Animal Testing: The Slippery Slope [Pic]

Submitted by: hole_rocks89 5 years ago

Think about it... 23.5 years is a long time. Is it worth it?
There are 120 comments:
Male 1,351
@EgalM,
Ooof, that was blunt. I fully agree that people who protest animal testing simply b/c of the "cuteness" factor of some animals (e.g. rabbits) deserve to lose those 23.5 years. However, there are people who legitimately disagree with any animal testing. And while I don`t agree with their conclusion, their reasoning is often more sound than you made it out to be.
0
Reply
Male 1,737
I`d rather they test on animals than on humans. Just because your cute doesn`t mean you won`t fit well and taste good. If the testing was on snakes instead of rabbits people wouldn`t bat an eye over it. Since it`s cute and fuzzy people (should say women, the males in the crowd are just there to get laid) get upset, it`s silly reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]the big C is a C***. when Science finally puts that one to bed, if I`m still around, I`m going to celebrate with a bottle of good scotch raising it to people I remember fondly[/quote]
That will never happen without greater understanding of the mechanisms of cancer, which will never happen unless scientists can control the circumstances in which it appears, which will never happen without animal testing.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
@viralshade, I haven`t expressed a view, other than that the poster is inaccurate, and that the majority of commentors are blinded by bias. I didn`t express a for or against animal testing in my posts so far.

Bob - the big C is a C***. when Science finally puts that one to bed, if I`m still around, I`m going to celebrate with a bottle of good scotch raising it to people I remember fondly.
0
Reply
Male 45
@ MattPrince

You`re missing the biggest point here. Your entire defense of your view fails to account for what we would test said medications on. We would have to test them on humans if not animals. Now, for every medical compound we find that works, assume only three of the tests before it killed the test subject. So we now are killing three people per test medication. The alternate to animal testing is human testing, and the things that kill animals, will likely kill humans. We can either kill thousands of mice due to failed medication, or we can kill thousands of humans. (There was, however, at least one famous person who tested his medications and medical experiments on humans. His name was Adolf Hitler. That went well, right?)
0
Reply
Male 5,019
splurbyburbl you just need more pereseverance.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Let`s take cancer research as a good example.

I doubt anyone would disagree that this is important, given that 1 in 3 humans will get cancer at some point in their lives.

Do you know how they learn more about cancer, its causes and its treatment? By deliberately inducing it in mice and observing how things like genetics affect the growth and spread.

So. Any human volunteers to save the poor mice?
0
Reply
Male 2,220
My original quote, which I plucked from the internet purely because it fitted my world view, was from here.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
So the biggest gain this century, the major jump from a 50yr expectency (US 1900) to 79 yr (US 2003) didn`t involve animal testing at all.

Animal testing of antibiotics and medication is not a pre-requisite for the drug use, but a safety procedure which has developed over time, the history of penicllin for example, predates such things.

Vaccines derived from animals, is the only direct contribution of animals to longevity (animal testing is if anything a delaying of products to human recipients) and as such isn`t really animal testing.

You want this facturd to be true, because it conforms with your anti-peta views.

So splurby. Go for it.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
"Gains in longevity were fastest in the first half of the 20th century. These
advances were largely attributed to “an enormous scientific breakthrough — the germ
theory of disease” which led to the eradication and control of numerous infectious
and parasitic diseases, especially among infants and children.9 The new theory led
to an entirely new approach to preventative medicine, practiced both by departments
of public health and by individuals. Interventions included boiling bottles and milk,
washing hands, protecting food from flies, isolating sick children, ventilating rooms,
and improving water supply and sewage disposal"
0
Reply
Male 159
No quite enough said... where the hell were you going with that? Well i`m saying that humans have been experimented on in the name of medical research that you can`t get from animals. I`m sure its happening right now somewhere as i write this. I would open my eyes to the real world you live in as we are still animals after all.....

the human animal
0
Reply
Female 375
DannySeven, the amount of medicine developed by the nazi experiments is actually massive. They made jumps in transplants, as you seem to have noticed, as well as the medical effects of stimulants and recovery from hypothermia among others.
We do not agree with their methods, yet we would be stupid not to use their discoveries in modern medicine.
0
Reply
Male 71
[quote]Take this guy Josef Mengele for instance he used humans for his experiments... enuf said![/quote]

No quite enough said... where the hell were you going with that?

