Not for the cosmetic type. But medical.

What's your position on animal testing to further our medial knowledge and ability.


I disagree with alot of the conditions that the animals are kept in and pout through.. however, as a part-utilitarian I find that animal testing is for the greater good.

There have been major medical breakthroughs via this method, and, as a result, have saved lives and profited for the greater good.
To lose an animal, or to harm an animal is less evil. The animals generically used do not form attatchments (if they do it is a lengthy process), so if one dies there is no pain for others. Whereas, us being human's an' all...we have feelings and can experience grief, hysteria, shock, etc..


for or against?

Animal testing for like..cancer or AIDs, yea.


Animal testing for shampoo and make up, no...

In my opinion, it is better to test upon animals than to test upon human life; of all kinds. Why damage your own
species? That should be the question.

I'm against.


idk.... I have a soft spot for animals.

Originally Posted by Apples In my opinion, it is better to test upon animals than to test upon human life; of all kinds. Why damage your own species? That should be the question.

Not really. I asked what peoples views on animal testing/animal rights were.

Asking that question would be focusing on Speciesism.

Originally Posted by King Hydro Not really. I asked what peoples views on animal testing/animal rights were. Asking that question would be focusing on Speciesism.

True, but the two issues often tie together. Indeed, don't we need living subjects to test new medicines on? I believe it would be
better than to resort to human testing. Of course, I am completely against testing for cosmetic purposes.

I am for it but I so damn mad at them and what they sometimes do to get their cats.

My uncle had a cat that he had had for like 19 years and he loved this cat beyond many things and one day it got sick and he took it to the vet and the vet doctor said to him "I'm now going to take custody of this cat." My uncle got so extremely mad and found out that after they kill the sick cats there they send them to labratories for testing and research. But he got a little back at the doctor because he got a can of gasoline and went to the guys house tourched the guys car and made it look like the gasoline trail was from his garage so the veterinarians insurance would cover it. lol that's what you get for taking away a hippies cat mother****ers!

I'm for, I just don't need to see anything involving it, or hearing about it. I'm pro medical advancement, but I also have a soft spot for animals.

As for Larsa, seriously, get your uncle some valium because he's seriously ****ed up

Originally Posted by Larsa I am for it but I so damn mad at them and what they sometimes do to get their cats. My uncle had a cat that he had had for like 19 years and he loved this cat beyond many things and one day it got sick and he took it to the vet and the vet doctor said to him "I'm now going to take custody of this cat." My uncle got so extremely mad and found out that after they kill the sick cats there they send them to labratories for testing and research. But he got a little back at the doctor because he got a can of gasoline and went to the guys house tourched the guys car and made it look like the gasoline trail was from his garage so the veterinarians insurance would cover it. lol that's what you get for taking away a hippies cat mother****ers!

I don't believe this story, tbh. Why would he need to make the trail look like it came from the garage? The most basic insurance covers for 3rd party, fire, and theft. If his car has been burnt, moreso by a 3rd party rather than it being an "accident" then it'd have covered him regardless.

I also highly doubt that a vett would just "claim custody" of a cat. Perhaps the vet put the cat down because it was too sick to recover, but vets are not animal thefts.

You can go check it out on either the Tennesse state laws or the Oregon state laws, I don't know which it was. But they really did.

Originally Posted by Larsa You can go check it out on either the Tennesse state laws or the Oregon state laws, I don't know which it was. But they really did.

There's no need to check it out. I'm sure it wasn't as black and white as "this cat is now mien, lulz. Now gimme all ur GP too!"

There aren't enough murderers and rapists to go around for the amount of medical testing needed. Testing doesn't take place one animal-per-drug/procedure. You need thousands of them for a viable test spectrum, and the testing has to be done for several years to see if there are any long-term effects: medical testing is a process of problem elimination. That is why rats and rabbits are generally used, because you can breed a bunch in no time, and you can make clones which are useful. You can't do that with human beings - they're only useful for the most final tests.

Animal testing is necessary in my view. And it's going to be even more necessary in the near future.