Animal Testing/Abuse/cruelty

Glittering Wax Butterfly.:

I think someone else has already mentioned this, but isn`t there some kind of technology that could replace animal testing? Or has that not been invented yet?

Just curious.

ABSOLUTELY. There is! And it's an incredibly sophisticated system that many companies use already! They're even finding that those systems give more accurate results! Many cancer research labs use these as well and it's effectively helping millions, faster and more sanitary than the sick, filthy labs that animal testing companies are responsible for harboring

Some of you kids should spend a day over at www.peta-online.org !!

There's tons of other links while you're there.

here is something I found earier that I think is terrible

Nearly 700 lab animals die after power outage

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Hundreds of laboratory mice and rats died when a power outage at Ohio State University produced sent room temperatures soaring as high as 105 degrees, the school said.

Power in six buildings on the medical campus went out Wednesday evening when an electrical generator failed. In one building, 598 mice, 90 rats and one rabbit died.

A second generator was offline because of a renovation project, so there was no backup, university research official Douglas Kniss said. When power was restored, the heat came on in some areas, he said.
______________

and to think it could have been avioded if there wasn't animal testing in the first place

Animal testing and any sort of animal cruelty is atrocious. I'm so glad this thread is here to educate on the subject.

i'm definetly against it cuz why destroy a helpless little animal so you could test out your new product. why not test on humans then? if they did to dogs and cats what they do to monkeys, rabbits, pigs, etc. they would have to go to jail for it for animal abuse.

and have you seen how they treat the poor animals? on PETA's SAVE #99 protest, there is a video on what they do to the monkey #99. it is so sad, they way workers curse at the monkey, throw it on the ground and shove it up small tubes to a point were the poor thing is near suffocating.

i am not for animal testing, but my dad has a research lab, and he tests on mice to find out stuff for diseases like autism. so its going to a good cause, but i dont like how they test beauty products on animals. for science, its one thing. but for makeup? thats wrong.

My sister is autistic and if experimenting on animals is going to giver her the chance of having a relatively normal life, I'm glad it exists.
My Grandma was hooked up to a morphine drip for the last few weeks of her life- I'm sure morphine has been tested on animals at some point in history- and it helped to ease the pain that she was in. So again, I'm glad animal testing exists.

I am not a heartless little cow who only cares about herself.
I hate animal cruelty- but there is a difference between beating an animal to death and testing some drugs on it to see whether they cure illnesses.
I'm a vegaterian. Because I hate the taste of meat, not because it's wrong. By all means go kill a cow if that would make you happy. Just because I don't eat meat doesn't mean other people aren't going to eat it. As long as there is one person in the world who wants to eat meat, animals will be killed for that purpose.
And as long as there is one person in the world who needs drugs to cure an illness, animals will be tested on.
You cannot stop animal testing from happening until there is a suitable alternative, and as I don't know of any machines or humans to replace the animals, I think it's safe to say there is no alternative as yet.

Starr:

My sister is autistic and if experimenting on animals is going to giver her the chance of having a relatively normal life, I'm glad it exists.

How old is your sister? Because your sister has probably gotten used to the life she has, and making her 'normal' all of a sudden might be very hard for her...

Starr:

I hate animal cruelty- but there is a difference between beating an animal to death and testing some drugs on it to see whether they cure illnesses.

Animals in some labs die painfully, even though they may not have been beaten. And every minute 214 animals die in labs.

Starr:

You cannot stop animal testing from happening until there is a suitable alternative, and as I don't know of any machines or humans to replace the animals, I think it's safe to say there is no alternative as yet.

It has been said many times in this thread that there are alternatives to animal testing. There are computer programs that have more accurate result than animal testing, and they are now able to clone human skin which has perfect results. There are alternatives, but we have chosen to still use the primative way.

>freak on a leash<:

How old is your sister? Because your sister has probably gotten used to the life she has, and making her 'normal' all of a sudden might be very hard for her...

She is two. I wouldn't change her for anything, but without her medication she wouldn't be as the same child she is now, she would be very agressive and violent towards us.

