15 replies to this topic

[Bão]

Try millions of rats, monkeys, cats, dogs, etc.

And not just for cancer drugs...They do experiments on animals..terrible experiments for things as trivial as shampoo's or make-up's.

Answer this question..

"Would you allow experiments on thousands of monkeys,Horrible experiments where they disect the monkeys alive and prod their brains while the monkeys are still alive or horrible experiments on animals for shampoos or conditioners?"


People seem to have this crazy notion that animals are somehow less important because they are less intelligent.

The nazi's felt the same way about handicapped humans...

So do you guys think it's right to be testing drugs or products on animals?

Topic

Edited by Bao, 22 August 2006 - 12:56 PM.

[Funnlecake]

my opinion leans more twords the "its not right" side. althought some expirements yeild needed results, buety product testing is not needed.

[Sean]

Well, how else are we going to test them?

I don't think it's right that they torture the poor animals on stupid things like beauty products, but what how else would be test the medicines, etc?

[Hawk]

Well, how else are we going to test them?

Remember what Hitler did?

I don't think it's right that they torture the poor animals on stupid things like beauty products, but what how else would be test the medicines, etc?

QFE

[Bão]

Plus: what else is there to test on, if not animals?

Bums.

[Frizzle]

What they do is, they test stuff first on mice and rats- who are scientifically proven not to be able to RECOGNISE pain, or REMEMBER it.

Plus: what else is there to test on, if not animals?

Acutally that's incorrect, it's still debateable about wherever or not those animals can feel pain or not, the same debate has been going on for years with fish, can they feel pain or not? How comes they keep going back to the bait if they get hooked? Is it right to hunt for sport?

Plus we can always test on the disabled, mentally retarded, immigrants, tax dodgers and the french.

[Eeyore]

I'm really of two minds about the whole thing.

On the one hand, I love just about all animals and hate the idea of them being tortured for our benefit.

On the other hand, better that happen then them use less effective methods and end up harming us.

I think the moment they have a way of testing that isn't on animals that's just as reliable they should switch, until then...I really don't know what to think .

[Waser Lave]

I think testing on animals should only be done for things which are going to help alot of people, they shouldnt be allowed to test beauty products or shampoo etc, they can just test those on the french as Frizzle said, i'm sure they wont mind, and they certainly wont fight back.

[Silk]

Completely against testing for cosmetics - God, these rabbits with inflamed eyes because the shampoo wasn't 'tear free', horrible.
As for drugs on animals, i'm pretty neutral so long as the animals are treated in a humane manner. In one documentry showing an Oxford animal testing lab, the people would literally stab at the dogs with a needle trying to find its bloodstream but failing miserable alot of the time due to not being focused properly.
I'm liking the pay people to test on them idea though.

[Hawk]

and the french.

Dude, I love you in a very non-gay manly way.

[Melchoire]

Beauty product testing on animals is absolutely unnsessecary. Frankly if they're too scared to test it on people, I wouldn't want to use it >_<

Edited by xėnon, 22 August 2006 - 06:56 PM.

[Ives]

Test the animals, but test the animals PROPERLY.

[pyke]

Plus: what else is there to test on, if not animals?

Murderers and rapists?

Not necessarily my belief. Just throwin it out there.

[Hawk]

Murderers and rapists?

Not necessarily my belief. Just throwin it out there.

Or, if you were Hitler- Jews, Gays, and POWs

Not necessarily my belief either, Im just throwing it out there.

[Christopher Robin]

Tis great for medicine, and anything potentially life threatening/saving st00fs, but not for beauty products.