Political Crossfire Forums

Stygma · Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 1346 Location: Boulder, Colorado

I ask this because a couple of recent threads about PETA made me wonder, do some people here support any animal testing whatsoever?

George W Bush · Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject:

weve evolved = its time to put the data in tables, manifest results and figure out how to remove animal testing out of the equation for ever.

i dont support it because i believe science can do more with technology, they dont do more because they simply feel comfortable with routine.

Time to get innovative and invent ways to model the human body so computers can function as test bases. Until this is done, test away on animals.

but, the motivation should be there to try to remove animal testing for good.

TheGirlNextDoor · Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 22608

George W Bush wrote: weve evolved = its time to put the data in tables, manifest results and figure out how to remove animal testing out of the equation for ever.

i dont support it because i believe science can do more with technology, they dont do more because they simply feel comfortable with routine.

Time to get innovative and invent ways to model the human body so computers can function as test bases. Until this is done, test away on animals.

but, the motivation should be there to try to remove animal testing for good.

I honestly do not see how we can totally eliminate animal testing. At least as far as how certain life saving medications will effect a living being. :?

I am personally against animal testing as far as cosmetics and personal hygiene products are concerned - but medicines such as cancer drugs?

I'm sorry.. but even with the technological advances that we have available today, there is no other way to put these medicines into practical use by testing them on anything but animals.

Would you support human testing? I read awhile back a study where the manufacturers of pesticides wanted to test their products on children.

Would you rather have that?

Gdawg007 · Joined: 06 Jul 2004 Posts: 15292 Location: Albuquerque, NM

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: George W Bush wrote: weve evolved = its time to put the data in tables, manifest results and figure out how to remove animal testing out of the equation for ever.

i dont support it because i believe science can do more with technology, they dont do more because they simply feel comfortable with routine.

Time to get innovative and invent ways to model the human body so computers can function as test bases. Until this is done, test away on animals.

but, the motivation should be there to try to remove animal testing for good.

I honestly do not see how we can totally eliminate animal testing. At least as far as how certain life saving medications will effect a living being. :?

I am personally against animal testing as far as cosmetics and personal hygiene products are concerned - but medicines such as cancer drugs?

I'm sorry.. but even with the technological advances that we have available today, there is no other way to put these medicines into practical use by testing them on anything but animals.

Would you support human testing? I read awhile back a study where the manufacturers of pesticides wanted to test their products on children.

Would you rather have that?

Actually, I would support more human testing of drugs in this country. Europe is on the right track, we are so full of fear over what "drugs" may do we take forever to get life saving improvements to market.

I'm only for animal testing for medical needs. It's a waste to test cosmetics or shampoos on them. We can test those on people. If we did more human testing, I bet we'd fine companies taking better care to make safer products since humans, even test subjects, could sue the hell out of them... :-)

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

I think it's acceptable-- and even necessary-- for medical testing and for scientific research.

Cosmetics, though? It's decadence-- waste-- in the name of decadence-- frivolity-- supported by a ridiculously bloated advertising/media industry. Worst kind of sick.

George W Bush · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject:

TheGirlNextDoor wrote:
Would you support human testing? I read awhile back a study where the manufacturers of pesticides wanted to test their products on children.

Would you rather have that?

to some extent, this is already done. there are trials with volunteers -
but the implication is in the way of health concerns. that volunteers may be exposed to potentially lethal side effects.

one thing is sure, in that case, they do KNOW there are lethal side affects. Why cant they perfect the data?

But, to answer your question: YES. use humans - if they want.
Its more valid in that regard.

wookeyeh · Joined: 17 Aug 2005 Posts: 57 Location: Minnesota

Just curious, what do those who believe in animal testing for medical reasons think about testing on animals to discover new medicines for things such as acne, for example?

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

wookeyeh wrote: Just curious, what do those who believe in animal testing for medical reasons think about testing on animals to discover new medicines for things such as acne, for example?

I think it's a borderline case, but I'll support it-- if for no other reason than erring on the side of non-interference.

There's a fine line between treating a condition that can make you unattractive and enhancing your attractiveness artificially.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:39 am Post subject:

You don't test on a fish to make horse medicine.

Humans and the millions of animals they kill in these Labs every year are not the same, making the "scientific" results worthless. I know I used this example before but when the Scientists were done testing cigarette smoking on monkeys none of them had developed cancer, tell that to the millions of Humans that have died.

mathurin · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject:

did they give the monkeys several packs a day for 20 years, or alot in a short time, tests are generally designed for short term, like fake sugars, or if you would rather "artificial sweeteners" not too recently they have been learning about negative health effects, the testing is designed to root out serious short term health threats, long term cumulative affects are hard to test for

ok, you made a new drug or product, do you know its not a recognized poison, most likely, you dont know its real effects, first you test it on animals to see just how lethal to life it is, no the results arent perfect but dangerous substances usually have similar affects on most life, you test on rabbits monkeys and several different rats species, spreading it out to find out its danger to life. then you can move on or go back to the drawing board depending on what happens

the data is not useless

computer simulation is a joke, only some things can be simulated i even then i would consider that data to be of even less use than animal testing, drug and animal interaction is complex, you cant boil it down to a computer simulation and expect to be really right

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

Computer simulations if they did work would be cheaper then animal testing but it isn't good enough indeed.

If all animals are my = how come they can't fight back again'st our technology.

Also in terms of smoking all studies done have been funded by anti tobacco lobbiests. I know a guy who sells life insurance and he told me out of all the people that die who smoke only a fraction actually die from a "smoking Disorder".

Human testing of pharmas and other things exist they do animal trials then human trials so the dats has to be relevant.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9046 Location: Vancouver

I don't support animal testing in fact, I condemn those that do.

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

on the fence on this one. i really don't like animal testing, but at the same time it is vital to important scientific research. research that could help a lot of people. i guess as long as it has the potential to save lives and is carried out as humanely as possible, i support it.

Nelson · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject:

Anyone against animal testing for medical/scientific purposes truly does not understand how many advances have come out of the process that wouldn't have ever been seen otherwise.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9046 Location: Vancouver

Nelson wrote: Anyone against animal testing for medical/scientific purposes truly does not understand how many advances have come out of the process that wouldn't have ever been seen otherwise.

Didn't mengele say the same thing?

Stygma · Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 1346 Location: Boulder, Colorado

Gogo Yubari wrote: Nelson wrote: Anyone against animal testing for medical/scientific purposes truly does not understand how many advances have come out of the process that wouldn't have ever been seen otherwise.

Didn't mengele say the same thing?

Oh, a nazi analogy...how unexpected. :roll:

There's a difference: humans have rights, animals don't.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9046 Location: Vancouver

Stygma wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Nelson wrote: Anyone against animal testing for medical/scientific purposes truly does not understand how many advances have come out of the process that wouldn't have ever been seen otherwise.

Didn't mengele say the same thing?

Oh, a nazi analogy...how unexpected. :roll:

There's a difference: humans have rights, animals don't.

Just because something isn't so, doesn't make it right.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11045 Location: Podunk, Colorado

If the animal testing will save lives, then I say do it.

Seapearl · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:41 am Post subject:

Korimyr the Rat wrote: I think it's acceptable-- and even necessary-- for medical testing and for scientific research.

Cosmetics, though? It's decadence-- waste-- in the name of decadence-- frivolity-- supported by a ridiculously bloated advertising/media industry. Worst kind of sick.

Totally, absolutely agree :clap:

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

Stygma wrote: Gogo Yubari wrote: Nelson wrote: Anyone against animal testing for medical/scientific purposes truly does not understand how many advances have come out of the process that wouldn't have ever been seen otherwise.

Didn't mengele say the same thing?

Oh, a nazi analogy...how unexpected. :roll:

There's a difference: humans have rights, animals don't.

says who? as far as i know, most western countries have rather strict animal protection laws.