Mengele wasn`t doing any controlled, scientific experiments. He was a power-mad psychopath that conducted vivisections on human beings without anesthesia and surgeries without antiseptics or antibiotics.

Your analogy is pretty offensive. Joseph Mengele slicing open human twins and swapping their organs is to human testing as a kid sticking a firecracker up a cat`s ass is to animal testing.

They`re both committing heinous atrocities to satisfy their own perverse curiosity. To compare Mengele`s actions to any scientific experiments on animals is completely ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 4,902



0
Reply
Male 159
Take this guy Josef Mengele for instance he used humans for his experiments ..... enuf said!


Angel of death
0
Reply
Male 26
I wish I tested this thread with an animal before I decided to read it.
God knows what damage it`s done.
0
Reply
Male 151
You know... a good way to stop animal testing would be if we had human volunteers... like... I don`t know... maybe all of those nutcases? Seriously, these people are so balls to the wall about stopping animal testing but why don`t they just take a bullet for their furry friends and offer themselves up for testing instead? If they truly loved animals and wanted testing to stop they`d volunteer. They might even cure cancer or some poo like that.

I realize now that this all makes me sound like Jonathan Swift xD
0
Reply
Female 40
Piperfawn says 18-29 for age. I`m guessing he`s on the low end of the scale..probably even lower. He`s never known the agony of being ill or the unrelenting pain you feel watching a child suffer. I`d have died at 24 if the world went by his rules. Sorry, in this case I felt the need to feed the troll.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
Wow... Piperfawn... you made a bunch of friends. I say stupid and shocking things all the time and don`t get near this much attention. Teach me your secrets!!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Piperfawn: I hope you don`t live in a house with clean running water and electricity. Those unnatural advantages are prolonging your life against your will.

You don`t eat food grown with fertilizer right? Or anything grown in something as unnatural as a greenhouse. And I hope your diet is restricted to things you can find locally by foraging or growing yourself - nothing unnaturally flown or shipped in.

The farmers who provide your local food don`t use unnatural combine harvesters do they? Or even human-forged scythes of unnatural iron or steel? All hand-picked food for you my friend.

You`re not wearing clothes woven from unnatural polyester, or shoes containing any synthetic rubber are you? Only cotton and leather - oh wait, not leather, because that`s using animals for our weakness. The soles of your feet must be tough as hell after 30+ years straight onto rock and soil (no unnatural tarmac or pavement for you!).
0
Reply
Female 1,148
...I don`t even know what to say.
0
Reply
Male 58
I thank God every day for animal research. Without those tubes to keep chimps contained, you`d have chimps, running around, destroying homes and raping people. You want that? Huh? Didn`t think so!
0
Reply
Male 525
This poster is awesome. It really shows the animal "rights" people aren`t actually pro-animals--they just hate humanity.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
Animals taste good.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Yes, animals kill and eat each other- they do not lock each other up in cages, torture each other in order to do it. I suspect that the millions of animals bred by agribusiness every year so that the rich of this planet can eat too much food have such horrible lives they might wish they did not have them at all. There is a difference between killing what you need to survive and torturing things to become rich. Most animal testing is pointless and cruel, some has a point as is done fairly humanely- most meat production is wickedly cruel- some is not. Lets stop that which is pointless and cruel.
0
Reply
Male 5,019
xavroche can`t you feel the joy when you discover that you ,and only you, have reached the solution without externals help?( any possible reference to our discussion is purely...intentional). Well i`m giving you this chance, pls don`t disappoint me. In any case if you want the solution you will have it but only after my dinner time. Hasta la vista.
0
Reply
Male 819
I`d rather do Sophie....

