Animal Testing - Right or Wrong? - Page 2

September 26, 2007, 9:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhea

eating some carrots...mindin' your bui'ness...and suddenly you're nabbed from paradise

Nabbed from paradise, Rhea I find that so funny. Rabbits have to escape all sorts of preditors on a daily basis, sleep in the coldest conditions and probably rarely eat carrots and are starving most of the time, hardly a description of paradise. But when captured they have free meals, warm beds - surely that is worth a little bit of chemical testing each day.

September 26, 2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephirothalpha

Remember those tests on human around a year ago that had disasterous results, I think only one guy survived and he was serverely deformed.

What about those animals, they died. No matter what you say, those animals died! I'd much rather be deformed for the rest of my life then have animals dying because of human interference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhea

I'm completely against it. That's so fucked up. How would you like it if you were an innocent little rabbit, just kicking back, eating some carrots...mindin' your bui'ness...and suddenly you're nabbed from paradise and thrown into a lab where you sleep in a confined area day in and day out, and you get injected with needles and smeared in places with substances that don't belong on your body...

That's just so messed up...
I don't care if it's to "save lives". Humans are "supposed" to be intelligent creatures. Find another method for testing.

I 100% agree with you, but animals are also intelligent, or please define your definition of 'intelligent'. animals use their intelligence to survive, eat, drink, sleep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephirothalpha

Nabbed from paradise, Rhea I find that so funny. Rabbits have to escape all sorts of preditors on a daily basis, sleep in the coldest conditions and probably rarely eat carrots and are starving most of the time, hardly a description of paradise. But when captured they have free meals, warm beds - surely that is worth a little bit of chemical testing each day.

Since that chemical testing will most likely kill them, yeah! And those rabbits aren't starving, in the wildlife, they are happy, but wild animals don't like being held captive by strange, big creatures. The chemical testing would torture them for days, weeks, months. Every day, searing pain, but being eaten, not only is it natural, it's most of the time quick. And it's helping out other aniamls.

My Character Profiles · September 26, 2007, 10:20 AM

I mean...if people are so intelligent, then we can surely find a different means of product testing.

I know that animals face predators in nature. But didn't you watch the Lion King? It's called the circle of life. Not the circle of analy raping animals with chemical products. o.0
It's just not right to pluck a defenseless critter out of nature, whether you THINK the animal may want it or not.

September 26, 2007, 10:31 AM

I'm all against testing that will kill or harm an animal for pointless reasons such as new make-up or shampoo, but to save human lifes, I'm all up for that.

In that human testing most of the people who tested the new drug died, only one was deformed. You would rather humans die than rabbits?

September 26, 2007, 10:37 AM

I think it's probably better to test on humans...as long as they consent of course, and get lotsa money for it! I'm not sure there would be many people who would want to be tested on of their own free will though. But I think its unfair to test things on animals which have no say in the matter, no choice.

September 26, 2007, 10:44 AM

Then start posting because to regard animal life more important than human life is bizarre.

Would you actually choose a rabbit over a human in a different circumstance, say you could only save one?

September 26, 2007, 10:51 AM

That first sentence of yours, is saying that Human life is more imprtant, so rabbits must be ex-term-in-ated!(dalek voice)

To answer your question, we murder them, just to get what we want, we are selfish. It's not like the little Rabbit can come to the next APEC meeting and say 'Stop hurting us' so, it's people like me that have to talk for the creatures, great and small

Same question back at ya? why would you save a human over a rabbit?
My answer is that the human can talk, and the rabbit can't, so scientists think that they can just do stuff to it

September 26, 2007, 10:55 AM

I'd save the human. We are top of the food chain therefore the more dominant species on the planet. Like Rhea said the circle of life and we are top of the circle.

Tell me are you vegetarian?

September 26, 2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephirothalpha

I'd save the human. We are top of the food chain therefore the more dominant species on the planet.

Of course... but as the dominant species, we have a responsibility to the other lifeforms on this planet. Just because we can test on animals doesn't mean we should. And, yes many people would save a human rather than a rabbit, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether animal testing is the right thing to do.

And sorry if that sounded like I was being bitchy...I'm in a quite bad mood today...got a helluva cold and only got 1 hours sleep last night :(