Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Is animal testing on products good or bad???


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#26 Chloe

Chloe
  • 328 posts

Posted 27 February 2009 - 08:19 PM

QUOTE (Tetiel @ Feb 27 2009, 09:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually we used to give people pig's hearts before we had human donations if I recall correctly tongue.gif



That is so crazy , I didnt know that.....hopefully eventually we'll be able to grow our own hearts and junk like it was nothing.
Also, the whole pain for the animal points are good but i would like to add another thing, lets just say everything they tested wouldnt kill or mame them in any way, they still would be in a little box their whole life which is why i try to buy things such as my chapstick that werent tested on animals, but medicines for cancers and other horrible diseases if it was put to a vote, I would vote for them to be able to do it. These meds are also tested on ppl after their tested on animals they are tested on ppl willing to do it or who want to do it because it may help their disease, so we do it too. And, I'm also a complete donor, they can and probably will have my eyes after I die so they can go to someone who will be able to live a better life because of them.

#27 Kraftwerk

Kraftwerk
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 December 2009 - 02:15 PM

Animal testing is not just cruel, but stupid.

People get angry when you call them "animal", but when it comes to testing, we're the same, right? It's just stupid. We should do human testing, that would work.

#28 ImonaboaT

ImonaboaT
  • 402 posts

Posted 30 December 2009 - 02:30 PM

Way to gravedig ;)

#29 Vexage

Vexage
  • 191 posts

Posted 30 December 2009 - 02:36 PM

Animals aren't people, I would rather them suffer the side effects in preliminary trials then people.

I guess I'm doing a form of animal testing right now in my lab, and I would say its much safer than trying it on humans.

#30 Kuraz

Kuraz
  • 546 posts

Posted 31 December 2009 - 03:25 AM

I went to an Uni and watched researchers killed mice to test for virus (kind of). I think it's really cruel.

But as long as the death of them can do benefit to human and we are not mistreating before their death, I think it's okay for animal testing. Killing an animal, at least, is better than killing a man, though of course human are also animals:sarcasm:

#31 kittycat

kittycat
  • 633 posts

Posted 31 December 2009 - 07:30 AM

Sure.


Lol at those people who pay more for free range chickens to save their moral conscience.

The only thing animal rights about me, is for fair treatment of DOMESTIC animals, and to ban leisure hunting... what a waste of an animal, killing an animal shouldn't be fun. :/

Edited by kittycat161, 31 December 2009 - 07:32 AM.


#32 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:35 AM

I hate people who feel morally superior just because people buy organic or free-range animal products. Some people aren't finanically secure as others ya know.

#33 Alexa

Alexa
  • 195 posts

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:46 AM

I'm neutral because if the skin of animals didn't react the same as human skin, they wouldn't test products on them they're not stupid!

But animals in labs aren't treated really well so that's sad...Posted Image

#34 Noitidart

Noitidart
  • Neocodex Co-Founder

  • 23,214 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:15 AM

I think animal testing is absolutely absolutely necessary. If it backfires we don't want it to happen on a human.

#35 Kraftwerk

Kraftwerk
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:21 AM

 Human testing exists. They do it on bums -_- They did it on jews. It was not right, but it helped medicine a lot.

Now we can do it on people who deserve it (you know there's a lot of people like that). It would repair the damage they did to humanity, someway. Because of animal testing a lot of people have died too (because they thought "if it works in animals, then it works in humans" and surprise! It didn't). 

Edited by Kraftwerk, 31 December 2009 - 01:32 PM.


#36 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2009 - 12:08 PM

Human testing exist. They do it on bums -_- They did it on jews. It was not right, but it helped medicine a lot.

Now we can do it on people who deserve it (you know there's a lot of people like that). It would repair the damage they did to humanity, someway. Because of animal testing a lot of people have died too (because they thought "if it works in animals, then it works in humans" and surprise! It didn't). 

You're an imbecile ^_^

#37 jonnykun

jonnykun
  • 403 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 January 2010 - 02:03 PM

as long as the animals are treated humanely, even if they do eventually die, they shouldn't be put in any prolonging or unreasonable pain during the process.

like notidart said, you really need animals to test beauty products and medicines. im wondering though, how stores say they don't test on animals how they find alternatives to animal testing

Edited by jonnykun, 01 January 2010 - 02:05 PM.


#38 kittycat

kittycat
  • 633 posts

Posted 01 January 2010 - 09:14 PM

I hate people who feel morally superior just because people buy organic or free-range animal products. Some people aren't finanically secure as others ya know.

Something about being in a society (naturally socialistic to a degree not necessarily extreme but to some degree all functional civilization is socialized) makes me feel that those people are morally inferior to me, as I'm not ignorant to the value of money, and the lack of food for others where the land to raise 1 free range chicken could of been the land to raise 15. In turn decreasing the value of a chicken so others can afford it.

