|
Post by sweet_dreams on Apr 16, 2002 17:39:37 GMT -5
I hate it when people usually test stuff on animals some die and it's disgusting! it's cruel,sad,unfair and shouldn't be happening at all
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 16, 2002 17:43:24 GMT -5
But what about medications? If Scientists can't test medications for new diseases, then we'll end up dying.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 16, 2002 19:01:54 GMT -5
Another make up that doesn't test on animals is Naturistics... I like some of their stuff, their lip glosses are the best!
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 16, 2002 19:05:56 GMT -5
You know what? I LOVE Naturistics, but I don't know where to get it, because I don't think they sell it around here.
|
|
matthewmckillop
Junior Member
people say that i remind them of him
Posts: 105
|
Post by matthewmckillop on Apr 29, 2002 0:26:18 GMT -5
i think they shouldnt test stuff on animals anymore i think they have people who get paid to be tested on
|
|
|
Post by DirtyMagic on Apr 30, 2002 0:50:49 GMT -5
But what about medications? If Scientists can't test medications for new diseases, then we'll end up dying.A medication being tested on animals doesn't necessarily make it safe for humans. There's a chart at www.freezone.co.uk/vivabsurd/ under "Fiction and Facts" and some other pages on the site that give examples of drugs that were tested on animals with positive effects but were bad for humans, and vice versa. It can give us a false sense of security. I understand that animal testing can give us an idea of how a drug will work, but it doesn't seem very reliable. There's some interesting stuff here, too, about why vivisection continues: home.mira.net/~antiviv/why.htm
|
|
|
Post by iNsAnE.cAnAdIaN on May 1, 2002 22:51:20 GMT -5
Wow! This is the most reply's Ive ever recieved! Maybeline is actually one of the few cosmetic companies that still DOES test its products on animals. ^^^ Maybeline does not test on animals but almost all of the others (except for bonne belle, St.Ives, Body Shop and a few others) do AND YES that includes cover girl!! I think I found that out in a magizine ( YM??) that Maybelline does not use animal testing-because thats when I started only buying their product.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on May 1, 2002 23:34:36 GMT -5
^^^ Where did you get your information. I looked at the website for the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, and Maybeline was not listed as one of the products that are not tested on animals.
|
|
|
Post by iNsAnE.cAnAdIaN on May 2, 2002 23:01:01 GMT -5
Cass- I got it form either Teen or YM magazine....
|
|
Annie
Junior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by Annie on May 3, 2002 0:43:49 GMT -5
I'm set against animal testing. I don't think it's fair for them to be used as a draft, especially if the consequences of the substance or item is not clear or known at all. There was cover story on TIME magazine about human guinea pigs. There had been several people mentioned that died from being tested on. I can't remember all the details though - I skimmed the article.
If you guys want to be guinea pigs (pardon the pun), by all means volunteer yourselves to be experimented on (you know, sign a contract or something saying you understand what could go wrong and that you won't be able to sue 'em), but until people agree to that, then we are going to have to do some animal testing. That's where the difference between animals and humans come in. Animals cannot refuse to be part of testing, yet humans can. How is that fair?
I'm for it with medication, especially possible cures for AIDS and cancer and such, but I think it's pointless for cosmetics. So it's OK for animals to be used as subjects for potiential medicine that could be harmful, as long as it's in the name of medicine? If millions of lives could be saved, it's not necessarily a bad thing. How many animals have already been killed from being used as 'guinea pigs?'
But what about medications? If Scientists can't test medications for new diseases, then we'll end up dying. This is such a weak argument. Read the above reply/replies.
|
|
|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on May 3, 2002 15:09:44 GMT -5
<<So it's OK for animals to be used as subjects for potiential medicine that could be harmful, as long as it's in the name of medicine?>>
It could be harmful, but it could be beneficial. If I was dying of AIDS or cancer (along with millions of others), I would want a cure. Although there are some people who would let testing be done on themselves (and it does occur), it's hard to find enough people to test everything.
<<That's where the difference between animals and humans come in. Animals cannot refuse to be part of testing, yet humans can. How is that fair?>>
It's sad that it has to be that way, but there isn't really any alternative. I wish there was, but people aren't willing to sell themselves. I have pity for the animals, but I also have pity for those who are dying of incurable diseases. Until people are willing to do the testing, this is how medical science will have to progress.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 3, 2002 16:04:56 GMT -5
Annie, I love animals with all my heart. But let me ask you this: Are you willing to take a medication without knowing anything about it, whether it be possible side effects or even if it could kill you? Or maybe you would like to offer yourself up as a human guinea pig? If you were, then by all means, I would be the first one wanting an end to animal testing. But until you and many others are willing to do that, then there are no other alternatives, because I am not willing to be tested on.
|
|
Annie
Junior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by Annie on May 3, 2002 16:47:39 GMT -5
It could be harmful, but it could be beneficial. There's less than a 50/50 chance that medicines tested on animals won't have the same effect on humans. There's a clear risk it won't be beneficial.
If I was dying of AIDS or cancer (along with millions of others), I would want a cure. Regardless of how many animals will be affected by testing?
Are you willing to take a medication without knowing anything about it, whether it be possible side effects or even if it could kill you? This is where the difference between animals and humans come in. Scientists find animals to test potential medicines on, regardless of the danger involved. Yes, humans are at the top of the food chain, but is it fair to allow that to decide what we do to those lower in the chain? In comparison, would it be fair if creatures much bigger and more advanced than us in many aspects decide to pick out humans to test their potential medicines on?
But until you and many others are willing to do that, then there are no other alternatives, because I am not willing to be tested on. Frankly, I think the medicine should be proven as safe as possible before being tested on any creature. Even after that, I'm skeptical of the process of testing on living creatures.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 3, 2002 17:11:35 GMT -5
There's less than a 50/50 chance that medicines tested on animals won't have the same effect on humans. There's a clear risk it won't be beneficial.
Better chance than if it wasn't tested on anything/anyone.
Regardless of how many animals will be affected by testing?
Better them than my family or me dying.
This is where the difference between animals and humans come in. Scientists find animals to test potential medicines on, regardless of the danger involved. Yes, humans are at the top of the food chain, but is it fair to allow that to decide what we do to those lower in the chain? In comparison, would it be fair if creatures much bigger and more advanced than us in many aspects decide to pick out humans to test their potential medicines on?
Again, until you or someone else can find a better method, then don't complain. This isn't about being fair. This is about whether you are willing to put your family's heath, and yours, on the line for a rat. Sorry, but my family wins hands down.
Frankly, I think the medicine should be proven as safe as possible before being tested on any creature. Even after that, I'm skeptical of the process of testing on living creatures.
Agreed, but unlike you, I want as many tests run on something before my loved ones or I take it.
|
|
Annie
Junior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by Annie on May 3, 2002 17:38:56 GMT -5
Again, until you or someone else can find a better method, then don't complain. No, there is not yet a better method. But that should not stop me from disagreeing with the procedure.
This isn't about being fair. Then what is?
Sorry, but my family wins hands down. Hmm, so just you and your family? Agreed, but unlike you, I want as many tests run on something before my loved ones or I take it. Aren't you being selfish? As long as you and your family see some benefit in animal testing, you're approving for it to go ahead. Sorry, but unlike you, I don't like to rank lives.
|
|