Testing Products on Animals

I think it's totally wrong to test products on animals. Like it or not, all of us are part of the animal kingdom and all of us live. We're different species, and we are the dominant ones because of our progressed minds. However, we mustn't forget that anything living should be entitled to a regular life. What we're doing is that we're using them to hold tests because their not as "smart" as us.

Besides, not all animal tests have the same effects on humans. Take the polio myelitis vaccine; it had to be rectified so many times before it can be perfected. They tested the vaccine on the monkeys, and it worked fine. Test it on the humans, and the results were a disaster. :/
 
I am 99.9% against it. That is just sick.

But I am for it when it is a product that could help save a species, or something else that is beneficial.
 
I don't care what the heck they test on, animals, plants, or heck even Martians, as long as the product fixes my damn face, then I'm happy.

...Hmmm... Now that makes me wonder how Martians react to anti-acne products...
 
Agent Cobalt said:
I'm sorry, are you basing the worth of human life on quotas?
Click to expand...
Humans only, yes.
Other animals and plants I am willing to treat equally to each other, and how much that regard extends is relative to the human population.

... Ooh, my mind works like a maths class. XD


Agent Cobalt said:
Ignoring the self-destructive thinking behind that, don't you think there are a hell of a lot of squirrels out there?
Click to expand...
I took it that squirrel was simply used as an example...
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Animals have rights, too. Humans go "Hey, we're on the pointy tip of the food chain, so we can do as we please!" We wouldn't want anybody doing something to us if we don't want them to, so what makes us think we can get animals to do what they don't really want to? Besides, animals aren't the ones using this product, humans are. Animals are exploited in testing entirely too much. If we're gonna test on something, then test on other humans; WE're the ones buying the products.
 
To answer the topic, companies only test on animals because the pre-medicine could be harmful to a human being. At the end of the day, would you have a worthless rat (I am going to use this as they use them most often) or a young woman/man (The younger people in their twenties tend to do this stuff for extra money for college)?
 
That's the point.... As it's been pointed out in the Abortion thread, every life is sacred, whether human or not.
 
I don't believe it's ok. Just because we're at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we're the best. I mean if you think about it, if we accidentally kill off one species through testing or something else, then our whole food chain is unbalanced which could prove bad for us humans. I'm against testing products on animals, unless it is actually beneficial to the animal and not just to/for humans.
 
I don't like that! :'<

I wish those animals would bite the hell out of those people, run away, and hide~ >:D
 
I believe in animal testing as it has saved many many human lives throughout the years. For example, the polio vaccine was developed through animal testing and animal cells are used in preparing the vaccine.

Now, in 1988 there were 350 000 cases of polio. In 2007, that had dropped to 1300. That means that each year, 348 700 cases of polio are prevented, which could have devestated lives without the vaccine available. That means that since 1988, 7 322 700 cases have been prevented. Only 1% of cases reach the central nervous system, which can lead to severe paralysis. But this means that 73 227 serious cases have been prevented. And I think that its worth it.
 
I Laugh at your Misfortune! said:
I believe in animal testing as it has saved many many human lives throughout the years. For example, the polio vaccine was developed through animal testing and animal cells are used in preparing the vaccine.

Now, in 1988 there were 350 000 cases of polio. In 2007, that had dropped to 1300. That means that each year, 348 700 cases of polio are prevented, which could have devestated lives without the vaccine available. That means that since 1988, 7 322 700 cases have been prevented. Only 1% of cases reach the central nervous system, which can lead to severe paralysis. But this means that 73 227 serious cases have been prevented. And I think that its worth it.
Click to expand...
The Polio vaccine is also an example of how inaccurate the human vs animal results can be. The vaccine was tried over and over on monkeys, the closest relatives of humans. They seemed to be very effective on them, so then they moved onto humans. What happened? Almost all of the kids in the country took those polio vaccine, and the majority got infected with polio only weeks after. Animals =/= humans.
 
Kayashi said:
The Polio vaccine is also an example of how inaccurate the human vs animal results can be. The vaccine was tried over and over on monkeys, the closest relatives of humans. They seemed to be very effective on them, so then they moved onto humans. What happened? Almost all of the kids in the country took those polio vaccine, and the majority got infected with polio only weeks after. Animals =/= humans.
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring to John Kollmer, who actually made a vaccine from polio that camefrom a monkey. However, his first tests actually involved more humans than monkeys :\

You may in fact be referring to Maurice Brodie, who tested on twenty monkeys. And lets face it, that's not enough to get accurate results.

So, yes these first vaccines sucked. But that was because the scientists were idiots when it came to testing them, not because the animal data was unreliable.
 
.Pichu-kun said:
I don't like that! :'<

I wish those animals would bite the hell out of those people, run away, and hide~ >:D
Click to expand...

If they did that, they would all be euthenized.
 
Exactly. Look at my post on the first page. Euthanizing them for that would be so wrong.
 
I hate it.. I think it's unnecessary and stupid, why test on animals? >_____>
 
It's hurting those poor animals. I'm really against it.
 
With medicine, yes.
With cosmetics, no.

It may be painful for the animal, but we need to survive. But killing an animal for us to look good?? No way!
 
But the animal needs to survive as well.... It's a life, just like ours.
 
No, not before. With. We should put them on an equal level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top