Is Animal Testing Necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter severus68
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Severus, I want to thank you for such a thoughtful, compassionate post. I DETEST animal research and needless suffering brought to animals in such an inhumane and unncecessary way. I applaud you for exposing the question to people and for your common sense. We can be Catholics, human beings, kings of the food chain, and still compassionate and loving to the creatures God placed below us. Great thread and posts… God bless you!
Click to expand...
Thank you for those very kind words. I believe we should wit animals act more in line with the mercy and compassion of God sice w are made in His image.

God bless you too.
 
I read something (not sure where atm) that seem pertinent; “either animals are like us and such testing is immoral, or they are not like us in which case such testing is pointless”

i.e. thalidomide
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I didn’t specifically know that Botox was tested on animals. Should it be tested on humans? Or not tested?

I think it is safe to see a judgmental tone when posters say that there is no need for Botox, because it is mainly cosmetic. 🤷

By the way, proctor and gamble, hasn’t done any animal testing for a decade. It only took a few minutes to research. They makwe cosmetics, laundry detergent, lots of things.

Is the topic of the thread somewhat a moot point? And ironic, considering “embryonic research” is still legal.
Click to expand...
There is no need for animal testing even for mediical use of botox. There are more accurate alternatives.

Animal testing is extensive and much unnecessary so what is moot please? Ironic? This is about animal testing. If you want to discuss the horrific human embryonic research, then please start a thread on it. By the way I am against such research too if you have not realised that.
 
redhen said:
I read something (not sure where atm) that seem pertinent; “either animals are like us and such testing is immoral, or they are not like us in which case such testing is pointless”

i.e. thalidomide
Click to expand...
C.S Lewis wrote an interesting article on vivisection. He said something to the effect that if animals have rights then we have no right to subject them to suffering, if they are our inferiors, then we as the superior moral beings should act with mercy and compassion to them. He said it in a much better way of course. Not your point I know. You are correct. I brought up the drug viox as an example as I was prescribed it. Thank goodness it did not work and I did not carry on using it.

I think one of the things they are doing is growing human cells in the lab and testing on them. Its not embyronic research please.
 
Marfran said:
And how do the medical uses of Botox prevent the manufactuer from finding alternatives to the LD-50 tests??? If there were no such alternatives, HSUS would not be stating that there are, and pressuring the company to change it’s practices.
Click to expand...
The LD50 tests were being reduced, then cosmetic use came in and the numbers jumped. Cosmetic use is the largest growing use of botox.
 
In the good ole days you knew shampoo and stuff was tested on animals. But now how do you know what is and is not good for them? Now you have to buy the expensive dog shampoo instead fo the cheep human stuff.
 
severus68 said:
There is no need for animal testing even for mediical use of botox. There are more accurate alternatives.

Animal testing is extensive and much unnecessary so what is moot please? Ironic? This is about animal testing. If you want to discuss the horrific human embryonic research, then please start a thread on it. By the way I am against such research too if you have not realised that.
Click to expand...
I think it’s moot because, Proctor and Gamble, has not done animal testing for 10 years. They are one of the major manufacturers of cosmetics and home care products. Unilever hasn’t done any either, since 2000. Another major manufacturer.

How is it extensive? It seems to be not common at all. Maybe, you could let us know which companies still do animal testing on cosmetics, laundry detergent, shampoo…and the we can make an educated decision whether to continue supporting them.
 
bigfootbob said:
Look, I dont know anything about soap, I’m a guy. When there is a concern for my personal safety/health I want to know the drugs or whatever I’m gonna take are safe (or at least that they’re not going to kill me or do serious damage)
Click to expand...
But given the choice -
Product A - a shampoo that has been tested on animals -
Product B - a shampoo that has not been tested on animals -

Both equally capable of cleaning your hair – do you think it would be preferential to choise the one that has not been tested on animals?