But as far as any fallacy in my argument goes. Well you are claiming to never be sick while also claiming that your body is "trained" to resist sickness, which would imply that to aquire this training your body would need to have been sick. Ergo if any fallacies are to be found, I believe they are on your end...

But you know if I`m wrong you can go ahead and correct me. Also don`t say your are possibly going to show me the errors of my ways at a later date.... it makes you sound kind of stupid.
0
Reply
Female 379
The longer life spans are not a direct causation for ruining the planet. That`s greed, and trust me when I say if we only lived to 50 there would still be enough greed to ruin the planet. You can use your longer lifespans to research how to minimize our effects on the planet. How to make it better. Maybe even eventually terraforming other planets, spreading life instead of destroying the world. OR you can whine and complain, and not do a thing to change it. Your choice, medical testing just lets you live long enough to make it.
oh, and the countries that are the most educated, and have the longest lifespans, are having some population problems in the fact that there are starting to be fewer babies, not more. So again, longer lifespans \= ruining the planet with overpopulation.
0
Reply
Male 195
look at the girl at the middle... she was in the middle of a nice f..k shout.
0
Reply
Male 5,019
xavroche well, you want to do sophism? I give you a chance to reason and get the answer by yourself and maybe... i say maybe, i will answer you later.
0
Reply
Female 379
Way medicine affects you, even if you don`t use it - Epidemics. We don`t get them often anymore. Remember the plague? guess what we DON`T have to deal with dying from anymore. Measles? Don`t have it and don`t have the vaccine? that`s cause other people have the vaccine and therefore can`t transfer it to you. Same with whooping cough, mumps, rubella, anything vaccinated against. Oh, how about any infection, ever? Any cut you cleaned with disinfectant. Then there`s prevention of sunburns. The fact that medicine keeps others alive long enough to make the things you want to use. The awesome computers wouldn`t exist if experts didn`t live long enough to learn things. And animal testing isn`t a "recent" thing. It`s how we learned things like blood circulates, how the body is put together and works as a whole. How fetuses grow. Face it, even if you`re some one that lives in a cave, it`s made your life better in some way.
0
Reply
Male 819
"I`m a 35 years male full of strenght that have never used medicines and i`m never sick, i never get colds or others hillness, maybe cause my body is trained to sustain sickness without externals aids."

I`m kind of stealing this from the office, but if you`ve never been sick how can your body be trained to resist illnesses?
0
Reply
Male 819
@piperfawn: So I`m assuming you`ve never been vaccinated. Also, animal testing has been around for over two thousand years, so thinking that you can somehow not be affected by it is stupid. When was the last time someone you knew had polio, when was the last time someone around you died of rabies? What about tuberculosis? Do you worry about your baby being born with neonatal tetunus? Maybe you don`t take any medicines, but the reason you can do that and be healthy is because a majority of the diseases which used to circulate in Europe have been eliminated in large part due to advances in science. When I hear you bragging about how strong you are, it makes me want to ship you back to London in 1854... Cholera outbreak, we`d see how "strong" you are when you`re pooting out your intestines....

I should also add that animal testing helps animals too. 5% of animal testing is done for veterinary purposes.
0
Reply
Male 2,441
piperfawn = Dwight Schrute
0
Reply
Female 192
So it gives us longer life spans, leading to massive overpopulation, and the destruction of the planet, so we can all die and take the world with us. Great.
0
Reply
Male 5,019
@beternal and who the hell are you to know my life? How you presume i`ve ever used antibiotics or other kind of medicines?
I`m a 35 years male full of strenght that have never used medicines and i`m never sick, i never get colds or others hillness, maybe cause my body is trained to sustain sickness without externals aids. I have friends that use tons of pills and they allways get seasonals flu.
@puppies04 i`ve allready lost people very close to me and i assure i`ve never cryed thinking how animal experiments can avoid that.
@almightybob1 ( read my previous post here) Aaaand ,i`m not scared, when death come nothing can stop it.
0
Reply
Male 149
@piperfawn well chances are we wouldn`t be in control of vast armies at 20.. or else instead of mcdonalds i might go with world domination too.
0
Reply
Male 183
@Madduck
"we should not treat any animal as though it was of no matter- they are not here for our convenience."

