I thought that this was interesting...
" More than 2.7 million live animal experiments were authorised in Great Britain in 2002. This number has halved in the last 30 years
Around the world, animals are used to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs
British law requires that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent
UK regulations are considered some of the most rigorous in the world - the Animals Act of 1986 insists that no animal experiments be conducted if there is a realistic alternative
Almost every medical treatment you use has been tested on animals. Animals were also used to develop anesthetics to prevent human pain and suffering during surgery"
For more info: www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/#vote
Or click here: www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm
You know what?
F**k animal rights activists, animal testing is a GOOD THING.
If giving one monkey a bunch of drugs is going to save hundreds of lives in the future, STRAP THAT GOD DAMN MONKEY DOWN AND START SHOVING PILLS DOWN ITS THROAT.
I'd say more, but I really don't think I need to.
I'm with Wonder. What would you rather: they test the drugs on a bunch of animals and they die from hideous side-effects, or they test the drugs on a bunch of people and they die from hideous side-effects? I'm all for medical vivisection. Sure, if there are efficient, effective, reliable alternatives that don't involve anything dying from hideos side-effects, go for it. However, where that isn't the case, I'm more than happy for scientist to start injecting up a bunch of rats, pigs and monkeys.
Cosmetics is a slightly less clear-cut issue for me as it's less of a necessity than medicine, but even so it's still something people demand and so new products are going to have to be tested and any methord that risks the health or wellbeing of human beings should be a last resort.
Makes sense to me. The law protects both animal and human. Any drug which humans will use must be tested and no animals should be tested on unless there is an alternative.
Unless they decide to let pharmaceutical companies hire hobos for experiments (which is far more humane), this is the best we'll get.
I'd rather we had that cure for cancer, AIDS and headache, than... you know. Not.
The only moral crime in the whole debate is the 500% mark-up on the retail price the pharmaceutical companies put on their wonderdrugs because they know they're so damned good the sick people wont mind paying their entire life earnings for it.
Okay, testing AIDS drugs to save uman lives on animals- I'm still a flip-flopper on that one.
But killing rabbits with mascara? No friggin' way. Screw makeup if innocent lives must be lost so people can look better! Stupid humans.
Chao, Have you ever considered that if the mascara kills the rabbit it may kill humans? Humans are more important than animals.
I'm still on the fence as far as cosmetics go, but I'm all for pharmaceutical testing. Sure, I hate that the animals die, but if it brings about a cure for something like AIDS or cancer, I think it's worth it.
On a lighter note, I suddenly had an image of a goth rabbit hop into my head.
I say either:
A. Find a different way to test drugs
or
B. forget codmedics altogether if innocent lives must be lost so Goths can look like Goths.
But, think of the income! They make millions.
I love animal rights activists... They make me lmao.
Seriously, human life >>> animal life. Should we go out and make a species extinct so we can have pretty faces? no. Should we torture animals? no.
Yeah, We have the power, so we are allowed to discriminate, enslave, and control the weak. Might makes right!
But seriously, what is this? Marble Garden? Does that mean that when the next time my B-day comes around, I'll just go ahead and post it in the Marble Garden? And talk about the latest Sonic Comic in the SPA? I'd say the line between MFC and the Marble Garden is getting too fuzzy.
Oh, yeah. And don't make me go on my mongoose rant.
Also, new release games will be going in EVC.
As long as you don't make me go on my platypus rant =)
I've never heard of mascara that can kill. Where can I get some?
Animal testing conducted in Western countries is usually strictly regulated. Lab animals are treated humanely, well fed and cared for, and anesthetics are used whenever necessary. I'm not losing any sleep over this one.
what cycle said. sure, i dislike the thought of any living thing suffering.. but these animals are treated well by law.
if those animal rights activists get their way and close down the places over here that run these labs and etc, then the animal testing may end up in other countries that may not be so strictly regulated.
either way, it's no excuse to go digging up people's graves and trying to burn down their houses.
grr and double grr. oo;
I say that just because some animal rights activists are total terrorists and hypocrites, not every activist is bad, a generalization people tend to make. I'm not a total extremist, but the way people treat animals (mostly wild animals) really gets to me. "Oh, look. A mountain lion killed someone last year. Let's find every mountain lion that goes near towns and blow its brains out!"
Okay, this isn't really about testing, but still.
Quote:
Chao, Have you ever considered that if the mascara kills the rabbit it may kill humans? Humans are more important than animals.
