Is animal testing on products good or bad???
#1
Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:30 PM
#2
Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:34 PM
I don't know about you but I wouldn't fancy trying to put a dog on make up.....
#3
Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:38 PM
#4
Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:58 PM
Like how they test new things on lab mice that may cure things.
But make up and shampoo and hygiene related things, no.
They need to make the ingredients human healthy in the first place, so why bother test it.
I guess.
#5
Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:59 PM
~Dogs, Rabbits, Mice, Cats, Chimps, and all other animals.. DONT have skin like ours. In fact.. guinea pigs can receive enough arsenic in it's blood to kill ten humans and be just fine. Animals ARE not people.
~About 2% of medical breakthroughs have been attributed to animal testing. 2%.. out of all the medical breakthroughs we've discovered.
~Animal testing really only was used back in like.. the early part of the 1900s to satisfy consumers by saying it was 'safe' on animals. More and more companies are discovering that what is safe on animals, is not safe on humans. Therefor you have more companies going out of their way to make sure testing isn't done on animals.. because it makes no sense.
Basically.. animal testing is and always was pretty pointless. And the things they do to those animals.. There's a rather famous quote in regards of animal testing..
"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'"
And yes. They can.
#6
Posted 07 November 2008 - 08:01 PM
#7
Posted 07 November 2008 - 10:19 PM
#8
Posted 07 November 2008 - 11:59 PM
#9
Posted 08 November 2008 - 12:11 AM
Just use some people, i don't see why not. Criminal rights in the USA is buuuullllshhhiiiit for people who are on death row, in this example. i'd test it on them. I'm not looking at this from an ignorant and/or liberal perspective, i'm actually being conservative about this; if products that need to be tested cant be used on animals because the animal is too biologically different than a human to test the effects, use people that have no more use in this world. Not like we're running out of people any time soon. Plus I'm terribly insensitive, lols
#10
Posted 08 November 2008 - 04:06 AM
#11
Posted 08 November 2008 - 10:47 AM
Its not always that Freak...I value the lives of animals...I wouldn't go butcher one for the sake of killing one, but I wouldn't hesitate to if I was providing food for my family.
~About 2% of medical breakthroughs have been attributed to animal testing. 2%.. out of all the medical breakthroughs we've discovered.
I would have to agree that 2% seems really super low.
#12
Posted 08 November 2008 - 10:51 AM
Not if those 2% save millions of lives. The number alone is useless without more information to support it.
We could always test stuff on convicted criminals I suppose.
#13
Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:26 AM
By the way.
#14
Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:54 AM
Just use some people, i don't see why not. Criminal rights in the USA is buuuullllshhhiiiit for people who are on death row, in this example. i'd test it on them. I'm not looking at this from an ignorant and/or liberal perspective, i'm actually being conservative about this; if products that need to be tested cant be used on animals because the animal is too biologically different than a human to test the effects, use people that have no more use in this world. Not like we're running out of people any time soon. Plus I'm terribly insensitive, lols
Define useless. Maybe we should start testing on all people we look down on... Oh shit. does this sound familiar? Maybe we should start putting Jews in cold water again to see how long they'll live.
#15
Posted 08 November 2008 - 07:18 PM
We could always test stuff on convicted criminals I suppose.
I didn't look at it in that way...but yeah, millions of people could only be 2%....
#16
Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:55 AM
Killing animals for food is to feed us. We've done it many times before and we know the results. They're killed quickly and pretty painlessly. Animal testing is just that...testing. We have no idea what results it will produce and we don't know how it will affect the animal. If testing was limited to humans only we would thoroughly check everything 5x over to make sure things wouldn't go badly. When it's on animals, we just give it them anyway to see what happens and if it goes horribly wrong... 'oh well, next!'
#17
Posted 09 November 2008 - 08:17 AM
The main reason I'm pro-animal testing is simply that there is no way to conduct many of the important experiments on humans. The study of both the physical bodies and behaviors of living beings can just not be reproduced any other way. I'd also like to slip in this tidbit from Wikipedia: "Over 10 times more animals are used by humans for other purposes (agriculture, hunting, pest control) than are used in animal testing."
What it boils down to, though, is that I simply do not think of animals and humans as equals, and I'll never adopt that philosophy. If it takes the deaths of a thousand animals to save one human life, that, in my opinion, is an excellent trade.
Now obviously, there are parts of the practice that warrant real concern. When the experiment in question can be conducted just as reliably by other means, those other means should be explored. And, of course, the animal testing should be conducted as humanely as possible.
But remember, kiddos: it's about more than make-up.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
Edited by Frizzle, 09 November 2008 - 08:18 AM.
#18
Posted 09 November 2008 - 01:42 PM
#19
Posted 09 November 2008 - 01:49 PM
Brilliant idea. Only those who've committed serious crimes though.
#20
Posted 25 February 2009 - 05:22 PM
so atleast this way they get fresh breath or nice smelling hair before they pass away. Plus the animals dont always die, so maybe we can have a product that makes dog breath smell have decent!
#21
Posted 26 February 2009 - 04:27 AM
so atleast this way they get fresh breath or nice smelling hair before they pass away. Plus the animals dont always die, so maybe we can have a product that makes dog breath smell have decent!
#22
Posted 26 February 2009 - 02:05 PM
#23
Posted 26 February 2009 - 02:06 PM
#24
Posted 27 February 2009 - 07:50 PM
Testing for medicines, it sucks but we have to, it saves so many lives. The testing that goes into makeup and stuff like that, I think they should have a sticker or something on them saying they did test on animals that way we could decide wether or not we would want to purchase that......I hate PETA though I cant stand them , thats my little added on thingy because they just enrage me.....If i ever get famous for an awesome sex tape or something <not said to mean im hott but said because im a loser and wont be famous for anything> I put out I would speak out against PETA
~Dogs, Rabbits, Mice, Cats, Chimps, and all other animals.. DONT have skin like ours.
Maybe true, pigs on the other hand can practically be hooked up to our bodies and our blood filtered through their organs then put back in ours to clean it.........maybe even organ transplants can happen someday.
#25
Posted 27 February 2009 - 08:10 PM
Actually we used to give people pig's hearts before we had human donations if I recall correctly
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users