i`m pretty sure the animals in agribusiness wouldn`t be here at all if they weren`t in agribusiness. farmers breed their stock. if they didn`t need the stock, the animals in question wouldn`t exist at all...so it would seem that are indeed here for our convenience.

0
Reply
Female 737
Well this is a ballsy AD.
0
Reply
Male 2,586
In all fairness though... foreknowledge is a curse. I wish that people DIDN`T live as long as they did and that medicine wasn`t as good as it is. This is a beautiful planet and we are wrecking it. The fact is that as I am alive now and I know I perhaps wouldn`t have been had medicine etc not improved, I can be happy about it... but had I not known it was possible and I actually expect my lifespan and all those around me to not be more than mid 30s, the world would be a better place.

Just saying I`m glad I`m alive and thankful for it but I wish in a sense that we weren`t so successful in `being alive` and instead of overpopulating the earth, find an equilibrium with it like every other animal has.
0
Reply
Male 153
I work at animal testing research facility. My job is to poke the stupid animals with a sharp stick until they tell me to stop. At this point we have not been able to develop a creature that can say, "stop that, it hurts." Animals are stupid. I love my job.
0
Reply
Male 686
Madduck -we should not treat any animal as though it was of no matter

Why the hell shouldn`t we? Tigers are mammals just like us and they show absolutly no conscience ripping a gazzelle to peices bowels first while it is screaming in agony. Or do we need to behave differently because we are more intelligent and if being more intelligent changes the way we are required to play the game then why shouldn`t we be able to breed animals (individuals that wouldn`t exist if we weren`t breeding them specifically for that task) and test medicines that can prolong our humans lives and lessen human suffering.
0
Reply
Male 2,586
@piperfawn

I think you missed the point of this... Animal testing has allowed people to live longer. I.e. YOU would not be here complaining about animal testing HAD THEY NOT BEEN TESTED ON!!!

I see your profile age is 35-39... Guess what... you`d be on the way out right now had antibiotics, preservatives and various other pharmaceuticals not been tested on animals.

My advice: If you`re going to b!tch about something, make sure you haven`t been supporting it on some level prior to said b!tching- because then you just look ignorant.

No, I don`t like that animals have been tested on - I love bunnies! - they taste amazing! but I would sacrifice every anial on the planet if I thought it would save a family member from dying - and I`m pretty sure you would too if it was your son/ daughter in the future.
0
Reply
Male 686
Piperfawn get real, come the day you, your siblings, wife or parents are diagnosed with cancer or some other terrible condition you are going to be crying out for medication no matter if it was tested on animals or not. BTW surviving a bout of sickness is just as likely to leave you a crippled drooling wreck than it is "stronger"
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Far too many people around already, we misuse the medecine we have. As for being a vegan- it is not eating animals that is the issue, it is how we treat them up to the point when they die- and that is not well. I disapprove of most animal tesing- I disapprove of agribusiness more. we should not treat any animal as though it was of no matter- they are not here for our convenience.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]So i`m against every prolongation of our life, is just innatural[/quote]
piperfawn, if we were to revert back to "natural" life expectancies, being in the 30-39 age range you would be approaching death in the next few years.

