VeggieBoards

VeggieBoards (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/)
-   Animal Rights and Welfare (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/12-animal-rights-welfare/)
-   -   Should animal testing be banned? (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/12-animal-rights-welfare/64247-should-animal-testing-banned.html)

indigo 04-04-2007 04:29 AM

Should animal testing be banned?

Sevenseas 04-04-2007 04:34 AM

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: well yeah.

Elena99 04-04-2007 06:17 AM

Even if someone didn't think it should be banned for whatever reason, I don't think they'd come out of the closet about it on a veg*n board.

bluegold 04-04-2007 06:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elena99 View Post

Even if someone didn't think it should be banned for whatever reason, I don't think they'd come out of the closet about it on a veg*n board.



Think they have on several occasion for medical reason "came out "and agreed , diabetics were some

manics_fan 04-04-2007 06:44 AM

I voted Yes, it's unethical and unnecessary.

That Alpaca Guy 04-04-2007 07:07 AM

I voted no.

h1pp1eboy 04-04-2007 07:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: well yeah.



and ummm is should be banned

Sevenseas 04-04-2007 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elena99 View Post

Even if someone didn't think it should be banned for whatever reason, I don't think they'd come out of the closet about it on a veg*n board.

On the contrary, vivisection advocates on VB have sometimes gladly expressed their views, going so far as to enthusiastically proclaim how they would sacrifice their own companion animals to save humans.

Treehugger267 04-04-2007 12:10 PM

Of course it should be banned, nothing should be tortured until it dies.

HandcuffedAngel 04-04-2007 12:19 PM

I think it should be banned. I think it's a bit cruel and inhumane to force an animal to be a testing subject against its will.



If you want something to be tested so bad, there are clinical trials where people can be tested on. You want a cure for cancer? Volunteer for testing different methods of treatment that are undergoing research and study.



Want to know if the lipstick really stays on for 8 hours? Volunteer to test it yourself.



It doesn't make any sense that we test our things that we are going to use on animals that will never have any use for these things. On top of that, we do it against their will. At least people can consent to the testing.

manics_fan 04-04-2007 02:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HandcuffedAngel View Post

I think it should be banned. I think it's a bit cruel and inhumane to force an animal to be a testing subject against its will.



If you want something to be tested so bad, there are clinical trials where people can be tested on. You want a cure for cancer? Volunteer for testing different methods of treatment that are undergoing research and study.



Want to know if the lipstick really stays on for 8 hours? Volunteer to test it yourself.



It doesn't make any sense that we test our things that we are going to use on animals that will never have any use for these things. On top of that, we do it against their will. At least people can consent to the testing.



Exactly, people who are for vivisection say things like "if it saves humans lives it's worth the sacrafice". Well that's pretty easy to say when you're not the one doing the sacraficing. Anyone can say it's worth the sacrafice when it's not you that has to give up anything, when we force others to make the "sacrafice".

GhostUser 04-04-2007 02:45 PM

Yes.

jenna 04-04-2007 03:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo View Post

Should animal testing be banned?



Yes.

GhostUser 04-04-2007 03:09 PM

Does this really need an answer? Of course it should be banned!

Wolfie 04-04-2007 04:00 PM

Yes.

colorful 04-04-2007 04:10 PM

Absolutely. I always wavered on this point until I watched the movie Earthlings. When you actually see what goes on in laboratories and the unfathomable suffering these animals go through, it is just shocking. Kind of like watching Meet Your Meat and the like... There are things that NO animal of any species should ever have to go through.

delicious 04-04-2007 04:18 PM

Absolutely.

Melanie 04-04-2007 04:20 PM

Yes it should be banned.

The Muse 04-04-2007 05:10 PM

Yes.



Animal testing is completely unnecessary in most cases and I believe that pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies use it because it's cheaper and easier than testing on humans.



I don't need or want animal tested H&BA products, and there are plenty of people with various health conditions who would gladly volunteer for clinical trials. I have severe asthma and have volunteered for such trials.

Nimue 04-04-2007 08:11 PM

Undoubtedly.

Amy SF 04-04-2007 08:24 PM

I voted "yes".

Elena99 04-05-2007 04:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

On the contrary, vivisection advocates on VB have sometimes gladly expressed their views, going so far as to enthusiastically proclaim how they would sacrifice their own companion animals to save humans.



Sounds like I've been missing out on some fun threads, then.

Pescas 04-05-2007 07:28 AM

Yes!!

thehappyhippo 04-05-2007 07:58 AM

Amost 20% of people think animal testing should not be banned. Wow I thought vegans could look through the crap that the media throws at us, poor ignorant fools. It also reinforces that you don't have to care about animals to be a vegan.



For the 20% who thinks animal testing should be kept - an animal tester at proctor and gamble said that you are more likely to get better results from tossing a coin that testing on rats. This was found in a science journal (I'm trying to find which one) yet millions of rats are brutally tortured every year to animal testing.

Tame 04-05-2007 08:42 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by manics_fan View Post

Exactly, people who are for vivisection say things like "if it saves humans lives it's worth the sacrafice". Well that's pretty easy to say when you're not the one doing the sacraficing. Anyone can say it's worth the sacrafice when it's not you that has to give up anything, when we force others to make the "sacrafice".



