Testing on animals means that they have some idea of the possible side effects it would have on people. Imagine if something had a chance to kill someone who used it, would you rather find out when people started dieing or lab rats started dieing?
Restrictions on what types of animals are tested should be enforced, and at what stage certain animals can be used for testing.
But banned? Just no. Hell effing no. The last thing I want is to ingest some medicine supposed to cure my headache and have it kill me within hours. That's more of a headache than what I first started with, I assure you.
The last thing I want is to ingest some medicine supposed to cure my headache and have it kill me within hours. That's more of a headache than what I first started with, I assure you.
So you have tried this before and died. Dude that's so awesome. What's the secret for immortality? Oh you should post it on my profile so that I can delete it when I see it. Jk. ~~~~~~~~~
Well there should definetly be restrictions. I don't like the thought of killing an animal, but I have enough sense to think about what would happen if a lethal drug got out into the people and doctors were perscribing it. So I guess I could go with it,but I would still be pushing just for perfection ever time and not have to kill the animals but precautions have to be taken for the saftey of the people.
We shouldn't be able to test a bunch of unneeded cosmetic crap on them, but stuff like medicine? What else'll we do, test humans? Release the medicine and hope thousands don't die because of the side effects?
My post on another topic copy'n'asted because I cannot be bothered to re-post what I did post and my opinion certainly has not changed over the past 2 - 3 months:
[quote=Me! ]I support animal vivisection when it's exploring the effects of pharmaceutical substances because it help the development of human science and can save human lives at relatively little expense. The reason I support it is because unlike many animals, like dogs and mice, we have emotions like love and sadness, and happiness and anger which (and I could be flamed for this) gives humans a more authoritative and important stature. Whilst the dog or mouse might feel pain there's no way it's thinking pensively, worried for the development of its family, recalling happy memories[, or anything like that] - humans would do that, whether it be because they were taking a drug with unknown outcomes or if they were dying from some incurable disease.
Cosmetics on the other hand are not worthy of taking a poor little mouse's life. Cosmetics are not a necessity to human scientific development [nor do they help anyone in a time of need], and locking up a dog for a year just so you can smother it in foundation is both inhumane and stupid. Cosmetics are futile and not necessary - and so animals should not die under them circumstances.[/quote]
If anyone wants to accuse me of plagiarizing: don't.
On the cosmetics case, if cosmetics won't save a human life there's no point taking an animal's life.
I know all kinda of vegans and vegatarians (I found out I knew a pescitarian the other day lol) and there is no arguing with them animal testing is WRONG!!! all of it no matter what is being tested no matter what the advanages it's WRONG!!! bs Yes cosmetics testing is bad though I wouldn't want to put on some deodarant and ahve it malt me in half lol but I don't think there is enough innovation or grey area in the cosmetics side that we have no clue what'll happen. But I think it is fine to test on animals for medicine I'm not an animal lover (not even close) so if it saves human lives fine do it. If it saves one human life kill a thousand rats and cats etc.
Just as a little side note for people; the Nazi's tested all kinds of stuff on people in the Holocaust (especially alot of what we understand about hypothermia is from some of the tests they carried out). obvioulsy I'm not gonna ask if human experimentation like that is right but.... is it right to use the information gained from it? bearing in mind the torture people went through.... I asked it in a General studies class and it was an almost unanimous NO! it's wrong which worried me lol.
It's sad, they don't have to kill animals. They could just design a computer program to let them know most of the stuff.
Impossible for our day and age. It would be near impossible for computers to replicate humans emotion toward ceratin products, we'd need the genetics and everything, I change my mind, it is impossible.
I would throw a cat in front of a car t save my life. Are you saying you would throw yourself fin front of that car to save your cats life?
This has absolutely no backing to animal testing. And I view spraying shit in an animals eyes a form of animal cruelty, which last time I checked was against the law.
And I view spraying **** in an animals eyes a form of animal cruelty, which last time I checked was against the law.
Okay. But it still goes on. I'd rather have a animal getting that sh*t sprayed in their eyes than knowing a human was, sure either scenario would scar me, but it's just stupid to spray random chemicals into peoples eyes. Rats are the most commonly used in lab testing anyway, as they have almost the same body maps. I get your point that animal testing is bad, but wouldn't you rather have it restricted instead of all out banned?
No. I'd rather have it banned, because this is a perfect example that people make laws but do not follow them when it suits their needs. I am someone who has a very definitive view on the word "justice"
No. I'd rather have it banned, because this is a perfect example that people make laws but do not follow them when it suits their needs. I am someone who has a very definitive view on the word "justice"
Animals have very limited rights.
People are known for bending laws as you said. But wouldn't that be smarter than finding out 50% of the people that used your product are seriously ill instead of using rats as test subjects before distributing it?
