|
Post by adiisnointhewack on Sept 25, 2003 17:16:52 GMT -5
just wondering where everyone stands on this issue. personally, i think its disqusting, but i'm sure there are people out there that can make meaningful remarks in support of it. keep in mind, animal testing doesnt only mean testing makeup, but also finding cures for deadly diseases that are taking over different parts of the world. in my opinion, if we can send a man to the moon and build a bomb that can destroy the human race in a flash, we can possibly find an alternative to testing a potential cure for cancer or aids on rabits... i suppose its just a matter of focusing our "progress" in the wrong direction...
|
|
|
Post by Chrisonfire on Sept 25, 2003 23:07:09 GMT -5
I think it's a matter of context.
It seems cruel and unnecessary to test cosmetics and whatnot on animals. On the other hand, cures for cancers and fairly important medicines may possibly merit their role. I can understand that it's all theoretical until it is actually tested on a biological organism.
People these days are not going to take their chances with a possible cure for something.
But that does not mean the torture and killing of animals is pardoned. A life is a life.
Perhaps they should test on humans instead. It will be more accurate and these people will actually know what they're getting into, and (probably) do these expirements willingly.
|
|
|
Post by adiisnointhewack on Sept 26, 2003 11:20:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 26, 2003 12:05:28 GMT -5
...or politicians will stop being lying theives. yeah right. we could also expand the test groups to include rapists or murderers. but of course then we run into the problem that the death penalty runs into: the risk of injecting an innocent person. and what about suicidal people? maybe they could volunteer.
in all seriousness, i think it's unfortunate that we have to test cures on animals, though necessary. and we definitely shouldn't be testing cosmetics, or other consumer products on them.
my roomate has a sticker on her car that reads: "Torturing one animal is cruelty, but torturing many animals is science?"
|
|
|
Post by hey on Sept 27, 2003 10:33:23 GMT -5
Hey! Didn't they send a monkey into outerspace before they sent a man to the moon? A dog too, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 27, 2003 14:52:37 GMT -5
Hey! If you were a hotdog and you were starving, would you eat yourself? I know i would.
|
|
|
Post by Chrisonfire on Sept 30, 2003 0:52:54 GMT -5
Progression comes at a price, but being idle solves nothing; moving backward also has it's problems because we are this far for a reason...
|
|
|
Post by MaxProphet on Sept 30, 2003 15:38:05 GMT -5
for medicine ok. for profit product no. unfortunately medicine is for profit in many places. i'm going to start a headless clone farm and become a trillionaire.
|
|
|
Post by Arkham on Sept 30, 2003 16:46:12 GMT -5
i would like to invest in this farm... i'll take 50 shares!
|
|
|
Post by Steve M on Oct 1, 2003 3:41:04 GMT -5
whats the difference between plants and animals except you feel bad/ worse for killing one?
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 1, 2003 13:00:11 GMT -5
animals have central nervous systems. these allow them to feel pain, and suffer.
|
|
|
Post by Steve M on Oct 1, 2003 21:18:09 GMT -5
as do plants, and all forms of life
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 2, 2003 12:03:03 GMT -5
actually they don't. even some animals don't have nervous systems. but all mammals do. cows yes. lettuce no. chickens yes. carrots no. lentils no. jellyfish no (i think) pigs yes.
|
|
|
Post by Steve M on Oct 2, 2003 16:17:02 GMT -5
oh ya, oops, i mean feel pain and suffering, nervous system or not.
rocks, no
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 3, 2003 13:36:16 GMT -5
i don't think that plants feel pain. they have no nerves to transmit that pain, and no brain to transmit it to. it doesn't make any sense for a plant to evolve a pain sensing system, since they have no muscles or means of movement to avoid the pain once it starts.
|
|