[quote]no need to kill others living creatures for our weakness[/quote]
Are you a vegetarian?
0
Reply
Male 5,019
danthew no there is another way,the most natural way. You are sick? Your body can fight that? Good, you survive and become stronger.Your body can`t fight that? Die, that`s all. This is how we are made, no need to kill others living creatures for our weakness or our vanity.
0
Reply
Male 2,121
Anyone against animal testing should be required to submit their bodies to research.
0
Reply
Male 383
@Lazyme: I think it is in the interest of truss-aficionados and armchair bunny experts that you be named the high commissioner of all matters where bunnies and truss` (trusses?) connect and mingle.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] although you can`t test truss using bunnies [/quote]
Oh yes you can! You`d need a lot of bunnies though.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
The problem with not testing shampoo etc on animals is mainly down to Western litigation systems. A company now, in comparison to decades ago is far more likely to be sued and therefore has to overcompensate for any possible H&S risks. Just like a piece of truss used to hang theatre lighting on is capable of holding 10 times it`s `Safe Working Load`. Same principle; although you can`t test truss using bunnies :/
0
Reply
Male 3,474
"I don`t care if there`s chemicals in it as long as my lettuce is crisp!"
0
Reply
Male 819
I understand testing on mice and monkeys... but bunny rabbits? I mean they are so delicious it just seems a waste, especially with all the people going hungry in the world...
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Looks like it`s time to bring out the water cannons... stupid protesters don`t know what their against. We ought to experiment on them.
0
Reply
Female 70
I think animals have given enough...leave them alone for drats sake...
0
Reply
Male 4,547
" I believe that testing has increased life expectancy somewhat but a significant proportion of increased expectancy comes from clean water, education etc..."

True, which is why we`ve increased life expectancy overall by about 40 years since 1900. The animal testing figure seems generous but that`s probably because they took the high end estimate of a range.

Original report probably said 18-23 years or something.

University of Toronto estimates: 15-20 years.
Other highball estimates "upto 28 years".
0
Reply
Male 3,315
The protests aren`t to stop animal testing, really, but to stop inhumane and unnecessary animal testing. White Rain shampoo would strap a bunny down and pour concentrated shampoo into it`s forced open eyes to see the effects. Why is that necessary? Pour the normal stuff over the eyes and see what happens. That most closely resembles what a human would experience.
0
Reply
Female 74
I agree that animal research is essential but I don`t care if shampoo stings my eyes, it`s taken too far with a lot of things.
0
Reply
Male 1,104
i could see gary larson turning the idea of someone replacing animal with self-testing into a good cartoon: "having alternatively sprayed the yellow and the blue dish washing detergent into his eyes, prof. peterson failed to realize that what he was reaching for was not his favorite white bunny towel, but in fact a flesh eating martian who had been hiding in his laboratory for the past five days." or something along those lines.
0
Reply
Male 119
What do you idiots think they use to test new operating prodeures,new medicines and so for forth on.It sure as hell isn`t people.
Animal research has everthing to do with the longevity of the human race.
0
Reply
Female 779
I can believe that figure. Almost everything that is man-made has been at SOME POINT tested on animals. Such as testing penicillin, vaccines (polio, measles, hepatitis), refining vaccines when they mutate, fluoridating our water so our teeth don`t rot, testing medical technology like organ transplants, pace-makers... and well every bit of medicine that is used to cure just about every ailment you can think of beside AIDs, Cancer.
0
Reply
Male 5,019
We are like a cancer for the world and we are growing in exponential way, so we really don`t need to live longer. The world is becoming a place flooded by old humans and our intellectual maturity arrive to late. So i`m against every prolongation of our life, is just innatural. People like Alexander the great at 20 years allready have conquered one empire, people that have the same age today just think to eat the new Mc Donald poo or what kind of jeans wear. We really don`t need more time cause we waste it.
0
Reply
Male 22
I don`t believe that figure. I believe that testing has increased life expectancy somewhat but a significant proportion of increased expectancy comes from clean water, education etc...
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"How many rabbits are worth a human life? Let`s hear a number. A hundred? A thousand? A million?"

Another total logic failure. Seriously... how do you people survive without brains?
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"wtf has animal testing got to do with longevity?"

