Scientific experiments on animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabriel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And how does that support your unfounded declaration? That sort of behavior is, to say the least, extraordinarily rare among humans, but routine among many animals, especially lions and some other cats.
 
Telford13 said:
Billions of animals are murdered every single year
Click to expand...
False. The definition of murder does not include the killing of animals, no matter how many times you may claim otherwise. It is indeed incumbent upon us as humans to avoid gratuitous cruelty to other people and to animals, but no killing of an animal is murder by definition.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
Nothing in that industry justifies experimenting on animals.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does. The industry is making sure the products are safe to put on skin. They test it on animals first to make sure it is safe. It is preferable than experimenting potentially unsafe cosmetics on humans. Thus making it a medical matter. You also have to remember the same cosmetics are also used to help animals as well. Commercial detergents were used to help clean wildlife of oil that was spilled by BP. Without animal testing, that alot more wildlife would have died.

Would you really rather have potentially unsafe chemicals be experimented on humans before they go out to the wider public? Do you really think companies want lawsuits from people if, for example, the new shampoo created horrible blisters on the skin or made all the hair fall out? Do you really think that is a better alternative to animal testing?

Animals are less than humans. This is a theological fact. To put animals on the same level (or higher) as humans is not good theology.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel2 said:
In the CCC, numbers 2292-2296, is it written about scientific research. As far as I could understand, when it comes to human people. But, I have some doubts regarded to it. Well, when is it morally acceptable to use animals in scientific research, like mice, monkeys and microorganisms, like bacteria and fungi? And GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) are morally correct?
Click to expand...
Lots of questions…

Since it’s morally acceptable to hunt and eat animals - what about that?

_
 
Animal testing has progressed by leaps and bounds from earlier times. It isnt a perfect system but the care of these test subjects have greatly improved. As much as I don’t like the idea of putting chemicals into the eyes of rabbits, I prefer it to a product blinding me because it wasn’t tested for safety…and testing is becoming more humane all the time.

No scientist is gleefully hurting animals. As new understandings of chemical interaction with biological tissues progresses, the less they need to be cruel. The aim now is software that “tests” these products and eliminates the dangerous ones before any live animal is used. I remember killing frogs to determine a positive pregnancy…something that a few more months would have told us anyway but it was also a test really needed in certain situations. Now, it’s two drops of urine on a piece of cardboard. I can easily envision a time in the future where no unnecessary animal testing is done but certain medical tests may always be needed. The point is to cause the least harm to these animals and appreciate their contributions!
 
If those products were unsafe and just put out before any tests for safety were done, than yes those lives are at stake.
 
CarmeliteKnight said:
If those products were unsafe and just put out before any tests for safety were done, than yes those lives are at stake.
Click to expand...
These products are not necessary products. They are basically vanity products. Get a group of volunteer humans to test them on!

No need for animal testing for cosmetics. They managed to move away completely from using whale oil in lipstick, shampoo, and other make-up by using a plant based oil called jojoba oil.
There is ZERO need for the cosmetics industry to use animals.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
40.png
CarmeliteKnight:
If those products were unsafe and just put out before any tests for safety were done, than yes those lives are at stake.
Click to expand...
These products are not necessary products. They are basically vanity products. Get a group of volunteer humans to test them on!

No need for animal testing for cosmetics. They managed to move away completely from using whale oil in lipstick, shampoo, and other make-up by using a plant based oil called jojoba oil.
There is ZERO need for the cosmetics industry to use animals.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are a chemist or expert on why products are tested, and admittedly neither am I, but if governments have programs and agencies to ensure safety for consumers then it is a good guess those agencies exist for valid reasons.

It is not about A) vanity, or B) pointless cruelty. You don’t have the authority to say what cosmetics are or are not .
 
Alot of things aren’t nesscary, but it is good we still have them. Dish detergent isn’t nesscary, yet the same detergent helped clean animals during oil spills. Shampoo technically isn’t nesscary, but neither is bathing. Still good that we do it. If it wasn’t for lipstick, alot of people wouldn’t be here today.

We don’t live in a totalitarian country. We are allowed to have things we don’t need because we can. Heck, your internet isn’t nesscary, neither is your car. Yet you have it and it makes your life easier.

Here is also an article on why lipstick is a good thing:

 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
It is not about A) vanity, or B) pointless cruelty. You don’t have the authority to say what cosmetics are or are not .
Click to expand...
I can say whatever I want. It’s not a matter of authority. Cosmetics are basically vanity products. There! I said it again.
As I pointed out in my previous post the cosmetic industry found natural alternatives to killing whales. Testing can be done on humans.
 
Animals are objectively less than a humans I already stated that. Now you haven’t answered my question. Do you honestly think an animal’s life is worth more than that of a human? Do you really think humans ought to experiment possibly dangerous chemicals on humans?
 
Last edited:
Also, those “vainity” products are necessary.

Shampoo cleans hair. Have you ever met someone who hasn’t washed their hair? Imagine a child who has filthy hair. Without animal testing. Alot more children would get sick and die if animal testing didn’t pave the way to wash hair in an efficient manner.

Lipstick (if you bothered to to read the article I linked in one of my previous posts) can actually heal your lips and protect it from sunburn.

Perfume and deodorant can boost your confidence in multiple situations (business to social, etc).

Again dish detergent not only cleans out plates, bu also animals in dire need.

I can go on. Sure, some of these things aren’t a necessity but having them increases our quality of life. Again, your internet pollutes the air that so many birds fly in. Your car does the same. Your very existence harms an animal in one way or another. Even going vegan is harmful to the environment. You really can never get around it unless you cease to exist. No humans = no animal teating/cruelty ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top