Testing Products on Animals

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

So, you're on a boat which is about to sink because there is one more person than it can hold. There is you, one other person and a pig. If you all stay on the boat, you will all drown. You, for some reason, cannot leave the boat. So do you throw out the other person, or the pig? answer honestly, please.

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

You said one more person. A pig is not a person. Please ask a question that makes sense first.

 

[Tokin]

It depends on what is tested, if it is a medical product, which cannot be tested in anything else, then I support it, as for everything else(cosmetics, and other non vital products) I do not support it

 

[Ho-Oh]

You said one more person. A pig is not a person. Please ask a question that makes sense first.

"There is you, one other person and a pig."

That'd be three. :x

Saving the pig ftw.

 

[Gengarchomp]

But the animal needs to survive as well.... It's a life, just like ours.

The animal was bred for the task. The species cannot be threatened if it dies. However, if it a cure for some pandemic for man, the human species could be threatened.

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

MMk, well do you think when an animal species is threatened by something that we should experiment on humans?

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

You said one more person. A pig is not a person. Please ask a question that makes sense first.

it was implied that the pig had the same sort of weight and therefore the same capabilities to sink the boat. Please stop dodging the question, now.

 

[Gengarchomp]

MMk, well do you think when an animal species is threatened by something that we should experiment on humans?

No, just use a different species. Fortunately, the animals in question are bred for this purpose, and the people doing the testing would make sure the species would live on.

 

[Yamikarasu]

I don't think they should test things on animals that could potentially harm them if it is just for luxuries like cosmetics, but I would rather they test them on animals than humans.

Humans > Animals, but animals still deserve to not be harmed.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

No, just use a different species. Fortunately, the animals in question are bred for this purpose, and the people doing the testing would make sure the species would live on.

Exactly. Just like raising cows for meat and milk. As long as there's a demand for beef, cows will never go extinct. They're raised for the purpose of serving mankind and would die off without our system, and the same goes for those we test on; as long as we need to test, they'll live on.

 

[beauty. proletariat]

What are your views on this?

I find it completely stupid, considering half the products are dangerous to animals. The companies that actually do this are clearly heartless because they don't realise the big difference between animals and humans. Society will never learn.

YES! LETS START TESTING POISONOUS STUFF ON HUMANZ.

lol XD [/sarcasm]

Some products don't do anything if they're tested on animals = Shampoo o.o


It actually helps them..

Maybe even deodorant should be tested on animals - just so that they don't smell

 

[Ho-Oh]

Waaait what. o_o Animals should keep their natural scent. Human deodarent is bad for them y'know?

 

[Guillermo]

All I know is that what people are doing is wrong. We shouldn't just use animals for our own benefit, that's just selfish. Just because we have the brain intelligence that animals don't doesn't mean we can just test all these different things on them that could harm them in fatal ways.

Those animal could have moms and dads, sons and daughters for all we know, and we're just taking them away from their families and testing stuff on them. That's hardly fair.

If anyone wishes to challenge me on this, please do so.

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)?

What the heck? o_o; They don't just test on rats. They test on bears, tigers, monkeys, cats, birds and all sorts of other breeds of animal. And why is a rat so worthless? Every animal is important in the food chain. If the rats were wiped out, the animal that ate rats would die out and so forth. Even flies are important, -[JD]- And just so you know, stuff has been tested on people.

 

[Metatron]

No, just use a different species. Fortunately, the animals in question are bred for this purpose, and the people doing the testing would make sure the species would live on.

Oh, that's a great point of arguement. "They're bred for the sole purpose of our own selfish benefit, so it's perfectly okay." So you're saying that, because there is an abundance of the species we perform tests on, it's okay to test on them? You know, the world is overpopulated with humans, so by your logic, I guess it would be okay to start testing fatal products on other human beings as well? Tch...

I stand pretty strongly against animal testing, however, I do believe that another human's life should be valued more than an animals. If the tests are performed in order to develop any sort of significant medical advancement, then I'd much prefer those tests to be done on a lab rat than another human being. I don't, however, agree with the fact that, because a species may be heavily populated, it's okay to perform tests on them. Regardless of how large the population of that species is, individual animals still feel pain. I don't hold this view in fear that a certain species that are likely to become endangered because of human tests, but rather, because of the suffering endured by those single individual animals being tested on.

 

[Gengarchomp]

All I know is that what people are doing is wrong. We shouldn't just use animals for our own benefit, that's just selfish. Just because we have the brain intelligence that animals don't doesn't mean we can just test all these different things on them that could harm them in fatal ways.

Right. We shouldn't use animals for our own benefit. All the animals that are used for farming, but aren't eaten, the seeing eye dogs, the elephants in India used as beasts of burden, et al, should be released right now. [/sarcasm]

Those animal could have moms and dads, sons and daughters for all we know, and we're just taking them away from their families and testing stuff on them. That's hardly fair.

So, is it better to do that to a human than to a rat? Rats don't even have a concept of family, so they hardly care.

What the heck? o_o; They don't just test on rats. They test on bears, tigers, monkeys, cats, birds and all sorts of other breeds of animal.

They don't test on endangered species like tigers, and if you're refering to the bile bears, I don't think that's really animal testing. but, mice, rats, rabbits, and other rodents make up a majority of the animals tested.

Oh, that's a great point of arguement. "They're bred for the sole purpose of our own selfish benefit, so it's perfectly okay." So you're saying that, because there is an abundance of the species we perform tests on, it's okay to test on them? You know, the world is overpopulated with humans, so by your logic, I guess it would be okay to start testing fatal products on other human beings as well? Tch...

That is not what I am saying. That is not what my logic is saying. My post is explaining that there is no threat to the species as a whole.