Jump to content
Just visiting?

What are your views on animal testing?

paddy

By paddy
in Off Topic

 Share

Should animal testing be allowed?  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. Should animal testing be allowed?

    • Yes, drugs, cosmetics, anything (on all types of animals)
      10
    • Yes, drugs, cosmetics, anything (only on rodents)
      6
    • Yes, but only drugs (on all types of animal)
      29
    • Yes, but only drugs (only on rodents)
      12
    • No, not under any circumstances
      16
    • Other
      3

Recommended Posts

CarewsEyebrowDesigner Newbie

CarewsEyebrowDesigner

Posted
Posted
seeks to exploit some of its weakest members?

I understand the difference but it's this point i was making, in our society we do exploit the weaker members, entirely innocent weaker members at that.

To me the difference between the exploitation i am stating is those who will be exploited will be those that have no acess to the rights of others because of the crimes the commited.

But, alas, i know my attempts to justify my stance will fall on deaf ears, as simply you value human life differently to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chindie Grand Master

Chindie

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted

On a purely practical level, removing the ethical side of things for a brief moment, a completely human voluntary system of drug testing wouldn't work. At least, not effectively enough for the needs of humanity anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JulieB Newbie

JulieB

Posted
Posted

No - Drugs don't react in animals sometimes as they do in humans anyway and with regard to cosmetics - undefendable.

Daft rules about testing means the Body Shop can't sell natural Henna hair colours anymore because they won't test the product on animals??!!

Henna has been around for thousands of years and doesn't contain possibly cancer causing chemicals yet women who

have breast and other cancers are now routinely told NOT to use NON NATURAL hair colourant products especially the products for dark hair..

Erm what about the women who haven't been diagnosed with cancer???!! Mad rules, mad world

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snowychap Community Regular

snowychap

Posted
Posted
seeks to exploit some of its weakest members?

I understand the difference but it's this point i was making, in our society we do exploit the weaker members, entirely innocent weaker members at that.

Some might. We haven't, as far as I'm aware, got to the position where it is enshrined as one of the objectives of society.

To me the difference between the exploitation i am stating is those who will be exploited will be those that have no acess to the rights of others because of the crimes the commited.

Only because you have arbitrarily decided to withdraw that access.

But, alas, i know my attempts to justify my stance will fall on deaf ears, as simply you value human life differently to me.

Yes, you appear to have settled on a system whereby you feel comfortable - or not too uncomfortable (for CM :winkold:) - attributing different values to different people's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
starsailor9774 Newbie

starsailor9774

Posted
Posted
Trust me, if it came to a choice of eternal lonliness or having you in my corner............

Fair enough but you ought to get someone in fast as it appears as though you are in desperate need of someone to help you finish your sentences.

I just knew you would finish it for me, or at least jump in. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Ricardomeister

Guest Ricardomeister

Posted
Posted

No, not under any circumstances imo. There are plenty of cosmetics that are both natural and not tested on animals so I cannot see any reason for buying something that has been tested on animals. As far as testing drugs at least there is an argument for it even though I would not agree with it. Even ignoring the cruelty aspect, there are, imo, cheaper, quicker and more effective and reliable methods than testing on animals. The vast majority of experimental drugs fail in clinical studies as it is impossible to predict how they will behave in people.

Animals do not get a lot of the diseases that humans get so they have to be artificially induced which inevitably leads you to question the accuracy of any findings imo. There have also been cases where drugs were passed as safe for humans due to animals testing but were ultimately proved to be unsafe for humans.

Unfortunately there are too many "scientists" with a vested interest in perpetuating animal tests as it ensures them a nice, long term income stream. Personally, I would much rather that alternatives such as cell cultures, computer modelling, human volunteers, studies with post mortem tissues etc are used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leviramsey Enthusiast

leviramsey

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted

Again, as you don't believe in forcing people to do anything then why would you limit the 'choice' to only a specific group of people? :?

1.) they have longer sentences (generally), so bargaining would be easier.

That is no different from force. True informed consent in that condition is impossible.

EDIT: on the advice of counsel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leviramsey Enthusiast

leviramsey

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted

So a society that depends on seeking out those in the least best bargaining position and exploiting that?

A capitalist society, you mean?

Though I can see what you mean it isn't quite the same, I don't think.

Surely a capitalist society is one which allows individuals the economic freedom to exploit others rather than one where society as a whole (or the state supposedly representing society) seeks to exploit some of its weakest members? That's some kind of utilitarian nightmare rather than our present capitalist one. :winkold:

Well, that's taxation in a nutshell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leviramsey Enthusiast

leviramsey

Posted
  • VT Supporter
Posted
seeks to exploit some of its weakest members?

I understand the difference but it's this point i was making, in our society we do exploit the weaker members, entirely innocent weaker members at that.

To me the difference between the exploitation i am stating is those who will be exploited will be those that have no acess to the rights of others because of the crimes the commited.

But, alas, i know my attempts to justify my stance will fall on deaf ears, as simply you value human life differently to me.

Yes, we value all human lives.

Except yours.

(LD50 = 10 mg/kg, IIRC...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...
Â