Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Animal Testing

When does it become right?

If you object to a cosmetic product being tested on an animal, do you object to a new treatment for humans and/or animals being used on it?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For animals to be used for the testing of cosmetics is unnecessary and cruel.

    For them to be used for the purpose of finding cures for diseases and other valuable scientific purposes - it can be justified - but it depends on how beneficial the testing would be and whether any guidelines which protect the animals and minimise suffering are adhered to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with the others.

    I have strong animal beliefs in the sense that I think they should be treated with respect and should be cared for correctly. Testing on animals is horrible for cosmetics, it shows how vanity means more to some people than life. It cannot be justified. Testing on animals isn't nessescary, the body shop don't do it (or so they say) but I know that major companies such as loreal do... which puts you off buying cosmetics as brands never say whether they test or they don't.

    However for medical reasons, animal testing is okay. If there was another way it would be better. Though at the end of the day, humans are more important than animals and there are some horrible diseases which have now been made curiable because of animal testing.

    What I dislike are those animal testers that stand outside labs all day long using violence and abuse in attempt to stop animal testing. They just do it to start a fight and I'm sure if they got ill they'd expect to be cured. A cure which has probably been found from animal testing. I think some of them have mental problems.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by ElysiumUnknown
    For animals to be used for the testing of cosmetics is unnecessary and cruel.

    For them to be used for the purpose of finding cures for diseases and other valuable scientific purposes - it can be justified - but it depends on how beneficial the testing would be and whether any guidelines which protect the animals and minimise suffering are adhered to.
    I totally agree with that. :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do I.

    The problem is that some people maintain that animal testing is not reliable and does not help medical research. Others say it does.

    With the two sides feeling so strongly about it, it's difficult to tell where the truth lies.

    But I agree on the principle that cosmetic testing and any experimenting on animals that is not absolutely necessary or could be replicated on computer or by other means should not be allowed. When animal testing is essential and the only option available, then it should go ahead.

    Another very difficult issue is what animals should or shouldn't be used. Do we all agree that rats, rabbits and guinea pigs are acceptable but puppies and kittens are not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's hypocritical to state that dogs and kittens shouldn't be tested on but guinea pigs should.

    Animal testing is cruel and it's unethical to test on animals in the name of 'research'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    The problem is that some people maintain that animal testing is not reliable and does not help medical research. Others say it does.

    With the two sides feeling so strongly about it, it's difficult to tell where the truth lies.

    Another very difficult issue is what animals should or shouldn't be used. Do we all agree that rats, rabbits and guinea pigs are acceptable but puppies and kittens are not?

    Yes, I always wonder whether testing cures for human diseases on animals is actually going to discover anything. But if it's in the case of whether a drug will kill someone or not - a rat dying due to the drug instead of a person obviously will have less damaging effects. The company developing the drug can cover it up and no-one will sue. Obviously avoiding the loss of human life is the advantage of using animals instead.

    Apparently rats are used (well in the case of psychological research) because they possess similarities to humans and they are in plentiful supply. People are far more attached to puppies and kittens. Not many people say "awww" when they see a rat. Nevertheless having seen what happens to some animals, I find it hard to say any animal should be used for such causes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So because puppies are cute it's 'wrong' to experiment on them..:rolleyes:

    Aesthetics shouldn't come into it. A rat is still an animal, just as a dog.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but they do use cats and dogs for animal research.
    I personally disagree with animal testing in general although i accept that for medical research it can be neccesary. I try not to buy products that are tested on animals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey, for once I agree with you Monocrat :p Indeed, I don't see the point in testing on animals either. I mean a lot of drugs that aren't poisonous to animals are poisonous to humans. Take the case of Flamidamide. It would have been tested on animals and released because it was thought to be safe... and then kids are born with horrific deformities...

    And testing viagra on dogs, forcing monkies to smoke, pumping cats full of weedkiller, subjecting rats to radiation... Um... what's the point?

    Then again, there's something to do with licensing, if somebody has tested a drug on animals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    a human can give consent, an animal can't
    therefore its morally wrong to test anything on animals as it is wrong to test anything on anybody who doesnt give consent
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, I'd rather that 300 puppies died, than I did, due to lack of medication. So be it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
    To be honest, I'd rather that 300 puppies died, than I did, due to lack of medication. So be it.

    I agree. I'd love to be noble and make out that I'd rather suffer than see all these defenceless animals die, but at the end of the day, I'd be lying. As I'm sure the majority of people will agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what do you do if a rottwieler starts shagging your leg?
























    fake an orgasm ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some people do think that, yes.

    Personally I think (regarding to cosmetic and some other testing) it's wrong whatever the animal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    what do you do if a rottwieler starts shagging your leg?



















    fake an orgasm ...
    youve said that joke about 4 times Rollie.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i am vehmently against animal testing for cosmetics and oiletries etc. and have been boyoctting one of the largest companies in the world for the past four and a half years because of their dreadful recond on this.

    however when it comes to medical testing although i amy not like the sound of it i perfectly understand that if people need cures for serious diseases and animals have to be in vovolved so that it saves lives, then so be it.

    it is the total unneccessary animal testing for our own selfcentred vanity that i dsagree with but for saving people's lifes, then yes i probably could agree with it.

    hope that is ok with you all
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    like most/all of you i disagree with testing cosmetics etc on animals but testing for medical treatments is a necessary evil i think until they find another way to do it. im diabetic and if it wasnt for testing on animals i probably wouldnt be here to type this. the first animal they used in discovering insulin was a dog. i dont like the idea of it but without those test ide be dead and that goes for a lot people with medical conditions.

    its a tough subject :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by wee wuman
    like most/all of you i disagree with testing cosmetics etc on animals but testing for medical treatments is a necessary evil i think until they find another way to do it. im diabetic and if it wasnt for testing on animals i probably wouldnt be here to type this. the first animal they used in discovering insulin was a dog. i dont like the idea of it but without those test ide be dead and that goes for a lot people with medical conditions.

    its a tough subject :chin:

    Hear Hear! Frivolous and unneccesary testing should be banned. Lifesaving treatments are worth it. I value any human above any animal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MoonRat
    Hey, for once I agree with you Monocrat :p Indeed, I don't see the point in testing on animals either. I mean a lot of drugs that aren't poisonous to animals are poisonous to humans. Take the case of Flamidamide. It would have been tested on animals and released because it was thought to be safe... and then kids are born with horrific deformities...


    ummm i think youre wrong there, thalidomide itself is useful drug, it ws just that in the manufacture of it, you get 2 types of molecule, some layout, but mirror images, like your hands they wont fit on top of eachother the same

    it wasnt the failure of animal testing on that, because on animals they used the useful one, but in mass production they hadnt realised the difference between the 'left' and 'right' "handed" molecules

    just a correction and im going to be a chemistry undergraduate with a B in alevel chemistry in september so i think im quite correct on this little point!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    oooh ok. But I still think that humans and rats/dogs/pigs are entirely different organisms who react to different poisons.
Sign In or Register to comment.