, allegedly slaughtered a pig behind his Springdale home. Investigators responding to a complaint about a pig who was making a “horrible noise” apparently arrived to find the bloodied and dead pig on a table on the defendant’s property; news sources reported that police said, “Aquino stabbed the pig until [he] died.”

He stabbed a pig until it died! Heaven forbid! After all, if that pig had had a chance to survive, it might have realized its calling and gone to herd some sheep or bore us with adventures in a city. But that’s beside the point; the point was that radical promoters of animal rights have no place arguing against animal testing, as they’re the same people who would protest the slaughtering of a creature that has been used for food for thousands of years. I don’t mind how they protest though, when they do it as tastefully as this young woman:


Animal testing has yielded some of history’s finest products, including lipstick and antidepressants. We could even be helping animals by testing our cosmetics on them; swine could use some perfume on occasion. Of course that’s a weak reason to test on them, so here are some good ones:

  1. Animal tests can be used to control variables which are beyond the researcher’s control in a human-based experiment (for ethical reasons).
  2. Generation time is much quicker in animals than in humans, so long-term effects are more readily exhibited.
  3. Animal tests are the only way to study the behavior of a lethal pathogen (like HIV).

patches_ohoulihanAnything about which we have no qualms force-breeding should be useful for testing purposes. There’s a reason we’re at the top of the food chain: we’re supposed to be dominating everything below us, beating it into submission without any repercussions. As the man once said,

“You’ve gotta grab it by the haunches and…hump it into submission!”

Updated 02/23/13

31 thoughts on “why we should test on animals

  1. Looking for a good read? Check this crap out.

    What a bunch of morons.

    “If they are so much in favour of it, then let the experiments be conducted on them, they are a complete waste of oxygen anyway!”


  2. loling at that site. i thonk we should go troll. get some info on what animal testing has produced, im sure there are some suprises there, and rub it in there face.

  3. “Unseen they suffer
    Unheard they cry
    In agony they linger
    In loneliness they die”

    Roflol. That is all I have to say. Roflol.

  4. just because u like make-up doesnt mean animals have to die just so u can look pretty they suffer way too much just to be a waste of air, they need us for more then being pushed aside, they need our help to live

  5. “They need our help to live.”

    No…they don’t. They need us to abstain from indiscriminately killing them, and from clear-cutting their habitats. But they don’t need us to avoid using them for useful applications, or delicious meals, in a responsible manner.

  6. “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘because the animals are like us.’ Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because they are not like us.’ Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.” ~Charles R. Magel

  7. Whoever Charles R. Magel is, he sounds like a jackass. This is how that Q and A should have gone:

    Q. Why do we experiment on animals?
    A. Because they are like us.

    Q. Why is it morally okay to experiment on animals?
    A. Because they are not us.

    See how different that turned out just by dropping the word “like” from the second answer? This went from a logical answer and a nonsense answer creating a contradiction to two logical answers with no contradiction.

    PETA (the organization): For every animal you don’t eat, I’m eating five. For every animal you don’t experiment on, I’m creating a new product that requires massive amounts of animal experimentation.

  8. Why do we experiment on animals?
    Because they are like us.
    Why is it morally okay to experiment on animals?
    Because they are not us.

    Aside from the second answer being a tautology and begging the question, it also implies that the criteria for exemption from being tested on is merely being human, and that were there to be other species with equal intelligence or, perhaps more to the point, equal ability to express emotional and physiological sensations, it would still be morally acceptable to test on them.

    In short, Wontga’s answer doesn’t tell us why it is or isn’t okay to test on animals, it just tells us animals aren’t like us. Which everyone knew anyway.

    Ironically, the more similar to humans the animal tested on is, the more reliable the results gained but, for the same reason, the more morally objectionable the test becomes.

  9. Your argument is a purely hypothetical one, as we have none of these “humanoid” creatures with equal intelligence and equal capacity for emotion/sensation to test on (barring you consider a chimpanzee as such). I believe Wontga’s point was that we have to see humans as not just a mark on the continuum of species, but as separate and above any such continuum – if not, then that’s at least what I believe. I do believe the only criterion for exclusion from testing should be whether or not the subject is human.

