nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Animal testing,do you agree to it?

Kaneda_

Its hard to know where to stand on this one.The web is full of sites that are against it,but there are some solid arguments that basically says that it is neccesary to develop new drugs and testing on animals paves the way and allows develpment of the drug for human consumption.

There are alot of cosmetic companies that test on animals, but there are also alot that dont.

I feel that it i cruel and shouldnt be banned worldwide, But what if a close family member/friend, or even yourself were to become terminally ill? Would i still take ths stance knowing that the drugs could have been developed if animal testing was allowed? This is the argument.

There are plenty of places on the web to look furhter ino this, and ive only started to take notice of it so i am not well informed of this subjet yet.

Are you against it or for it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kidchameleon

I'm against it. If I was dying and there was a cure for me that could be fastracked through animal testing, I'd rather die with a clear conscience. I remember reading about Robert J. White's experiments on monkeys that's what made up my mind for me...

El_Dangeroso

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm against it. If I was dying and there was a cure for me that could be fastracked through animal testing, I'd rather die with a clear conscience. I remember reading about Robert J. White's experiments on monkeys that's what made up my mind for me...

What if it were your child? Would you sacrifice the life of a child for the lives of 50 mice?

Kidchameleon

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What if it were your child? Would you sacrifice the life of a child for the lives of 50 mice?

That's a good point, I'm not sure...

Don Juan DeMagoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm against it. If I was dying and there was a cure for me that could be fastracked through animal testing, I'd rather die with a clear conscience. I remember reading about Robert J. White's experiments on monkeys that's what made up my mind for me...

Interesting, however considering that doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath you may be left out of the loop on that one. So you will probably survive and live for another few years in absolute guilt...... or maybe not:D

Don Juan DeMagoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That's a good point, I'm not sure...

What do you mean you are not sure??
Oh your wife will have great respect for you as you debate with yourself if this ethical or not. My friend you may find yourself in a worse predicament then those mice:eek:

Kidchameleon

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

What do you mean you are not sure??
Oh your wife will have great respect for you as you debate with yourself if this ethical or not. My friend you may find yourself in a worse predicament then those mice:eek:

I'm sure after watching these video's, there's simply no humane way of letting things like this happen. I would not want my child benefiting from these experiments even if it means death...

WARNING, videos are very graphic, mods remove if necessary

<<SNIP>>
<<SNIP>>

Links removed.

Bipolar Joe

To be honest, I don't think lions would give to much of a shit if it were the other way around and they were experimenting on us. Or rabbits and stoats and whatnot. Fuckin' rabbits, man, they're devious little bastards.

Don Juan DeMagoo

Nope I can't bring myself to watch that, as I don't wish to be depressed.

Still though if i had a kid ( I love and respect animals btw) and it was between my child and 50 mice, sorry mice not today!

Kidchameleon

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Nope I can't bring myself to watch that, as I don't wish to be depressed.

Still though if i had a kid ( I love and respect animals btw) and it was between my child and 50 mice, sorry mice not today!

I hear ya friend, I'm just after unfollowing this thread, I'm bloody depressed now!!!

Adventure Pout

Absolutely Against animal testing for cosmetics (l'oreal is the worst one and all of them belonging to thatngroup e.g. Maybeline,olay,lancome,biotherm..).

For medical research,why test on animals? Why don't they test on all those useless thugs and scumbags and junkies?!! It will help to clean up a bit and help the society to live in peace..

SuperInfinity

realies wrote: »

I personally don't have a problem with animals being used if by doing so the human race is better for it.

You are a ****ing idiot. Humans ARE animals. Humans aren't "better" than other animals.

mod: poster banned.

Bipolar Joe

Then how come we invented the Internet, huh?

SuperInfinity

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Then how come we invented the Internet, huh?

That doesn't even make sense. Just because someone invents something useful doesn't make them "better" than other people. Secondly, you personally didn't invent squat about the internet. You can't lay claim to everything other humans invented. Thirdly, other animals get on just fine without any internet, they don't want the internet. Humans have only brought misery to other animals on this planet.

tallus

Just because animals don't have the same sense of self that humans have doesn't mean that they don't suffer physically from the after effects of "product testing" so the answer is No, I don't agree to testing animals before humans. They have just as much right to be here as people do.

Da Shins Kelly

twinytwo wrote: »

Animal testing is wrong... just because we destroy ourselves we think we have a right to do it to other animals.

Sorry, but there are plenty of people suffering from incurable diseases that didn't set out to 'destroy' themselves. Plenty of people suffer from heart problems and cancer who didn't do anything to deserve it, not to mention the thousands and thousands of children suffering from HIV who didn't ask for it. As has been said, animal testing is the best option in terms of finding cures for these diseases right now. It's not the perfect situation, and it wouldn't be this way if there was an alternative. However, right now there is no alternative so it is what it is, and I'd much rather that medical science did the best they could to find vaccines that could potentially save millions of lives by using animals than stand idly by and do nothing.

kylith

I don't like animal testing, but I recognise it as a necessary evil. There's really no other way to safely test medications in the early stages of development. I hope that in the future we will be able to use human tissue grown in a lab.

I strongly oppose testing cosmetics on animals, I believe that it's completely indefensible.

