Animal Testing

I completely disagree.

Animals that are being used for selfish reasons, and then being killed off. That's inhumane. Animal Cruelty. I can't stand when people mistreat their animals, it's wrong.

And for some petty little thing like make-up? I love make-up as much as everyone else, but when technology is getting more advanced by the years, you'd think scientists could figure out what chemicals go and don't go, right? They obviously found out which elements of the periodic table are explosive and what not...

It's not right.

Luminous:

It's not right.

But yet you still take medicine?

I still take the medicine even though it is tested on animals...sorry I need it you know?
I still dislike animal testing but I am being a hypocrite if I say too much.

Previously Perfect.:

but then how do we know for sure that medicines work?
I'm a bit weighed on this topic.

You're still alive, right?

ChemicallyImbalanced:

I'm kind of against it.
I'm not sure I like that they test on the animals, but what else would there be to test on?

I don't think anyone really likes the idea of animals being hurt for testing, but it's still something necessary in some cases.

Kurtni Von Teese:

What makes this discussion rather awkward is the fact that virtually everyone has benefited from medical testing on animals. If you've taken medications or recievec vacinations, chances are at one point or another your health benefited from something that was tested on animals. I don't see how one can say something is wrong while at the same time, use it.

I agree with this.
Sure, it's sad and all, but if animal testing was eliminated, what else would they test on?
It helps scientists make whatever it is better, and it can save people's lives, (if what they are testing is medical.).
Stupid things like cosmetics though, is ridiculous.

Sure, it'd be great if we didn't have to test on them, but we sort of need to.
Because, like the above quote, if you were sick and had to take a medicine or vaccine, it was possibly tested on animals. It kind of makes you a hypocrite.

But think of it this way: If a person and a cat were drowning, who would you save?

I don't mean to sound heartless, but it's the truth.

They test on animals to see what would happen. What are the effects of... let's say... a flea collar if a dog licks it?
Because of animal testing, we know that chocolate is dangerous to animals, yes?

Well, that saved about a thousand or so pets if their owners found that out. I used to let my dog eat (scraps of) chocolate, because I didn't know it was dangerous to them. Now, if there's chocolate anything around the house, I make sure that my dog doesn't get any of it.

I mean, really. Also, with cosmetics- my little sisters put make up on my dog and dressed her up because they thought it was "funny" or "cute" or whatever. I mean, it's safe, so I'm quite relieved. I just keep a leash on my dog whenever the kids' friends are around...

shitjustgotreal.onyx:

I mean, really. Also, with cosmetics- my little sisters put make up on my dog and dressed her up because they thought it was "funny" or "cute" or whatever. I mean, it's safe, so I'm quite relieved. I just keep a leash on my dog whenever the kids' friends are around...

Actually, no, not all make up is safe for dogs just because it's safe for a humans skin. Many cosmetic companies don't even test on animals anymore.

People don't have to wear make up... or your dog, it's not necessary. Seeing as how it isn't necessary for us, I don't think it's necessary to test on animals.

Kurtni Von Teese:

shitjustgotreal.onyx:

I mean, really. Also, with cosmetics- my little sisters put make up on my dog and dressed her up because they thought it was "funny" or "cute" or whatever. I mean, it's safe, so I'm quite relieved. I just keep a leash on my dog whenever the kids' friends are around...

Actually, no, not all make up is safe for dogs just because it's safe for a humans skin. Many cosmetic companies don't even test on animals anymore.

People don't have to wear make up... or your dog, it's not necessary. Seeing as how it isn't necessary for us, I don't think it's necessary to test on animals.

Well, the stuff my ignorant little sisters put on my dog was safe... unless that's what caused her cancer.

Exactly. I don't see the need for make up. I don't want it, I don't use it, I don't care about it... I mean, unless you've got some horrible scar or something, you don't really need it...

Slap Shot:

But think of it this way: If a person and a cat were drowning, who would you save?

I don't mean to sound heartless, but it's the truth.

Cat

I am 100% against animal testing.
What is the point of putting animals in hideous pain when they react differently to humans. Their skin is different to our skin, their bodies work differently. So, scientifically, all of the tests are unaccurate.

That's what I think anyway

Candle lit killer:

. So, scientifically, all of the tests are unaccurate.

That's what I think anyway

You don't "think" things like this, you have to have evidence. Many successful medications (you've probably taken some, in fact I know you've benefited from vacinations tested on animals) were the product of animal testing. Scientists are able to compare the anatomy of animals to that of humans and make logical predictions about how the medications will affect humans based on how it affected animals. It's saved lives.

Kurtni Von Teese:

but it's still something necessary in some cases.

I don' t think necessary is the right word to use, I don't think it's 'necessary' at all.

builtforsin:

Kurtni Von Teese:

but it's still something necessary in some cases.

I don' t think necessary is the right word to use, I don't think it's 'necessary' at all.

I consider saving human lives a necessary obligation of science.

I'm not keen on the idea - who is, really. It's not a perfect solution but it is the only one we have. If you give an animal a drug and it kills them then it's sad, obviously. But if you only used human testing, then it would kill the person.

There was a big case about five people dying from this prototype medicine - can't really remember what it was - and it was because animal testing was insufficent.

Basically, you got a choice. Experiment with animals and seem cruel or experiment with humans and put your freedom on the line.

That's how I see it.

Kurtni Monroe:

builtforsin:

Kurtni Von Teese:

but it's still something necessary in some cases.

I don' t think necessary is the right word to use, I don't think it's 'necessary' at all.

I consider saving human lives a necessary obligation of science.

There are other ways in which to save a human life that doesn't involve animal testing.

builtforsin:

There are other ways in which to save a human life that doesn't involve animal testing.

Put it this way. You're a scientist. You have the choice to either save the human population or the animal population. The human population is dying very rapidly but the animal population is still very alive and well. You have the option to test on humans to save humans which could end in the population dying or you could test on animals that won't die out as easily. Are you going to test on humans or animals?


If that made any sense.