    If we really want to be serious here though, then of course I believe there should not be any tests done until there is sufficient data to suggest that the animal tests would not actually be harmful to the animal. Some effects, however, are unforeseeable – hence the need for testing.




    Hahaha, this is fun. Okay, someone else add to the sentence.

    Side Note: I wonder why this old ass post you wrote mostly in jest keeps getting comments.

  13. Shame on you guys. You wouldn’t like it very much if I had a 6 foot, 300 lbs pound man tie you down and shove needles in Your eyes, now would you? But apparently you think its okay to do it to animals because we “dominate over them.” Yeah, our government dominates over us. Do you see them locking us up in cages for the duration of our lives and killing us off one by one only after they torture us and record our reaction to it? No, didn’t think so. I’d like to know why you think its okay for us to do that to them- because we’re bigger? Well guess what, they have this thing, it’s called a nervous system. You know what a nervous system does? Every time you feel something, like pain for instance, little nerves are sent from all over your body to your brain. That is how you feel things- with your nervous systems. And since all animals have a nervous system, guess what that means? They can FEEL. All the torturing we put them through for vain reasons such as cosmetology, they FEEL it. Just because they physically cannot tell you with words what it feels like, does not mean they don’t hurt. Did you know primates have only a 1% difference in DNA than humans? Would you tie your infant down to operate table and cut them open, hearing their screams, all because you wanted to record the effects of cigarette smoke you shoved down their throat with tubes the week before? Funny, you would say no to that but you still think its okay to do it to animals. No, animals are not us. So does that mean we should test on You? Apparently you think its okay. And maybe we should first bang your head against a wall a few times so that you can’t talk. But of course, you can scream. You can feel. You just can’t put it into words. But don’t worry its okay- because as long as you can’t verbally tell us what your feeling, we don’t know its hurting. Hell, the screams could mean anything. Of course, it doesn’t mean your in pain. And if you try to get away or fight us, we’ll call it instinct and sedate you. And then you can wake up with more tubes down your throat, half-blinded, and a metal cap cemented to your head. After that, we’ll hook you up to this big machine and give you whiplash a dozen times. Then, we’ll record your reaction, after making fun of you a little bit. You know, because its not like that would offend you, you can’t speak. And after all this, we’ll finally do you over by cutting you open while your still half-conscious so that we can take your organs and study them. But what we’re doing is okay- you know, because it’s all in the name of science! So, tell me: how would like that? I’ll tell you what, you get back to me and we’ll just sign you up. Or maybe we should take away that right like we do all the animals and just force all this upon you. Huh? Well, that’s what I thought. Now, tell me how your going to defend that.

    ~ Emily Bloomfield.

  14. Dear Emily Bloomfield,

    I don’t feel your (or is it “you’re”? I’m sure you know) comment warrants a rational reply. But as my gift to you, here: I think you would enjoy reading this.

  15. I love how we are all sitting here talking about animal testing and your immature self wants to bring up Billy Madison. I’m just fourteen years old and not even I am that immature. So I take it you have no argument against mine? I guarantee you nobody does. Animal testing is clearly the wrong choice. You just have to know how to put that into the right words for everyone to understand, something i’m good at. Please, leave the arguing to the intellectuals here and go back to myspace. Thanks.

  16. Oh, and before I forget: it’s your. In case you forgot, you’re is the contraction for you are.

    “I don’t feel You Are comment warrants a rational reply.” just doesn’t make sense.

    It’s: “I don’t feel Your comment warrants a rational reply.”


  17. All right, you’ve gotten me to bite. I’m sitting here checking this site frequently – because it’s mine. Your motivation here is lost on me.

    Clearly your intellectual prowess has outmatched me. I have attempted to bring levity to the situation again, since this was, and has always been, a lighthearted discussion. I tried to make light of your numerous grammatical errors and all you could do is assume I didn’t (or is it “did’nt?”) know contractions.

    That said, I simply refuse to honestly debate the merits of animal testing over the Internet with a 14 year old girl. I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into why each of your arguments is fallacious. I have made serious comments above, which you’re welcome to read.