Substitute shampoo with laundry detergent, dishwasher soap, window cleaner, etc. and this is another area where simple daily choices can really make a difference when one learns something and then makes choices that reflect that new knowledge,

As for medication - I know that there is a big discussion about insuring things are safe, I would only argue against redundancy on this topic because it is difficult to really unpack this without lots of other information

OH… FYI… AVON was the first major cosmetics company in the world to end animal testing.👍
 
Graubo3 said:
Many non-profit organizations do, even the best known.
Embryonic stem cell breakthroughs can become patentable, where as adult stem cells can not. Follow the money.
How many know of cosmetic injections much like Botox, utilizing aborted babies? Big money in former Soviet countries.

Peace, Graubo
Click to expand...
I’d like to know more about this difference with adult stem cells on the issue of pattens - can you you point me in the direction on some information?
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I think it’s moot because, Proctor and Gamble, has not done animal testing for 10 years. They are one of the major manufacturers of cosmetics and home care products. Unilever hasn’t done any either, since 2000. Another major manufacturer.

How is it extensive? It seems to be not common at all. Maybe, you could let us know which companies still do animal testing on cosmetics, laundry detergent, shampoo…and the we can make an educated decision whether to continue supporting them.
Click to expand...
thevegetariansite.com/ethics_test.htm

I found this list… don’t know how accurate it is…

I was surprised to see Johnson and Johnson, Cover Girl, Sally Hansen, Dawn, and others still on this list:(

Oh - I went to the P & G web site and they are reducing but have not yet eliminated testing…
 
royal_archer said:
In the good ole days you knew shampoo and stuff was tested on animals. But now how do you know what is and is not good for them? Now you have to buy the expensive dog shampoo instead fo the cheep human stuff.
Click to expand...
???
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I think it’s moot because, Proctor and Gamble, has not done animal testing for 10 years. They are one of the major manufacturers of cosmetics and home care products. Unilever hasn’t done any either, since 2000. Another major manufacturer.

How is it extensive? It seems to be not common at all. Maybe, you could let us know which companies still do animal testing on cosmetics, laundry detergent, shampoo…and the we can make an educated decision whether to continue supporting them.
Click to expand...
You can find a list easily on the internet. You just need to decide whether you want to buy a product that has been tested on animals when there are alternatives. The packaging would either have the symbol or state that it is not so tested.
 
severus68 said:
You can find a list easily on the internet. You just need to decide whether you want to buy a product that has been tested on animals when there are alternatives. The packaging would either have the symbol or state that it is not so tested.
Click to expand...
It is good if they are marking the packages with a universal symbol - I can see how easy it would be to be misinformed - i.e. MaryGail thought that Proctor and Gamble stopped animal testing and I looked into that - on their own web site they say they are working to reduce, but haven’t completely eliminated it yet… and I was surprised to learn about Avon being the first company to stop the practice!

We learn, we learn!!!
 
severus68 said:
It was usedfor migraines. Now its just known an used extensively for wrinkles and lines. How does Botox care for human lives? Surely “care” is not meant to mean for any want or desire. If it was so, the Cathechism would not qualify at all such use of animals.
Click to expand...
Botox is also used for movement disorders.
 
4elise said:
It is good if they are marking the packages with a universal symbol - I can see how easy it would be to be misinformed - i.e. MaryGail thought that Proctor and Gamble stopped animal testing and I looked into that - on their own web site they say they are working to reduce, but haven’t completely eliminated it yet… and I was surprised to learn about Avon being the first company to stop the practice!

We learn, we learn!!!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. Yes I was surprised to hear Proctor and Gamble had stopped. I thought Loreal had stopped animal testing, found out they still do and France is trying to stop the passing of EU laws which would restrict animal testing greatly. Make up packaging dont seem to label whether they do animal testing. There are brands like St Ives, Freemans that dont do it. If they can avoid it, why can’t others.

I am also looking into medical research. Some researchers are looking into alternatives. I read a blog of a former medical researcher who has found the light and is now a vegan, you may know him. He did horrifying things which he tells of. I am not trying to stop human lives being saved but the situation can be improved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top