So what you are telling us is that in 40 to 49 years of life you have managed to make it this far and yet be this stupid? Congratulations on that. I would ask you how it feels to be totally void of logic and intelligence, but that would be quite counter-productive of me... wouldn`t it?

I am holding my breath waiting for your retarded response so I can further make light of your stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
wtf has animal testing got to do with longevity?

I would have thought all the biggest increases in average life expectancy (especially around childbirth) have jack to do with a rabbit.

I`m for testing stuff on stupid people. i.e. You.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
do you believe everything what is written on this poster then you deserve to be tested on.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
ChrisMunich has it 100% right. animals ARE lesser than we are because they arent sapient. granted a few are very close but thats not good enough. as long as the testing isnt outlandishly cruel or bringing a species to extinction there isn`t anything wrong with it. granted BS reasons like make-up and cleaning products shouldnt be done because it isnt helping anyone.
0
Reply
Female 298
Test on non-nice individual humans... Why do they have to test on animals? Because they`re somehow "lesser" than us? F That. Test on life prisoners.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"...23.5 years is a long time. Is it worth it?"

Yes
0
Reply
Female 14
"So the fact that you humans evolved incisors to rip and tear flesh means nothing to you?"

You say that like you`re not a human also! Hmmm... what are you? O.o
0
Reply
Male 341
Aslong as it isn`t monkeys im okay with it
0
Reply
Male 383
Meh, if the animals tested on were as sapient as Humans, or close to it, I`d protest. Fact is I don`t value a rabbit, rat, and to many degrees a monkey life even close to as much as a human life. If it`s for medical research, and properly regulated, I am 100% fine with animal testing. Doing it for make-up and household products is a bit sillier.
0
Reply
Male 639
@securitywyrm - I would choose the rabbits if there were enough for them to feed two starving people for a life time.
0
Reply
Female 379
Actually, it`s more our tool use that lets us eat meat. There`s signs of cuts on bones for cutting off meat a couple million years ago. Our teeth just kinda blow for everything -_-. Many experts think it`s because we ate meat that we could become so smart, have culture, and become what we are.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"Anyone who eats meat (I don`t)"

So the fact that you humans evolved incisors to rip and tear flesh means nothing to you?

We are supposed to eat meat.
0
Reply
Male 838
"I think if hooking a monkey`s brain up to a car battery is going to cure cancer 10 years down the road, I have two things to say to you... Red is positive, black is negative."
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Anyone who eats meat (I don`t), drinks milk (I do), eats eggs (I do), wears leather (I do), or services their daily lives in any way that involves the exploitation of animals, has no business complaining about this form of exploitation of animals.

To do so would be a monumental double-standard.

You may quite rightly press for the exploitation to be as humane as possible. But you can`t call for an outright end to the exploitation whilst simultaneously ignoring the far greater and, in many respects, crueller exploitation we take for granted.
0
Reply
Female 379
These days there are regulations on how lab animals are treated. Scientists don`t torture them for the fun of it. They treat them as humanely as possible while still getting their data. There`s also the fact that a rat`s lifespan is only 3-5 years, so you can test something on a life-long scale without needing 200+ years to do all the testing. They get food and water, and pain is usually kept to a minimum. If you don`t think that humans > animals, you`re gonna have to basically stop existing. Your existence kills bugs and other animals. Your usage of fossil fuels, electricity, production of computer parts, use of paper, eating of food, etc. all kills animals in some way or another. You`re right that they should be treated with respect, but they`re not human.
0
Reply
Male 183
@securitywyrm

how many rabbits need to be in the cage before you are willing to jump in the volcano to save them? lets say i have 1,000,000 rabbits, and i will toss them all in the volcano unless you jump in first. are you willing to do it?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Securitywyrm: "how many rabbits would it have to be before you pick the rabbits over the human?"