#39 Kraftwerk

Kraftwerk
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 January 2010 - 08:41 PM

as long as the animals are treated humanely, even if they do eventually die, they shouldn't be put in any prolonging or unreasonable pain during the process.

like notidart said, you really need animals to test beauty products and medicines. im wondering though, how stores say they don't test on animals how they find alternatives to animal testing


Vegetable tissue testing :p

#40 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 January 2010 - 08:52 PM

Vegetable tissue testing :p

Congratulations on confirming my original opinion xD

#41 MasterJunpei

MasterJunpei
  • 453 posts

Posted 02 January 2010 - 08:57 PM

Sorry I'm gonna have to lean with the pro-animal testing. Sorry but who cares. Animals are animals.

#42 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 January 2010 - 09:27 PM

Beauty products don't really need to be tested on animals anymore since all that's really required is that they don't exceed safe limits on chemicals used in the product. You don't need testing to tell that mercury lipstick is gonna be unsafe.

As for medical testing on animals I think it is absolutely necessary, no matter the pain experienced by animals. People have this strange idea that medical testing on animals is like, lets get this animal, and drug it up until it dies, which is false. They go through an elaborate process in which they choose the animal best suited for the experiment, calculate safe dosages, etc. Most of the time the animals used are just rats and mice. Most people don't have an issue with Ratsak (unless they eat it) or mouse traps, but for what reason are the same people against experiments which have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives!?

It is much better to discover a drug has bad side-effects when testing on animals than testing on humans. So much so that it is one of the 10 points of the Nuremberg Code, a set of research ethics related to human experimentation.

And this talk of human experimentation on prisoners is disgusting, and is the domain of criminal nations such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the current regime in North Korea.

#43 Noitidart

Noitidart
  • Neocodex Co-Founder

  • 23,214 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 January 2010 - 10:07 PM

Sorry I'm gonna have to lean with the pro-animal testing. Sorry but who cares. Animals are animals.

This is also a reason why im not into animal rights bull crap. There's so many people suffering. Little children area majority. Orphans. Money should be going there not into dogs etc. <_<

#44 Kway

Kway
  • Proud to be a Brony

  • 1,200 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 January 2010 - 10:38 PM

Congratulations on confirming my original opinion xD


I agree.

As for testing products on animals, it depends on many things. Luxury products would be a definite bad but advancement in fields of science makes me take a neutral position.

#45 Kraftwerk

Kraftwerk
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 January 2010 - 08:00 AM

It was human tissue. I read some time a ago, that animal testing on beauty products was going to be banned in the European Union and they were going to use human tissues to continue (I don't know why I said vegetable, whatever xD).

http://en.wikipedia...._animal_testing



#46 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6,724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 January 2010 - 09:17 PM

Human testing exists. They do it on bums -_- They did it on jews. It was not right, but it helped medicine a lot.

Now we can do it on people who deserve it (you know there's a lot of people like that). It would repair the damage they did to humanity, someway. Because of animal testing a lot of people have died too (because they thought "if it works in animals, then it works in humans" and surprise! It didn't).


What the hell?
Kraftwerk = Dr. Mengele?

Products are tested on people who volunteer for testing. Not people who "deserve" it like hobos, the jews, or Ryan Seacrest.

Maybe it would make all the PETA, treehugging, dog-kissing people happier if animals were given the option to actually volunteer for testing. Naturally, the animal would be offered payment of their own currency... I imagine it would go something like this:
"If you would like to try out this new erectile disfunction medication, Mr. Rat, we will offer you cheese."
*Rat eats cheese*

Problem solved. Everyone is happy.

Sorry I'm gonna have to lean with the pro-animal testing. Sorry but who cares. Animals are animals.


Yup. And quite often, they're fuckin' DELICIOUS.

#47 Kraftwerk

Kraftwerk
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 January 2010 - 09:11 AM

Sorry, I didn't say they deserved it. I said they DO it on bums nowadays. I said they DID it on jews though it wasn't right. I said we CAN do it on people who deserve it instead of keep letting them do it furtively.

#48 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 January 2010 - 10:28 AM

Sorry, I didn't say they deserved it. I said they DO it on bums nowadays. I said they DID it on jews though it wasn't right. I said we CAN do it on people who deserve it instead of keep letting them do it furtively.

Except they don't do it on "bums" at all.

#49 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 08 January 2010 - 03:17 AM

Sorry, I didn't say they deserved it. I said they DO it on bums nowadays. I said they DID it on jews though it wasn't right. I said we CAN do it on people who deserve it instead of keep letting them do it furtively.


The only country which does involuntary medical testing today is North Korea, who tests the effects of various poisons on political prisoners. Other countries DO NOT randomly test drugs on 'bums', unless the person who is homeless gives voluntary consent, they cannot force that person to participate in a clinical trial. Also, nobody deserves to have their body used for drug trials without their consent, even the terrorist, mass-murdering, pedo-zoophile.

Edited by AndyLiger, 08 January 2010 - 03:32 AM.


#50 mephisto452

mephisto452
  • 32 posts

Posted 20 January 2010 - 01:36 AM

Well i think its fine it rather them test on animals than pull me out of bed and start doing weird shit to me lol :)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users