Did I say that I was on anybody's side? I just said that these facts look interesting.
Quote:
but these animals are treated well by law.
"Animals are routinely cut open, poisoned, and forced to live in barren steel cages for years, although studies show that because of vast physiological variations between species, human reactions to illnesses and drugs are completely different from those of other animals."
"As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted."
Source:www.stopanimaltests.com/animalTesting101.asp
Don't know if that is true, but look at wikipedia for some volgar photos on how some animals were found at these animal testing facilities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing Scroll down to contoversy.
Quote:
www.stopanimaltests.com/animalTesting101.asp
...
Quote:
"Oh, look. A mountain lion killed someone last year. Let's find every mountain lion that goes near towns and blow its brains out!"
Well frick, that is a dumb opinion... Anyone who can argue against that is a moron...
"As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, blah blah blah
As I said, these tests are required by law to be conducted in the most humane manner possible, under anesthetic.
is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted."
"We don't do body counts on people, why should we do them on endlessly-multiplying vermin with brains the size of peas?" -- Gen. Tommy Franks
I'm with most of the people that posted here.
I'd rather some rabbit die from a new cancer drug than me die from cancer because we couldn't test a cancer drug.
Is it selfish? Yeah, probably. Is it ethical? That depends on your definition of ethics. Is it torture? If you're an animal rights activist.
Do I care? Hell no. We're drowning in rats already, you can kill off as many as you need to deliver me new cures and treatments. We're not gonna run out.
I'm less sure about testing mascara and makeup, just because that's all vanity products; but even then I'd prefer some rabbit suffer a horrible reaction than have all our females clearly makred as "Willing to try new products" and "Not willing to try new products" by the amount of rashes they get.
If I were one of the animals I would not like it. But I'm not so I don't care. Unless if I was watching or something.
Unless it's ugly.
"We don't do body counts on people, why should we do them on endlessly-multiplying vermin with brains the size of peas?" -- Gen. Tommy Franks
Because the size of someone's brain doesen't have anything to do with whether they can feel pain or not.
Quote:
If I were one of the animals I would not like it. But I'm not so I don't care.
...That's the opinion that causes pain, starts wars and genocide, and buidls intolerance. "I'm me, not you, thus I'm superior to you." Seriously.
Quote:
...That's the opinion that causes pain, starts wars and genocide, and buidls intolerance. "I'm me, not you, thus I'm superior to you." Seriously.
Thats not what he's saying. He's saying "Wel lits not me, so I don't care". And lets be honest here; you're dieing. They have a treatment that may work, but it may do something worse to you. Do you let it be tested on an animal to make sure it won't hurt you or do you just take and hope to god it doesn't screw you over?
Quote:
Because the size of someone's brain doesen't have anything to do with whether they can feel pain or not.
Would you rather a human feel pain (nevermind the possibility of death) from an untested drug or treatment instead of an animal?
Hey, I never said that I'm totally against animal testing to save humans. I still can't decide on that. It's the whole idealology of "Humans are better than animals" I'm opposed to.
Humans are better than animals, though.
Know why?
We can think.
Now you're going overboard. Tons of non-human animals can think on quite high levels.
However, I believe in rights proportionate to intelligence. So I'm not against testing that is actually useful.
Quote:
Humans are better than animals, though.
Know why?
We can think.
Funny how you should say that bat. All animals can think, but only up to a certain degree. DOLPHINS, birds, pigs, dogs, and primates, (such as ourselves) have the highest mentality.
I'll be against testing on animals when they stand up and demand equal rights.
With words.
Quote:
Hey, I never said that I'm totally against animal testing to save humans. I still can't decide on that. It's the whole idealology of "Humans are better than animals" I'm opposed to.
I can decide pretty easily. I think the most important and most basic concern for us humans is keeping our own species alive - something that even the least intelligent creatures on this planet can relate to. I don't know if we're better than other species, but we're a hell of a lot more important. Unless you don't care whether we die or not.
Perhaps you think that's selfish. Of course it's @#%$ selfish, but it's not like we're alone. All animals think they're more important than other animals, and they'd rather not see themselves die before the others.
As long as im not being tested on......... they can do what they want...... as long as its for the good of humanity......
Just to clarify, you mean that as a species, right, Deck?
Yes.
Quote:
As long as im not being tested on......... they can do what they want...... as long as its for the good of humanity......
Aren't you a furry?