How many rabbits are there on Earth?
0
Reply
Male 89
How many rabbits are worth a human life? Let`s hear a number. A hundred? A thousand? A million? If I was holding two cages above a pit of lava, one with rabbits and one with a single human, how many rabbits would it have to be before you pick the rabbits over the human? No trying to weasel out by saying "Well maybe the human is a bad person." Generic rabbits, generic human.
0
Reply
Male 639
@razbitom - so what you you prefer to wash your clothes with, clean your child`s baby seat with or have your teenage daughter put around the openings of her eyes? Something that is tested and safe, or something that could be potentially harmful because it wasn`t tested before releasing.

Look, you can complain about beauty products all you like but the fact is people still buy and use them. Therefore it`s the company`s responsibility to make them safe for people to use. This may mean a few animals are tested on but it keeps people safe. I agree, it`s not ideal... but I don`t think it`s fair to say it`s unnecessary.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Ha ha ha.. THats a good ad.
0
Reply
Male 1,505
"Animal testing is stupid and cruel. Why can`t we use criminals like murderers and child molesters?"

or volunteers?
0
Reply
Female 3,696
no- not worth it. Overpopulation mang.
0
Reply
Female 3,195
however, animals don`t typically use cosmetics or have occasion to spray oven cleaner in their eyes... that sort of testing is both frivolous and cruel.
===============
Cruel, absolutely... but necessary even in that. I`d want to know the best and fastest way to save my eyesight if I accidentally sprayed it in my eyes. Unless we start (continue?) testing on prisoners solely, fluffy gets it.
0
Reply
Male 210
You look down on the earth from space, and you see all the great cities of the world spread across the land. But you don`t see skyscrapers. You see cancer. But, i like to think that, like cancer, we were made to drat poo up :)
0
Reply
Female 7,838
most animal testing is unnecessary and done in an inhumane manner. We test and retest ingredients that are known to be safe just because they are recombined. We test cosmetics, pure vanity, household cleaners- pointless.... Lab animals are treated appallingly because we view them as a commodity rather that as autonomous beings.
0
Reply
Male 150
Just go see Rise of the Planet of the Apes Maaaaaaaaan...
0
Reply
Male 117
man is a parasite and like all parasite will kill its self off.
-Daniel Berg
0
Reply
Male 37,913

Tubby12370 - [quote]"MCMXCIII you mean, "animals are Expendable" not expandable." [/quote]
Either way they are delicious!

0
Reply
Male 916
one needs to define their terms when speaking of something like this. certainly drug testing and researing medical procedures through the use of animals should be not only continued but praised for the countless benefits it has given us.

however, animals don`t typically use cosmetics or have occasion to spray oven cleaner in their eyes... that sort of testing is both frivolous and cruel.
0
Reply
Male 639
"Animal testing is stupid and cruel. Why can`t we use criminals like murderers and child molesters? Put bleach in THEIR eyes to test what it would do! Not a rabbits!"

@CCMA_19 - I think you`re probably trolling here. But if not then the next time someone you love is in hospital, please make sure to ask the doctors if the medicine they want to administrate has at some stage been tested on animals. When they say yes (if they say no they are either lying or ignorant) then please reject the treatment otherwise you are being hugely hypocritical.
0
Reply
Male 639
@zekumi - Why is it moronic for a race to judge its own as more valuable? Isn`t that what drives evolution and life itself?

Humans first, animals second. If you can`t agree with this then you are clearly too narrow minded to see the fallacy of your own argument.
0
Reply
Male 79
Considering most of those 23.5 years is spent wearing a diaper and forgetting where you put your shoes, no. It is not worth it.
0
Reply
Female 1,008
@MCMXCIII
I don`t know about that...my friend JD ate nothing but mcdonald`s cheese burgers for three months and he expanded quite a bit.
0
Reply
Female 400
@MCMXCIII: "Expandable"? I think you mean "expendable".