>freak on a leash<:

Animals in some labs die painfully, even though they may not have been beaten. And every minute 214 animals die in labs.

And every day hundreds of people die painfully from diseases that could be prevented by testing drugs on animals.

>freak on a leash<:

It has been said many times in this thread that there are alternatives to animal testing. There are computer programs that have more accurate result than animal testing, and they are now able to clone human skin which has perfect results. There are alternatives, but we have chosen to still use the primative way.

Because it is relatively cheaper. Think of the costs. Do you really think that some countries could afford to use these alternatives, when they barely have enough money to carry out animal research, to feed the people and to build proper roads and infrastructure? Do you honestly think that the UK or the US would use money on these methods when they know perfectly well there are tried and tested methods which have worked for decades which are so much cheaper? It all comes down to the greed of the politicians. They won't spend the money on hi-tech equiptment if they know they can get the same results in a cheaper way.

Starr:

She is two. I wouldn't change her for anything, but without her medication she wouldn't be as the same child she is now, she would be very agressive and violent towards us.

I'm really not too concerned about the animal testing that has happened in the past. There was testing done on the medicine for your sister and there is nothing that can change that. But testing to make that medicine better should be done differently.

Starr:

And every day hundreds of people die painfully from diseases that could be prevented by testing drugs on animals.

Then the animal testing must not be working because we ARE testing on animals and those hundreds of people are still dying.

Starr:

Do you really think that some countries could afford to use these alternatives, when they barely have enough money to carry out animal research, to feed the people and to build proper roads and infrastructure?

The countries that barely have enough money to feed their people most likely aren't testing on animals. It is more likely that more people are dying of starvation than of any disease that doesn't have a cure yet.

Starr:

Do you honestly think that the UK or the US would use money on these methods when they know perfectly well there are tried and tested methods which have worked for decades which are so much cheaper? It all comes down to the greed of the politicians. They won't spend the money on hi-tech equiptment if they know they can get the same results in a cheaper way.

The UK and the US have the most money in the world. It's not like they don't have the money to pay for different ways of testing. And you're right, it does all come down to the greedy politicians.

I found this off of IMDB while looking at stuff from Donnie Darko.
---

[from the Extended and Deleted Scenes. The class is discussing Watership Down]
Karen Pommeroy: This could be the death of an entire way of life, the end of an era...
Donnie: Why should we care?
Karen Pommeroy: Because the rabbits are us, Donnie.
Donnie: Why should I mourn for a rabbit like he was human?
Karen Pommeroy: Are you saying that the death of one species is less tragic than another?
Donnie: Of course. The rabbit's not like us. It has no... keen look at something in the mirror, it has no history books, no photographs, no knowledge of sorrow or regret... I mean, I'm sorry, Miss Pommeroy, don't get me wrong; y'know, I like rabbits and all. They're cute and they're horny. And if you're cute and you're horny, then you're probably happy, in that you don't know who you are and why you're even alive. And you just wanna' have sex, as many times as possible, before you die... I mean, I just don't see the point in crying over a dead rabbit! Y'know, who... who never even feared death to begin with.
---

This doesn`t reflect my opinion. It`s just something to think about.

>freak on a leash<:

I'm really not too concerned about the animal testing that has happened in the past. There was testing done on the medicine for your sister and there is nothing that can change that. But testing to make that medicine better should be done differently.

*nods* I can understand that.

>freak on a leash<:

Then the animal testing must not be working because we ARE testing on animals and those hundreds of people are still dying.

From diseases that have yet to have a cure to them found.

>freak on a leash<:

The countries that barely have enough money to feed their people most likely aren't testing on animals. It is more likely that more people are dying of starvation than of any disease that doesn't have a cure yet.

They accept aid from richer countries that test on animals, don't they? So they are using products of animal testing. If the drugs weren't tested on animals, I bet the richer countries would make the poorer ones pay something to get the aid, to try to make up for them spending more money.

>freak on a leash<:

The UK and the US have the most money in the world. It's not like they don't have the money to pay for different ways of testing. And you're right, it does all come down to the greedy politicians.

