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...
Fabulous post!!! :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
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...
Food for thought!!! :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
severus68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
animalrights.change.org/blog/view/former_vivisector_speaks_out_about_cruelty_and_bad_science
I wonder if this is the former medical researcher you are talking about?
 
severus68 said:
???
Click to expand...
The other day the dog got dirty and needed a bath but we were out of dog shampoo so I used head a shoulders. I was a little woried if it would be safe for the dog but he survived.

But if you think about it, if shapoos are sos bad that they can’t be used on animals, why are we letting humans use them?
 
royal_archer said:
The other day the dog got dirty and needed a bath but we were out of dog shampoo so I used head a shoulders. I was a little woried if it would be safe for the dog but he survived.

But if you think about it, if shampoos are sos bad that they can’t be used on animals, why are we letting humans use them?
Click to expand...
Exactly. If some ingredients are so bad why put them in shampoos and, why do they need to test them on animals even. Its like " I know this substance can burn but its cheap or it can do… and I can sell more but lets test it on some rabbits first so I can decide how much I can put in it and not be sued".

BTW there are some dog anti tick shampoos that are so toxic I have seen dogs go into fits and know some die. May not be sold in the US.
 
royal_archer said:
The other day the dog got dirty and needed a bath but we were out of dog shampoo so I used head a shoulders. I was a little woried if it would be safe for the dog but he survived.

But if you think about it, if shapoos are sos bad that they can’t be used on animals, why are we letting humans use them?
Click to expand...
who said that they couldn’t be used on animals?:confused:
 
royal_archer said:
Well if it is so dangerous PETA gets all out of wack when it is tested on animals.
Click to expand...
Sorry - a bit confused - there is a big difference between testing on animals - and safe to be used on animals -

not for the testing - no issue with your using shampoo on your dog -
 
royal_archer said:
Well if it is so dangerous PETA gets all out of wack when it is tested on animals.
Click to expand...
If it is so dangerous it should not be tested on animals or used by humans or animals. I would get all out of whack if it was.
 
The best shampoos and conditioners on the market are found among those that are made for the show horse industry. There is good reason for that as well.
 
4elise said:
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?
Click to expand...
Certainly it would be preferential to use one that has been tested, since if it makes the animals hair fall out, I don’t think I would want to use it.
 
mapleoak said:
Certainly it would be preferential to use one that has been tested, since if it makes the animals hair fall out, I don’t think I would want to use it.
Click to expand...
Yet, lots and lots of products are not tested on animals and don’t make anyone’s hair fall out?

So given product 1 and product 2 are equally good at cleaning your hair — would it be preferential to go with the one not tested on animals - especially given the CCC on the needless suffering of animals?

If AVON can produce everything they do without animal testing - then why exactly would other companies need to?
 
4elise said:
Yet, lots and lots of products are not tested on animals and don’t make anyone’s hair fall out?

So given product 1 and product 2 are equally good at cleaning your hair — would it be preferential to go with the one not tested on animals - especially given the CCC on the needless suffering of animals?

If AVON can produce everything they do without animal testing - then why exactly would other companies need to?
Click to expand...
AVON simply does what they do as a marketing ploy. They are appealing to the good natured yet misguided sensibilities of those who would then buy their product.
Given that shampooing an animal to test its effectiveness at producing clean hair is no more a situation causing it needless suffering than is putting a non-tested product on the market and hoping it will cause no ill effect in the people who use it, it would then seem there is no violation of the CCC in having a clean and fresh sheep. I would think we should show more support for companies who value human beings over animals.
 
mapleoak said:
AVON simply does what they do as a marketing ploy. They are appealing to the good natured yet misguided sensibilities of those who would then buy their product.
Given that shampooing an animal to test its effectiveness at producing clean hair is no more a situation causing it needless suffering than is putting a non-tested product on the market and hoping it will cause no ill effect in the people who use it, it would then seem there is no violation of the CCC in having a clean and fresh sheep. I would think we should show more support for companies who value human beings over animals.
Click to expand...
Those companies are putting profits above anything else. Its fine to make reasonable profits, I am not against enterprise.

The testing is not done by shampooing the animals, it is done by dripping the product into the eyes of animal whose heads are clamped so they have to endure agony. There are even people who make their own shampoos from non toxic ingredients and do not need to test it on animals before they use it.
 
mapleoak said:
AVON simply does what they do as a marketing ploy. They are appealing to the good natured yet misguided sensibilities of those who would then buy their product.
Given that shampooing an animal to test its effectiveness at producing clean hair is no more a situation causing it needless suffering than is putting a non-tested product on the market and hoping it will cause no ill effect in the people who use it, it would then seem there is no violation of the CCC in having a clean and fresh sheep. I would think we should show more support for companies who value human beings over animals.
Click to expand...
??? ARE you purposefullymisportraying what TESTING ON ANIMALS MEans, or do you really not know???

We are not talking about shampooing an animal to test the effectiveness of a shampoo!!! TESTING PRODUCTS ON ANIMALS MEANS FORCEFEEDING THE PRODUCT TO DETERMINE THE TOXICITY–FORCEFEEDING SHAMPOO, laundry detergent, oven cleaner, etc… OR putting mascara, shampoo, skin products into the eyes of rabbits to gauge irritation and toxicity. (The living rabbits are placed in headlock devices that make it impossible to move their heads, and solutions of test products are placed in their eyes.) This is unnecessary and THIS IS needless suffering.
 
Marfran said:
??? ARE you purposefullymisportraying what TESTING ON ANIMALS MEans, or do you really not know???

We are not talking about shampooing an animal to test the effectiveness of a shampoo!!! TESTING PRODUCTS ON ANIMALS MEANS FORCEFEEDING THE PRODUCT TO DETERMINE THE TOXICITY–FORCEFEEDING SHAMPOO, laundry detergent, oven cleaner, etc… OR putting mascara, shampoo, skin products into the eyes of rabbits to gauge irritation and toxicity. (The living rabbits are placed in headlock devices that make it impossible to move their heads, and solutions of test products are placed in their eyes.) This is unnecessary and THIS IS needless suffering.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest the toxicity and irritations of such substances be tested, given that we can’t get away from using substances that can be toxic at high doses in our daily lives?
 
severus68 said:
Those companies are putting profits above anything else. Its fine to make reasonable profits, I am not against enterprise.

The testing is not done by shampooing the animals, it is done by dripping the product into the eyes of animal whose heads are clamped so they have to endure agony. There are even people who make their own shampoos from non toxic ingredients and do not need to test it on animals before they use it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that’s why we are having this discussion. I was completely astounded to read some of the posts making light of testing shampoos, etc., on animals. Either the posters were trying to purposefully misportray what ANIMAL TESTING means, or they are UNAWARE of what these practices INCLUDE. IF a consumer learns of how shampoos are FORCEFEED to animals, or dripped into their eyes while the animal is immobile, I would think that the vast majority of consumers would not approve of this, and choose to purchase a product that does not utilize animal testing.

The reason for all of this testing of products on animals, is because these manufacturers are using harsh chemicals. It is in everyone’s best interest to use less chemically intense products. It is safer for humans, it is safer for the environment.
 
severus68 said:
Is Animal Testing Necessary?
Click to expand...
The Catechism states:

**CCC 2417 **God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

.

.
 
irish_catholic said:
the catechism states:

**ccc 2417 **god entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

.

.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top