    Let me put it this way: we have to be able to perform studies on creatures that are as similar to humans as possible in order to make conclusions that are applicable to humanity, and that improve our human condition immensely. Ethics aside, ideal studies would be done on humans – but we cannot do that. But we can on animals. Because the life of a human is inordinately more valuable than that of an animal, despite what you seem to believe.

    I commend you for sticking up for animals, but you’re (sp?) taking this way too (to?) seriously.

  18. Thanks. Glad to know you took me seriously Before I told you I was a fourteen year old girl. I stick up for animals because I know what it’s like to feel voiceless. Here you are, an adult, setting aside my beliefs and opinions because I am simply a child. Funny how, you are implying that I’m the immature one that should not be here when you replied to my very serious argument ^^^ with a clip from Billy Madison. Way to go. And guess what? There are alternatives to animal testing. Ever hear of Episkin? It is identical to human skin. The only reason it isn’t being used in most laboratories is because it is more expensive than killing innocent animals. Billions of animals die each year because companies want to save a few dollars. Multi- billion dollar cosmetic companies, I might add. Look, I’ve obviously done my research. I think it’s time you do yours- especially if you think animal testing is the Only way. It’s simply a matter of money. Just like everything else in this god- forsaken country. And way to be sarcastic. I’m simply trying to make a point here. If you want this to be a light- hearted conversation, stop trying to make me feel inferior. I have a voice. You can’t shut me up. You are not superior to me or anyone else. And shame on you for thinking so. You say I’m taking this too seriously? I just have a strong argument. That’s something called passion. Animal testing is animal cruelty. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? Perhaps you should re-read my first comment. If you would not do that to an infant, and would not want to endure it yourself, why would you want to make an innocent animal suffer through it? All the things I stated in my previous comment(s) are tests that they actually perform on animals. So do you believe animal cruelty is right also? I pray to god you do not own any pets. If you think it’s right to torture an animal in a lab setting, whose to say your not opposed to it in your own household. I’m just trying to evoke you to think a bit here. I’m not drawing the conclusion that just because you promote animal testing, you beat animals. But what I do not understand is if you wouldn’t beat your own pet, why are you paying for other people to do it for you? I hope you are not too taken aback by my argument to reply. I honestly am trying to understand where your coming from. Please, tell me your reasoning. And be nice about it this time. We all know how to be mature.

  19. For the record: this is my website, and I can shut you up, by editing or deleting your comments at any time. But I’m not doing it (yet). So have some tact. I’m just playing along for your sake.

    I’m not going to specifically stick up for the cosmetics industry here, because I don’t care. But you’re against all animal research. There has been so much good from the use of animal models that I have trouble understanding how you can have such capacity for sympathy for the creatures involved and such disdain for those millions of human lives impacted. I can only believe you don’t grasp the magnitude of their contribution – surely you don’t really value the life of an animal above that of a human? You also reference a material that you say is “just as good” as testing on animals and overlook the thousands of study designs that require more than just epithelium, i.e. an actual digestive system, or circulatory system, or nervous system, to name a few. In vivo testing, whether or not you accept it, is a tremendous boon to the scientific community.

    “Animal testing is animal cruelty.” This, the crux of your argument, I suppose, is also its undoing, and is a blatant oversimplification. These two are inherently different, and you refuse to acknowledge it: animal testing can be done in a humane way, with systematic methodology, producing results which are less subject to the confounding factors that become more and more prevalent the further an experiment is removed from an actual living organism. Animal cruelty is a gross mistreatment with no noble goal or purpose and is illegal, for good reason.

    “If you would not do that to an infant, and would not want to endure it yourself, why would you want to make an innocent animal suffer through it?” We’re not doing it to infants, or humans of any age…we’re doing it rats, and mice, and fruit flies, and E. coli. I can make an ethical distinction between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom (as I’ve mentioned before). That’s where the absurdity of your argument really shines through. Devote your energy to being upset about human rights violations, and genocide. Believe it or not, there are laws governing animal research already.

Comments are closed.