Jump to content

Animal Rights


Should Animals be used for testing products as in haircare perfumes etc. ?  

21 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

A dog and a young man both have a disease without a cure (so far). A doctor thinks he's found something that may work, although there may be a risk that he's wrong and could kill whoever he tests it on. The young man has a bright future ahead of him if the cure works. The dog lays around all day, craps everywhere and really does nothing except be loved by humans. Which would you rather risk killing?


What if the man was a hobo living at the train station on coke?


*I meant to quote but my puter ain't letting me*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am all for going to the days when we experimented on criminals like the Ted Bundys of the world, but no these scum bags have rights.



I feel that if it is to cure an illness then we do need the animals, but for make-up I am all against that kind of testing. I am all for stem cell research to find a cure for people with parkinsons disease for example.


My b/f is a medical researcher who works hard to find a cure for diabeties and he works with rats. We need cures for cancer and any other other types of disease that will help the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I love animals (humans are animals, you know, just a different species) and put my cousin's dog up on a pedestal. However, while some animal testing does make me sick, I believe it's the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a thousand rabbits die than one human. Also, how do you think we safely test life saving medical procedures. Appendectomies were first done on small animals to make sure that we wouldn't kill a human doing it, and that's to that, I've lived 10 years more than I ever should of. Not to mention all the other great medicines found from animal testing. And would you rather a monkey get swollen eyes to the point of painful blindness or a human? Animals are wonderful gifts that we should do our best to take care of and cherish but they are here to aide us and provide nourishment and safety, and we didn't get to the top of the food chain be being inferior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animal rights activists contradict themselves.


Show me a a true activist and I'll show you someone who has completely refused many forms of clothing, health treatment and even some of our modern forms of technology.


This means no fur, leather, cotton, etc. No drugs that have been tested on animals (including no medical procedures that were tested first on animals). Also no automobiles (it pollutes and causes animals to get sick, not to mention the accidental killing of animals, ie, squirrels, deer, skunks, etc), the list goes on.


Animal activits that we have now a days.. "Yeah lets protest against humans being able to get healthy! yeah yeah yeah!.. ok i'm done, let's hop into my gas guzzling 1960s van that smokes so badly that any animals that i come within 10 ft of suddenly get ill and die". Ok that's a more obvious example, but you get the idea of it.


When an animal activist accidentally hits a squirrel, do they turn themselves in to the other activists? If they're riding with a friend who doesn't give a poop and that friend sends a squirrel to their next life, do they yell at their friend? When was the last time a human gave rabies to a squirrel or some other animal?


I want consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel that some experiments on animals are not needed for example I know that if I spray hairspray in my eyes well not a good thing to do, so why take bunny rabbits and spray them in the eyes with this stuff. Some expeiments are needed to find cures for people that are suffering. I still say we should use the murderers and other criminals and use them for experimnets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An eye for an eye. It's a good philosophy, but it didn't work too well in Roman times. Many people were willing to pay the price of whatever they did to their victim, even if it means living through EXACTLY what they put their victim through. And what about someone who had multiple victims, each killed/hurt/or whatever in a different but equally horrible way? The criminal would be dead before you got done doing everything to them. Besides, we have that little thing in the constitution about "No cruel or unusual punishment." So even if it fits the crime, if it's "cruel or unusual," which is frequently how the criminal "punishes" their victim, it's unconstitutional. Don't you love the U.S. government? (sarcasm)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...


  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use