Magill

We should just test on people from 3rd world countries... you know.. because we are obviously superior to them, as we are to monkeys and other animals we test on... Makes perfect sense, since the results will be much more accurate and we won't have to donate to charity anymore !! #winning ?

obviously being sarcastic

Sam Vimes

Flincher wrote: »

Against, they get all nervous and give silly answers.

(I can't for the life of me remember where I heard that joke, if anyone remembers the stand-up/tv show please let me know).

On a serious note, in terms of medication, its a necessary evil.

Stephen Fry said it while dressed up as a woman in A Little Bit of Fry and Laurie

I can't find the video but here's a link to the quote:
http://www.amusingquotes.com/h/f/Stephen_Fry_1.htm

steddyeddy

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

There is testing on humans. People put themselves forward for it. Apparently it pays quite well (it'd want to given the risks).

Apes however have no choice.

Jimoslimos

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

There's a health shop nearby that sells products that haven't been tested on animals. I buy things like sun block from there.

Greentopia wrote: »

I use Faith in Nature rock crystal deodorant and it works fine and I use Kingfisher brand toothpaste. Neither of these two companies test on animals and you'll find both in a health food shop.
You can see more brands that don't test here

Right sorry to burst some bubbles here, but as was pointed out by an earlier poster, just because the finished product claims not to have been tested on animals doesn't mean the constituent ingredients themselves won't have been.

Yeah the companies themselves wouldn't test on animals......but every raw ingredient sourced for their products will have at some stage had to be cleared for human consumption/external application....most probably involving animal tests.

A more accurate and honest way of marketing products as above would be "No new animal testing required"

Oh and it always amuses me the way these threads always end up in a downward spiral of human self-deprecation. Yeah guys we can be right sh1ts sometimes but overall we're a pretty decent species;)

steddyeddy

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Sorry, but there are plenty of people suffering from incurable diseases that didn't set out to 'destroy' themselves. Plenty of people suffer from heart problems and cancer who didn't do anything to deserve it, not to mention the thousands and thousands of children suffering from HIV who didn't ask for it. As has been said, animal testing is the best option in terms of finding cures for these diseases right now. It's not the perfect situation, and it wouldn't be this way if there was an alternative. However, right now there is no alternative so it is what it is, and I'd much rather that medical science did the best they could to find vaccines that could potentially save millions of lives by using animals than stand idly by and do nothing.

Why dont we test on cells?

TheZohanS

Larianne wrote: »

What do Kleenex do when testing animals? See if the tissues cut the bejaysis outta their noses?

I'd imagine they'd test the bleaches they use to make their tissues so white on their skin or something like that.

howardmarks

If they want to drive they should do the test. It's only fair

Da Shins Kelly

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why dont we test on cells?

Testing on cells cannot possibly tell all complexities associated with the effects of various vaccines on an entire living system.

annascott

Absolutely against all animal testing. I am pro eugenics and stem cell tests though. I don't see why we can't use prisoners for the test.

(I mean the death row, Myra Hindley kind, not ordinary people doing two months for tax fraud)

razorblunt

Definitely against, you could make a case for testing monkeys, but how the hell are dogs and cats supposed to hold the pens?

It's just cruel!

Capt'n Midnight

I was shocked to hear about the sheep dog trials in Mayo last week

four of them were hung :eek:

kowloon

TheZohan wrote: »

I'd imagine they'd test the bleaches they use to make their tissues so white on their skin or something like that.

Chimp in lab coat: 'I find the aloe vera very sooting on the nose and would recommend we enter full scale production by the end of the month'

Thanks for ruining that one for me Mr Zohan! Thinking you're great with your logic and knowledge.

Eric Cartman

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Why not use trolls as they have a slight few similarities to decent human beings. Then again any positive effect that testing has on them will probably be not for the benefit of humanity....

They suck, I just asked my dog to make me an espresso and he is just sitting there licking his balls. Not good enough I say, with a recession going on.

if you think this is me trolling youve a lot to learn

and yes they do suck at making coffee , but thats why we use them to round up sheep or test chamicals on them - have to make them useful for something

Greentopia

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yeah the companies themselves wouldn't test on animals......but every raw ingredient sourced for their products will have at some stage had to be cleared for human consumption/external application....most probably involving animal tests.

Don't worry, you're not bursting any bubbles with me. I chose rock crystal (alum) deodorants from Faith in Nature because it contains NO ingredients that are tested on animals as backed up by their membership of the BUAV-British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.

Rock crystal is simply natural mineral salts found in nature. They have been used for thousands of years in Asia as an anti-bacterial for cuts and scrapes.
No artificial colours or perfumes, and no aluminum chlorohydrate or aluminum zirconium, the two ingredients in regular deodorants. I've emailed the company and they verified that none of their ingredients (not just finished products) are tested on animals.

The toothpaste I use-Kingfisher also uses no ingredients that are tested on animals and has never tested on animals from the start.
They state:

"No animals whatsoever are harmed in the production of our toothpastes."

I've checked these companies out before buying their products and their credentials as members of organisations like the BUAV and PETA. Short of getting their board members to sign an affidavit that what they tell me is true that's all I can do if I want to continue having clean teeth and nice smelling pits. Which I do