» Site Navigation
1 members and 593 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,916
Threads: 249,118
Posts: 2,572,201
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
Eco terrorists.
-
What they are doing may be illegal but they are also saving animals from unnecessary testing.
-
Yeeeah..Releasing captive raised animals into the wild. Great way to save them from suffering. I have little issue with animal testing. Most of the medical procedures we have today came from animal testing. That surgery and those drugs that just saved your beloved pet? Animal testing.
-
Unecasasary?
The testing is very necessary when we test on them and they die its no big deal when they test on us and we die it is important.
Plus captive raised animals aren’t meant to survive in the wild.
-
I'd rather a captive animal live its life in the wild, whether it belongs there or not, than become the next fashion statement.
Some animal testing can be warranted, but suffering of the animal is not acceptable.
-
So an animal starving to death because it doesn't know how to fend for itself isn't suffering? What about it catching an illness from the wild population and suffering? Or worst yet, introducing an illness into the wild population?
I really love this type of hypocrisy. It's horrible to release reptiles, especially if they're non-native. However, it's perfectly acceptable to release test animals, who are probably also non-native.
-
Re: Eco terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor
So an animal starving to death because it doesn't know how to fend for itself isn't suffering? What about it catching an illness from the wild population and suffering? Or worst yet, introducing an illness into the wild population?
I really love this type of hypocrisy. It's horrible to release reptiles, especially if they're non-native. However, it's perfectly acceptable to release test animals, who are probably also non-native.
Most if not all the test animals are suffering is due to our selfishness to right things the human race has messed up.
So your all in favor to continue to test on animals, make them suffer, and or see their new coat in the closet.
Sorry but allowing animals to be let loose from farms that will be skinned and turned in to clothing does not make us reptile people hypocrites.
News Flash a bout 90% of all animals in our country in the pet trade or in labs are non native. Just cause their not from this country, doesnt mean they get to be subjected to testings and suffering.
-
My school just recently built an animal testing facility on its campus and there was a massive debate here in the Okanagan over its existence. Personally, I believe sanitary and humane testing of these animals to better our understanding of disease and other ailments is perfectly ethical. Testing for cosmetics, however, is not something I believe to be ethical .
There is a very thin line of what is acceptable when it comes to testing on animals and it is undoubtedly crossed frequently, however, you can't forget that many labs, including the one on the campus of my school, provide as comfortable an environment as possible for these animals. I have seen them, they are clean and well fed, and in the end, they could help learn more about debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or cancer.
I know some people who would gladly give their own life for another glimpse of a loved one who has passed on from an ailment that has the potential to be cured through ethical testing on animals. I just couldn't look at these people and tell them I don't think the life of their loved one was worth 10, 25, 100, 1000 mice. I'm not denying some of the inhumane conditions that exist, or that some animals will inevitably suffer through testing, but their is a line, and I believe one side of it to be very just.
-
Re: Eco terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons
Most if not all the test animals are suffering is due to our selfishness to right things the human race has messed up.
Can't see how most forms of cancer is something we've "messed up".
Quote:
So your all in favor to continue to test on animals, make them suffer, and or see their new coat in the closet.
Pretty much.
Quote:
Sorry but allowing animals to be let loose from farms that will be skinned and turned in to clothing does not make us reptile people hypocrites.
Yes, it does. The released animals could easily cause issues with the ecosystem, just like reptiles. Everyone complains about the economic significance and jobs lost if snakes get banned. What about the people who work at the farms or in the labs? As a side note, fur animals are dead when they're skinned. A still live animal is going to thrash around which makes skinning dangerous. It also risks damaging the hide.
Quote:
News Flash a bout 90% of all animals in our country in the pet trade or in labs are non native. Just cause their not from this country, doesnt mean they get to be subjected to testings and suffering.
Then don't go to the doctor or take your animals to vets if your so against animal testing. Most of the techniques used to save Fluffykin's life came from animal testing.
-
Ya true
I do have to say that animal testing is very necessary and that releasing animals into the wild is very wrong. Bye the way you said you would rather see animals in the wild then in captivity and if that is the case then why do you own snakes?
-
Re: Ya true
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Browning
I do have to say that animal testing is very necessary and that releasing animals into the wild is very wrong. Bye the way you said you would rather see animals in the wild then in captivity and if that is the case then why do you own snakes?
try reading before posting.
I said id rather animals be in let loose than be the next fashion statement.
Figured you and anyone else for animal testing would throw reptiles and snakes in the mix. Me keeping snakes has nothing to do with raising minks for fur coats or testing the next new cancer that man created with new cigarette on mice or rats and so on to see the effects it MIGHT have.
Sorry i dont see the evidence that condones it.
-
..Not all cancers are caused by cigarettes. Some of them are known to pop up without cause.
-
There has been cancer since way before cigerettes. Cancer is not manmade.
If you know anyone on insulin therapy, or anyone being treated with chemo, or anyone getting organ transplants and any of several hundred other health issues, then you are saying they should die because YOU don't feel animals should be tested.
Medical testing has led to a great deal of cures and treatments. If your family member gets diagnosed with diabetes, are you going to insist they die from gangrene in their limbs after going blind slowly... or are they allowed to be treated with insulin?
It is hypocritical to keep snakes as pets and condone releasing other animals into the wild. Not to mention, peta and alf would just as happily break into YOUR home to release YOUR pets into the wild to die slowly, if they don't just set your house on fire becuase you are "cruelly" confining your animals that should be in the wild and not kept for your amusement.
ALF should be all rounded up and impriisoned for terrorist activities. Would you support terrorists if they came from India and started throwing acid on cattle ranchers and burned down your corner grocery store for the "sin" of selling beef? It's okay to eat animals, to keep them as pets, but if it's keeping them to try to cure diesese that's just wrong?
