Why not create a "Testing Being" neither human nor animal but will respond exactly as a human would to testing. And as far as test stuff on people goes they are more likely to give valuable data then a rabbit that cannot speak.
Is testing on animals OK or NOT?
- Thread starter clayton
- Start date
that's a great idea. we could use aborted babies. extract them from the mother's womb carefully, grow them in some type of incubator, and when they're grown, use them as our test beings.
Sure, but they usually just call them "convicts".
Do you use Shampoo?
Dishwashing liquid?
Bathroom bleach?
How about Laundry powder?
Ever used an insecticide, herbicide, fungicide or fertilizer in the garden?
Do you drive?
Have you ever used a Sharpee?
How about a hand sanitizer, or liquid soap?
my dad used to do that when he worked at P&G. he'd come home with patches on his back, testing lotions and soaps and such. but i'm pretty sure that took place after the animals had already been tortured, not in lieu of.
No, that's going from bad to worse. Using an aborted human being is giving an incentive for sleeping with whoever you want with no consequences.
Are either of you two going to volunteer for tests for carcinogenicty, teratotogenicity, or mutagenicity?
How about an LD50 test? I've got a coin around here somewhere, heads you live, tales you die.
exactly. and since we all know that those fetuses aren't really "real people" who have rights, then we might as well use them for our benefit rather than just throwing them in the trash. it's a win-win situation.
oh hell no. not my precious butt. i'd rather live off the land, be dirty, and combat disease through prevention, like eating organic foods, breathing fresh clean air, and drinking pure clean water...lots of hard labor for exercise. fuck all these chemicals.
You think you can avoid them by living off the land?
To give one example - you realize that 1080 was originally prepared from a plant extract right?
Digitalis in Foxglove, Aspirin in Willow bark.
The other information that Animal testing gives us is the effects of things when they're released into the environment.
Which would you rather happened?
The effects of Roundup be measured on a few trout in a laboratory under controled conditions.
Or that Roundup was released, untested and it was only discovered that it is toxic to marine vertebrates when a tanker carrying it rolls on a bridge over the Mississippi river causing a fish kill mounting into the millions?
That's the other point that has been overlooked in this thread - not all of the testing on animals that is carried out is carried out for the 'direct' benefit of humans, a lot of it is also carried out to test the effects of accidental releases into the environment, whether it be the aformentioned scenario or your neighbour tipping the last of his bottle down a stormwater drain.
I'd rather not have roundup and pull weeds by hand.
Which would be great if that were the only use of Roundup, and Roundup were the only viable example, but neither of those statements is true so :Shrugs:
Do you think we should instead turn further from god by rejecting his gifts of ingenuity, intelligence, and curiosity. Or rejecting his gift of dominion over the earth, or the duty he gave us to protect it?
Me? I have no qualms about using Roundup.
Why? Because based on the testing that has been done, I know that what isn't absorbed by the target plants is inactivated once it contacts the soil (so there's no residue to contaminate groundwater), and that if I follow the instructions, at the rates and concentrations that will be applying it, it's harmless to terrestrial vertebrates or invertebrates, the only proviso being that I keep it out of waterways (which is fine, because I don't live near one). I also know, becaus eof the testing that has been done that, should I need it, there is a formulation that is equally effective that is safe for use in an aquatic environment.
For what it's worth, I'm too lazy to use pesticides in my garden, and I instead take a darwinian approach to it, consequently I have totally organic Apples, Plums, Rhubarb, Strawberries and Black Currants.
My wife uses Malt Vinegar as a herbicide, which she knows is safe to do, not because Malt Vinegar is a natural product (Ricin and 1080 are also natural products, as are arsenic, mercury and Strychnine) but because of the testing that has been carried out on it.
But hey, if you want to go back to the middle ages, there's always pennsylvania.
Well down the road, when they are better able to grow organs perhaps it will eliminate the need for test animals.
Perhaps it would even be possible to clone human bodies (minus a fully functional brain)in addition to body parts. But then you get into a lot of ethical issues...sounds pretty creepy. I can go with the body parts. But with a whole human, that is where I would draw the line.
Perhaps it would even be possible to clone human bodies (minus a fully functional brain)in addition to body parts. But then you get into a lot of ethical issues...sounds pretty creepy. I can go with the body parts. But with a whole human, that is where I would draw the line.
See there is another great suggestion as well as spidergoat's suggestion of using convicts now there is a super awesome idea.
Win.
This one always leaves me with mixed emotions. I hate cruelty to animals. Yet I'll kill and eat one in a instant(gotta be a clean drop, or no shot). I understand the necessity of testing, but I think it's high time for institutions to stop testing the effects of cocaine on monkeys. I think we know by now drugs are bad, very bad. And if I ever find the moron who got the million dollar grant to see if worms feel pain, they might be needing a dentist. Who gives a f**k if worms feel pain??? In my early years of fishin' there was no experiment needed, I'll tell you point blank. They feel pain, and I sometimes made sure they felt extra and I could care less!
If they wanna test new cancer treatments, then great! Go for it! But if Madonna needs more make up, then perhaps it's time to call it quits.
Anyway.. If anyone wants my results on the worms, it's free.
If they wanna test new cancer treatments, then great! Go for it! But if Madonna needs more make up, then perhaps it's time to call it quits.
Anyway.. If anyone wants my results on the worms, it's free.
Putting nail polish on a bunny's eye to see the effects isn't okay. There are several things that are not okay, and downright retarded. I wonder what human's going to paint his eyes with nail polish.
That is what im trying to say here is it right to do that to an animal and it not be made for that purpose.