- Multinationals -

animal testing is good

Posted by: stephanie on November 12, 1998 at 10:26:47:

In Reply to: animal testing in principle is not a good idea. posted by Thop on May 01, 1998 at 18:33:23:

: I boycott a few companies that test on animals. I will buy their products, however, if they have stopped and changed to an ethical policy (even if that product was previously tested on animals).

-so you are saying that you wouldn't use any products that have been tested on animals? well did you know thath most of our medicine came from animal testing. if it wasn't for animals we wouldn't have the medical technology we have today.

: Yep, yep, that's true. That's the good side of it. But the suffering does not justify the testing.
-most suffering only comes from the people who test without the permission to do so.

: And the products can be tested just as well now without animals. Powerful computer models now exist that determine how chemicals and common ingredients, mixed or alone, react with human tissues (and so on).

-actually it cannot. the models do not have feelings and show all the signs that could go wrong.

: This itself is probably more reliable than animal testing, since animal testing has failed to point out many problems before where humans are different from animals. But ethical testing companies don't stop there. They also test on humans. Surely that's bad..? No, not if they choose to be tested on, if they are told about the risks and if the product has already gone through computer models (and scientific tests, etc). If someone chooses to be tested on, then there's no problem. That would be the case with animals as well ... except of course they aren't given a choice.

-animal testing has has its faults but the majority of the time they have had good results. you can't really test things on computers becuase like i said before they cannot show everything a live thing would show. they show what would happen chemically but not emotionally.

: Now. What makes you think that animal's lives are less important than human's? I personally think that animals and humans are equal, some believe that human lives are worth more and I respect that since I don't know for sure.

-actually i think the animals life is more important then humans because their gifts to us, they have given us food, medicine and clothes. humans only did those things after the animals.

: What is sure though, is the fact that animal's lives are WORTH SOMETHING. They don't deserve to be treated like non-living matter with no feelings, thrown about by twats. These twats don't have the right to do that.

-if they were given permission they have every right

: And to anyone to says animals don't have feelings: poppy-cock (amazing term that!!)!!! You can tell animals suffer from the squeels, frightened eyes, locked up limbs and frustration written across their face. They suffer as much as if someone did it to us.

-animals do have feelings but they do not have the feelings that humans have. yes they do feel pain but not as long emotionally as humans. and sometimes not as long painfully either. example-swine breeders have to doc the baby pigs tails the way they do that is just cut them. yes the pig hurts but only for a few seconds. animals are more scared to being held in differnt positions then they are of the pain that something gives them.

: Ar, so you admit that the amount of animal testing that goes on kills enough animals to significantly reduce the animal population. This is certainly true with the worst animal testers that test to ludicrous extremes. Where they are experminting with an animal as if they were a piece of filter paper that can be "abused" as much as you like and thrown away at the end of the day. (Eg. L'Oreal cosmetics brand - which is 50% owned by that Nestlé group - has a very bad animal testing reputation and has been known to fry animals alive to test resistence to sun screen. This is purely sick.)

-the majority of the animal testers take very good care of their animals if they don't they could loose everything they have, i do not think they are that stupid. animals die all the time, there is more neglect in homes then there are in labortories.

: Hunting would be slightly more ethical than this, but I don't agree with that either.

-hunting is a way for food-i love to hunt that is how i get my meat, people might think this is morbid but we should control the human population instead of the animal, we have to many people and not enough animals.

: The so-called "population problem" with animals is, I consider, rubbish. In natural circumstances, the food chain sorts this out. Us humans have indeed removed some upper bits of the food chain that sort out fox and rabbit populations, etc., so it is true that there is an issue. But the problem tends to be exaggerated in many cases. The problem isn't as big a scale as you might've been suggested. Where it is a problem, humane controls could be done, like introducing genes into the fox or rabbit system to reduce births. Whatever the case, any way is better than reducing the population via animal testing. Many animals are bred for animal testing rather than being taken from the "wild" anyway.

-the food chain has been extinct for many years now because of the fewer animals that we have.

: I know where you're coming from but that's a gak way to think. Animal testing has helped us to live longer - but it doesn't need to carry on any more, testing other ways is just as effective. Anyway, as pointed out before, most testing is for cosmetics (although this is reducing considerably from public pressure now) and this DOESN'T save anyone's life ! The cruel situations in animal testing labs are nothing like anything you might conisder cruel that happens in nature. Mam! Open you thoughts a little and realise animal testing in principle is not a good idea.

- i think animal testing is good, it has carried our lives a long way and without them we wouldn't be ourselves, if we take them away we wouldn't have the results as we have now.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup