Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Animal Testing
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
Evil Eye said:
And Congressmen.
I wouldn't. But then I'm not against animal testing, either. We fucking eat animals after all, so I don't see why shampooing them causes such a big deal.
Plus, many medical advances wouldn't have been made without animal testing. That's something people forget. There's about a 50/50 chance that any product or medication you use, was brought about by testing it on animals first. A good example would be paracetamol. It wasn't tested on humans until the late 1800s, and wasn't released for sale until the 1950s. I'm unsure if it was tested on animals beforehand, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Similarly, cancer medication and treatments are tested on animals; it's about the only reason cancer doesn't have a 100% kill rate now. Remember polio? It's pretty much eradicated from civilization thanks to testing on monkeys.
Animal testing has saved countless lives. That cannot be denied.
Plus, many medical advances wouldn't have been made without animal testing. That's something people forget. There's about a 50/50 chance that any product or medication you use, was brought about by testing it on animals first. A good example would be paracetamol. It wasn't tested on humans until the late 1800s, and wasn't released for sale until the 1950s. I'm unsure if it was tested on animals beforehand, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Similarly, cancer medication and treatments are tested on animals; it's about the only reason cancer doesn't have a 100% kill rate now. Remember polio? It's pretty much eradicated from civilization thanks to testing on monkeys.
Animal testing has saved countless lives. That cannot be denied.
Princess Alexandros XVII said:
While this is true, I think its slightly more humane to just kill them for food than to put products on them that can potentially cause extreme pain for an extended period of time until they are finally put down when their use as a test subject is finished.
Certainly.Princess Alexandros XVII said:
I hadn't quite read the OP right, I skipped over the "other products" part. I hold that there is an ethical difference between testing cosmetics on animals and testing medication on animals.
Evil Eye said:
It's a grey area from an ethical standpoint too. A great deal of cosmetic testing (and medical testing too) is performed on rats. That is to say, an animal most people view as vermin, and wouldn't care if they killed one. So in that respect, I don't see the problem either. If it's an animal you'd try to get rid of or kill when you saw it, then testing things on it shouldn't really tweak your morality.
Similarly, one of the reasons things aren't tested on humans is, as I said before, people aren't willing to put themselves up to be tested on. Additionally, the human rights movement would prohibit that kind of testing if it were carried out on say, criminals. Until more people are willing to put their own bodies on the line, we really have no choice but to test things on animals. At the end of the day, animals will always be perceived as lesser creatures than humans.