Yep. That is why we use animals. They are worth the sacrifice, at least to the vast majority of us, which is what matters.

Tame 04-05-2007 08:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

Amost 20% of people think animal testing should not be banned. Wow I thought vegans could look through the crap that the media throws at us, poor ignorant fools. It also reinforces that you don't have to care about animals to be a vegan.



Hint: not everyone on VB is a vegan.



Quote:

For the 20% who thinks animal testing should be kept - an animal tester at proctor and gamble said that you are more likely to get better results from tossing a coin that testing on rats.



Wow. An unsourced random quote from an unknown "animal tester", provided by someone who is apparently very against animal testing. What compelling evidence that is. Why, I shall change my position immediately!

Tom 04-05-2007 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Wow. An unsourced random quote from an unknown "animal tester", provided by someone who is apparently very against animal testing. What compelling evidence that is. Why, I shall change my position immediately!

Those who make a living in animal testing might well be just as lacking in objectivity, or biased in their opinion.



(I'm the lone "don't know" vote, as of now...)

Tame 04-05-2007 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post

Those who make a living in animal testing might well be just as lacking in objectivity, or biased in their opinion.



True, but at least they are educated, and if they can show results, then their argument is more substantiated than the vast majority of the ones that come from the anti-testers.

thehappyhippo 04-05-2007 04:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

Amost 20% of people think animal testing should not be banned. Wow I thought vegans could look through the crap that the media throws at us, poor ignorant fools. It also reinforces that you don't have to care about animals to be a vegan.

Hint: not everyone on VB is a vegan.

Damn my incompetence for forgetting the * as I meant to write veg*an. The statement still holds though and thankyou for your helpful hint.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

For the 20% who thinks animal testing should be kept - an animal tester at proctor and gamble said that you are more likely to get better results from tossing a coin that testing on rats. This was found in a science journal (I'm trying to find which one) yet millions of rats are brutally tortured every year to animal testing.

Wow. An unsourced random quote from an unknown "animal tester", provided by someone who is apparently very against animal testing. What compelling evidence that is. Why, I shall change my position immediately!



I hang my head in embarrassment as I have found my quote and I was wrong on a number of points, actually I was completely wrong and my memory failed me big time. I have got three quotes mixed up so here are the both of them with reference. Serves my right for rushing a reply.



1 - "Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancers in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate." F J Di Carlo: Drug Metabolism Reviews 15

2 - "95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans" Smithkline Beecham Internal Report

3 - "A number of chemical product companies, including Procter and Gamble have said in relation to a number of products, that results in animal tests are "of little relevence to humans."" Ethical Consumer Nov/Dec 1995, p24



Again sorry for my misquote but as you can see from the three quotes above that my misquote would have been the better quote from the point of view of a pro-animal tester.



And Tame, your sarcastic comment aside, if you had any desire to change your opinion then maybe you should read some pro and anti vivesection books and give us some pearls of wisdom. Even I as an educated person that has read more books on both sides than I care to think about has yet to read a convincing scientific argument FOR animal testing. If you want to see result that animal testing is dubious at best then give your dog some chocolate as if it is safe for humans to eat it must be for dogs (it can kill dogs so please don't). Or maybe we should ignore the following drugs that almost never reached human use because they can kill non-human animals:



* Corticosteroids: These have been shown to cause cancer in some rodents, despite their being used safely by humans for years.

* Depo-Provera: This contraceptive was barred from release in the US in 1973 because it caused cancer in dogs and baboons.

* FK506: This anti-rejection drug was almost shelved before it proceeded to clinical trials. After experimenting on dogs, researchers said animal toxicity was too severe to proceed to the clinical trial stage.

* Furosemide: Mice, rats and hamsters suffer liver damage from this diuretic, but humans do not. It is widely prescribed for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart disease.

* Isoniazid: This medication, commonly used for treating tuberculosis, caused cancer in animals.

* Penicillin: The release of penicillin was delayed when its discoverer, Alexander Fleming, put it to one side because it did not work in rabbits. This is because rabbits excrete penicillin in their urine. Only when Fleming had a sick human patient and nothing else to try, did he administer penicillin -- with excellent results.

* Prilosec: The release of this gastrointestinal medication was delayed for 12 years because of an effect in animals which did not occur in humans.

* Streptomycin: This popular antibiotic caused birth defects such as limb malformations in the offspring of rats.



Also blood transfusion was delayed by decades because it failed on the dogs that they tested it on. This is merely scratching the surface but as I do not want to go into vast detail I cannot give a "more substantiated" argument. Meanwhile lets ignore the countless horrendous errors such as Thalidamide.



A good, educated and well constructed discussion on animal testing:-

http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk/

http://www.iaapea.com/fatalmistakes.php

danakscully64 04-05-2007 04:16 PM

I love how many companies think that just because the animal is small (rat, mouse, rabbit), it's okay to test on them. It's sick. POM gave me that excuse when I e-mailed them. I guess it's because I care more about animals than humans, I'm against animal testing. I'm FOR human testing.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.