And to say that animals are expendable is horribly moronic. It`s so pigheaded to judge our own lives as more worthwhile or valuable than the lives of other living beings. They happen to not be us, so they`re disposable?

It`s one thing to tolerate that it happens, and another thing to not acknowledge that it`s wrong.
0
Reply
Male 1,440
MCMXCIII you mean, "animals are Expendable" not expandable.
0
Reply
Male 356
@korahn because animals are expandable and humans are not
0
Reply
Male 1,418
Why can`t testing be done on death row inmates instead?
0
Reply
Male 14,775
I have a degree in a discipline that involved animal research. I didn`t pursue the career when I discovered I was not allowed to produce puppy-kitten chimeras. Damn you PETA!
0
Reply
Male 151
hmm thats a tough one
0
Reply
Male 766
animals are food, I dont much care . . . if my woman`s make up is safe because of rabbits, thank you bunny now let us Fricassée! mmmmm good bunny!
0
Reply
Male 911
@draquoir that`s very circumstantial, if you could point out even more than 1 really old person living in the "sticks" you might barely have a point. but seeing as the post says the word "average" life expectancy, 1 person cant dent an average in an entire population.
0
Reply
Male 234
CCMA why don`t you make a statement and refuse any medication that is tested on animals (ie all prescription medication). Also to add to the criminal testing debate, prisoner testing has often entered in medical ethics debates. Is it ethical to offer $1,500/mo to test a potentially dangerous drug on a prisoner who can only otherwise earn much smaller wages? Also look up the Holmesburg experiments where prisoners were giving radioactive and carcinogenic substances to test medications.
0
Reply
Male 505
Cont.

In the UK there are quite strict criteria that anyone that wants to test on animals has to follow.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Which sets limits on who, how, why and where on animal testing in the UK.

As to why we can`t test on the criminals? How do we decide which crime is worthy of being tested on? Can we be sure they`re guilty?
Then there is the fact that they might not have the disease that the medication is designed for, or the symptom it is meant to treat, nor the numbers of "testers" that are needed.
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]Animal testing is stupid and cruel. Why can`t we use criminals like murderers and child molesters? Put bleach in THEIR eyes to test what it would do! Not a rabbits![/quote]

If you`re talking about all animal testing then i don`t think you fully understand the benefits and process of genuine medical testing. If however you`re talking about how wrong it is to test the convenience products on animals then yes, i agree, it is wrong.

It`s stupid that a company has to test its medical product on animals again even though they changed one chemical bond just to get around the patent. That a company can patent a life saving drug and inflate the price of it over 10 years (I think that is the drug patent lifetime).

However animal testing for genuine medical science is really the only option. Yes we can, and do, test on isolated tissue cultures or in silico testing, but no matter how those are done we just can`t model a living body.
0
Reply
Male 33
CCMA_19, I`ve got a better idea. Why don`t we use animal rights activists.
0
Reply
Male 1,051
The oldest living person lives in the sticks in the amazon right? This post is pointless.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
I dont think someone spends 23.5 years just protesting
0
Reply
Male 79
But was it worth it to prolong the lives of the weak?
0
Reply
Female 311
Animal testing is stupid and cruel. Why can`t we use criminals like murderers and child molesters? Put bleach in THEIR eyes to test what it would do! Not a rabbits!
0
Reply
Male 688
I like it when they throw paint. Makes things pretty.
0
Reply
Male 37,913

No animal testing for stupid poo like make-up.

But it does help extend the quality of life. So if it get`s a new type of viagra or a cream to make my balls firm up to where they were when I was 20 then I am all for it!
0
Reply
Male 381
@Sloth
I might kill your mother for another 23.5 years.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
is 23.5 yrs worth what?
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Totally worth it.
0
Reply
Male 2,033
I will kill your dog for another 20 years.
0
Reply
Female 353
Link: Animal Testing: The Slippery Slope [Pic] [Rate Link] - Think about it... 23.5 years is a long time. Is it worth it?
0
Reply