Furmanity then Deck ;P
Because the size of someone's brain doesen't have anything to do with whether they can feel pain or not.
I suppose not. But do you know what does determine whether one can feel pain? Anesthetic, and lots of it. And whining about animal testing in civilized countries is just going to get it moved to non-civilized countries, where you can bet your boots that those animals won't be getting any anesthetic at all.
And then more people will start whining about animal testing in non-civilized countries, calling for the ban on the whole thing altogether! 
But in all seriousness, I don't really know what to say about experiments on animals, as there are several pros and cons to it, but I tend to think that some animal rights activists can go overboard and such. They act like putting makeup on a rabbit is going to emotionally scar it for life.
I don't think I'm superior to animals, Chao. If I were one of them I would not care if this body got hit by a bus. 
Secondly, this is a mess. Since you, ChaoRCute and that other Chao guy are the main opponents of anything, I will speak directly to you guys (I will not descern which one of you Chao people are which):
1. People are not proclaiming "might makes right" or whatever other mass-produced slogan is being used. They are clearly saying they are more concerned for human health than that of other species.
2. Also, the "right" part of that slogan from #1 would be refering to harming animals, correct? As Cycle pointed out, these animals are put under a lot of anesthetic. Yay, no pain!
3. As other people have said, if western animal testing is brought to an end, it will go on in a less controlled manner in countries with less animal protection laws than our own. The testing is going to happen either way.
4. While one of you claims that the "Humans are better than animals" ideology irks you, you should right away be opposed to the idea of performing medical experiments on animals as this would put their lives at a value lower than a human's. Otherwise, I do not think you have pinpointed what exactly irks you. Others have expressed their distaste for using animals as subjects for cosmetic experimentation. Perhaps you do value human life over animal life but treating their life as frivolous because of that is what irks you.
Although this might seem a little off-topic, I'll say it anyways. If humans care about themselves more than anything else, and don't care about others, we're going to destroy ourselves.
Maye I'm just too pessimistic.
Isn't caring for oneself more than others (species wise) just animal instinct though?
I knew someone would say that. Other animals can only care for themselves because they can't do much harm that way. But humans have the power to destroy the planet. Which makes us, in turn, reponsible for the plannet. So we must care and look out for others. But no, that doesen't make us superior. It just makes us responsible.
That's what I think.
lol... Other animals destroy things, you goof. Insects destroy entire populations of trees. It's not just humans.
Boston, attempting to turn Chao's lone posts into a conversation doesn't seem very lucrative as the base of them seems to change almost every time. :0
You are right... Sorry Acrio =
Quote:
these animals are put under a lot of anesthetic. Yay, no pain!
Got any concrete info that they use anesthetic Acrio? They have the right to not use it, and the scientists would rather not waste money on it. Also, the animals are mostly killed when they are done with the experiments. Because of this is the reason why there are activistes; while there are people that say that it's necessary to test products to their full potential. It's just a vicious cycle that would have no end.
My take on the whole thing: I do believe that there are some bad things to this, but the testing would not stop. The scientists would find other alternatives. So it would be a yes and no situation.
No. My main concern with the topic lay in the fact that everyone's posts didn't seem to be consolidating in your head.
Quote:
If humans care about themselves more than anything else, and don't care about others, we're going to destroy ourselves.
I never said that we shouldn't care about others at all. I said that caring for ourselves is our first priority, while saving other animals should be further down the list. If everyone disagreed with this, we would destroy ourselves anyway.
As for the whole humans are better than animals, I think Deckman put it bests. The goal of humanity is, like any other species, to make sure we stay alive and continue to spread.
What this entails for other species is another matter entirely. In many cases the relationship is almost symbiotic, whereby we help another species to survive because we stand to gain from that species' continued existance. Meat farming, for instance: we breed livestock and provide them food and health care so that we have a steady supply of food. If you're concerned about the pain of animals, there's a growing movement for ethically/environmentally sound farming these days, e.g. organic food, free-range eggs, etc.
Concern for environmental issues can also be reconciled with a philosophy of human superiority. Quite trivially, in fact: although we may stand to gain in the short term from processes that pollute heavily, in the end destroying the environment screws us over as much as it does any other species.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that considering the wellbeing of humanity more important that any other species does not preclude the helping of other species to survive and it is nowhere near the same as declaring all other forms of life inferior parasites that should be purged from the Earth for their unworthiness.
EDIT: lol Ducky posted the Cliff's notes version of my post while I was still writing it.
