Animal Cruelty: Is it justifiable?
I wrote this paper and thought it would be a good idea to see other peoples intake on the subject, heres a copy of the paper... So, what do you guys think about the subject?
Say you were working for a cosmetic company and you had a new formula for shampoo. Would you test this experimental product on a volunteering person or a bunny? The human seems to be the best choice, right? Unfortunately most companies choose the bunny and use it to test the effectiveness and safety of the product. No matter how much pain or distress this may cause the bunny. Many people feel that this is wrong. Animal testing really bothers me and I believe that this must stop.
The pain is caused mainly in the safety process, for the researchers put it on the bunny’s eyes to test the products irritability. They put make up on animals to see how bad it irritates and burns the skin and they check the mutagenicity of the products by having the animals ingest the product, (Whether they force the animal to eat it or have it absorbed through the skin). They even expose animals to painful things like toxins and radiation! They do this sickening process to not only cute little bunny’s, but to dogs, cats, non-human primates, mice, rats, amphibians (frogs), fish, birds, and other mammals. Is this not sickening? Yet this is not even the worst of it. “It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night.” Says Ray Lancaster, I agree that this is a sickening subject that should be stopped.
I’m not saying great things haven’t come out of animal testing. Insulin was first extracted from a dog, which took great strides to assisting diabetics. And antibiotic treatments for leprosy were developed from armadillos. But these were highly important and much needed projects and the animals were given anesthesia to prevent pain. But when you take an animal and irradiate it or to test obviously harmful chemicals on it, you are taking it too far. One example of taking it too far was with a monkey named Britches. When Britches was born they took him away from his mother, sewed his eyes shut, and put a sonar emitter on the top of his head! Thankfully, the Animal Liberation Front broke into the lab and took Britches, and got him treatment. Britches now lives in a sanctuary as a normal monkey with full eyesight. Animals should not be harmed like this if it means discovering something that is already common knowledge.
And so, I believe that animals have rights and don’t deserver the cruelty that they suffer at the hands of humans. And I urge companies to test their products on volunteer humans, unless it is completely necessary to use the product on an animal. And I also wish that animal rights enthusiasts were less violent with some of their protests. Not too long ago an animal rights group attempted to detonate a bomb in the car of a primate testing advisor for UCLA. Your efforts become worthless when you become worse than the thing you are trying to stop. And so please support your local animal rescue foundations and shelters, and don’t buy products that have been tested on a poor animal.
okay, we'll just use you instead to do the testing. suits me either way.
^ I agree with Mike. You want to spare some animals from testing then go volunteer at a cosmetics company for some testing.
i'm against the use of animals for cosmetic testing, but medical testing is something completely different.
it's worth noting that animals are being used less for cosmetic testing nowadays. but medical testing still uses animals.
if you get rid of animals for getting medical testing, you'll drive up the cost of drug development (which is already HUGE).
Well, you can't really do medical testing any other way. Some stuff they test could permanent damage the subjects they test upon. It out of the question to ask someone if they want to participate in something that could cause brain/heart/etc. damage or even death.
I'd have to say cosmetic testing on animals seems kind of dumb. If they're producing a product that could do more than cause irritations, very minor injury, or allergic reactions, they're really fucking up.
[QUOTE=Luxo;17905999]Well, you can't really do medical testing any other way. Some stuff they test could permanent damage the subjects they test upon. It out of the question to ask someone if they want to participate in something that could cause brain/heart/etc. damage or even death.
I'd have to say cosmetic testing on animals seems kind of dumb. If they're producing a product that could do more than cause irritations, very minor injury, or allergic reactions, they're really fucking up.[/QUOTE]
Actually, its been proven that skin sampling has been proven to be more accurate...
But more expensive :(
Although its been proven that skin sampling has been proven to be more accurate, it has not been proven that it is proven to be more expensive.
Medical testing = Yes
Cosmetic testing = In early stages of testing, and if there is no suitable feasible alternative (of which there are now more than ever), then yes
We sustain our lives by eating them just as much as we do by taking medication tested on them, it's a fact of modern life
but medication and other medical needs are something that is required. all these million and a half cosmetic brands, from shampoo to eyeliner to.. foot cream(?) are not necessary.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