Who refuse to pay extra for the testing of drugs to be done more scientifically - so really it's their fault that we have no alternative but to test on animals is it not.

Starr:

They accept aid from richer countries that test on animals, don't they? So they are using products of animal testing. If the drugs weren't tested on animals, I bet the richer countries would make the poorer ones pay something to get the aid, to try to make up for them spending more money.

I had said that because you had said that the countries with no money were the ones who were carrying out the research, or maybe I read it wrong. And you can never be sure that the richer countries would make the poor countries pay, they could just make the price of the medicine more expensive here. But the government cares about it's taxpayers so that probably will not happen. And yes, it is the politician's fault that we have no alternatives to animal testing at this time...

>freak on a leash<: I don't think I explained myself too well earlier. I meant poor countries accept aid from richer ones. If the prices of testing and research go up, they poor countries will have to start paying money. The governments in the rich countries have enough trouble with taxpayers being annoyed at them and won't want to make them pay more, so they will subsidise by making the poor pay for their research. It's quite pathetic really how selfish the entire world can be when you think about it on a huge scale.

Glittering Wax Butterfly.:

[from the Extended and Deleted Scenes. The class is discussing Watership Down]

I read Watership Down last year. I wrote a quote of a quote that was in there down in my notebook that kind or refers to this topic.

"Love the animals. God has given them rudiments of thought and joy untoubled. Don't trouble it, don't harass them, don't deprive them of their happiness, don't work against God's intent."

I know there are people here who don't believe in God, but I thought I would post this anyway.

Starr:

It's quite pathetic really how selfish the entire world can be when you think about it on a huge scale.

Yes, it is. It seems like everyone is run by greed now and it's very sad.

After that J'lo thing i cant even buy her perfume - if she skins animals alive imagine what she could do when it comes to her cosmetics....

i cry when i see primates being tested for diseases. i am against animal experimentation. animals have feelings too, the fact they cant express them through words is not their fault.

If we stop animal testing, do you know how many people would die while we try to find another method? Yes, it's probably a horrible thing- using animals to help save human life- but, it's for a good cause.

Though testing cosmetics on them, is just stupid. That's not doing anything good for humanitiy, and comsmetics could be easily tested on regular humans, without any major sideeffects.

As for fur- to each his own- if you want fur, or leather, that's fine by me. Throwing red paint on the fur, however, is immature,. Sorry but it is. If you don't want to wear fur, you don't have to, and you dont have to force your beliefs on others.

And I kind of agree with that Donnie Darko excerpt.

Jenni Like Whoa:

If we stop animal testing, do you know how many people would die while we try to find another method?

We already HAVE other methods to use. It has been said again and again that there are computer programs and cloned human skin that we can test on that give more accurate resluts than animal testing.

Jenni Like Whoa:

Though testing cosmetics on them, is just stupid. That's not doing anything good for humanitiy, and comsmetics could be easily tested on regular humans, without any major sideeffects.

You never know about that. I just want to say that if you think testing cosmetics on animals is stupid, why is testing them on humans any smarter? Testing on animals is cheaper, because you would most likely have to pay someone to test on them, and there could be side effects that are VERY major, even though it is only from eyeshadow. With all the krap in cosmetics it may give people skin cancer or some other kind of disease, which is really the point of animal testing in the first place. And I'm sure there would be many people ready to protest if human testing started.

Jenni Like Whoa:

As for fur- to each his own- if you want fur, or leather, that's fine by me. Throwing red paint on the fur, however, is immature,. Sorry but it is. If you don't want to wear fur, you don't have to, and you dont have to force your beliefs on others.

Even though this isn't the fur/leather topic, I completely agree. Throwing red paint on someone's coat is ineffective and just makes the person who was wearing the coat mad. As for the "force your beliefs on others" thing, I think that statement is a little inacurate. Not all people who don't wear fur try to make everyone else not wear fur either. Some may try to tell people reasons not to wear fur and if they don't care they will stop. And there's the people who throw red paint on people walking down the street... But they are all different people even if they believe the same thing.