ALF = PETA = HSUS. ALL of them oppose keeping any animal for any reason. They all wouldn't hesitate to leave one of your family to burn to death in a building if it means getting THEM some PR media about animal rights. When it hits your home and life, maybe then you'll see the hypocrisy.
-
Re: Eco terrorists.
Hi,
Just to repeat the info that Mary Beth Sweetland, who used to be vice president of PETA is a diabetic and still seemed to have no problem taking her insulin shots produced and developed through animal testing. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Sweetland now works for H$U$ as director for something or other (sorry, I forget) having spent the interim with the Animals Defense League.
From a comment on this site.
I also liked this site.
dr del
-
I'm kinda in the middle about this.
There has been idiotic and very unnecessary animal testing. Cosmetics, for example. We don't have enough of this stuff that we need to develop more? Give me a break. You don't need to pour hair dye into a rabbit's eyes to know that it's a bad idea for humans to do this to themselves. Causing animals to suffer for the sake of trying out a new shampoo ingredient is wrong. Shouldn't be allowed.
There is animal testing, IMHO, that is beneficial and should be continued. Most of the surgeries that correct severe health problems were developed through animal testing. Many of the procedures that were developed through animal testing to benefit humans are now being used by vets to improve the lives of other animals. One of my own dogs had surgery to fuse two of his vertebrae after a severe injury--that procedure was developed through animal testing for humans, then it came full circle and was used to his life.
Diabetic dogs and cats live longer lives thanks to insulin, which was developed for the benefit of humans. All of the vaccines that save the lives of thousands of dogs and cats were developed through animal testing. I can remember (yeah, I'm old) dogs dying from distemper, leptospirosis, and parvo. Now these diseases are rarely found except in unvaccinated pets. We would have no means to prevent heartworms from killing our dogs and cats if it weren't for animal testing.
Animal testing in and of itself isn't a bad thing or a good thing. If it's done responsibly in order to find a means to improve the health of humans or animals and the test animals are treated as humanely as possible then it is a beneficial thing. If it's done without regard for the test animal's pain or for unnecessary reasons then IMHO it shouldn't be done at all.
-
Re: Eco terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfy-hound
There has been cancer since way before cigerettes. Cancer is not manmade.
If you know anyone on insulin therapy, or anyone being treated with chemo, or anyone getting organ transplants and any of several hundred other health issues, then you are saying they should die because YOU don't feel animals should be tested.
Medical testing has led to a great deal of cures and treatments. If your family member gets diagnosed with diabetes, are you going to insist they die from gangrene in their limbs after going blind slowly... or are they allowed to be treated with insulin?
It is hypocritical to keep snakes as pets and condone releasing other animals into the wild. Not to mention, peta and alf would just as happily break into YOUR home to release YOUR pets into the wild to die slowly, if they don't just set your house on fire becuase you are "cruelly" confining your animals that should be in the wild and not kept for your amusement.
ALF should be all rounded up and impriisoned for terrorist activities. Would you support terrorists if they came from India and started throwing acid on cattle ranchers and burned down your corner grocery store for the "sin" of selling beef? It's okay to eat animals, to keep them as pets, but if it's keeping them to try to cure diesese that's just wrong?
ALF = PETA = HSUS. ALL of them oppose keeping any animal for any reason. They all wouldn't hesitate to leave one of your family to burn to death in a building if it means getting THEM some PR media about animal rights. When it hits your home and life, maybe then you'll see the hypocrisy.
Agree with everything you said.
I bet if the people who are SUPER against animal testing were to get cancer, diabetes, or any other illness that requires any amount of medicine/any type of therapy, they would take the treatments. It's extremely hypocritical, and if it wasn't for animal testing, there would be a lot of people dear to me (and even myself) that wouldn't be around today.
-
as a person with diabetes just to bring up the animal testing for diabetes insulin all insulin on the market today is human insulin with testing going on with a plant called safflower but i do belive that animal testing is very nessasry with out it even tylonol that even the most hardcore protestor uses came from at least a bit of animal testing now i DONT belive that just becuse its a lab rat means that you can throw it in improper caging that being said these org that break into buldings to save the animals are crazy the posablity that that animal has a lab created virus or something is just to great to ignore if an iradiated rabbit falls into a river that leads to a drinking water aqafir that radiation can trasfer to the population
-
Re: Eco terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abaddon91
as a person with diabetes just to bring up the animal testing for diabetes insulin all insulin on the market today is human insulin with testing going on with a plant called safflower but i do belive that animal testing is very nessasry
You also have to take into account that without animal testing there would be no insulin therapy, no matter what the current insulin is made from. So insulin was developed with animal testing(and is now used to treat both human and animal diabetes).
I've had people say that they are allowed to use insulin, but there shouldn't be any other medical testing. I've always asked why THEY(or in two cases, their children) were so special that they should benefit from animal testing but no one else with other medical issues were allowed the possibility of treatment for their illnesses that could possibly be cured or treated with further animal testing.
I used to say that medical testing was okay, but things like cosmetic testing was not okay(my opinion). But then thinking about it, the cosmetic testing IS a medical testing really. I mean, if your 5 year old decides to pour mascara into her eye(because kids do weird stuff for no reason), how are you supposed to know how to treat that so the kid doesn't go blind? I know some things seem obvious, but think how many household products are treated if swallowed by NOT inducing vomiting vs inducing vomiting immediately?
So now I've modified to say that I'm against unnecessary invasive testing. Repetitive testing(repeating a test that's been done already) or inhumane testing if there is a viable alternative should be limited or eliminated IMO.
|
