my biggest problem with alot of the animal testing is that a large percentage of it is useless. We know that drugs harm unborn babies, or cosmetics for instance, there are a million safe chemicals, why do we have to test millions of animals for years so that one more can be added to the list? We know alot of things, but we continue to test. Also, the standard of care that animals being experimented on is horrible. Many suffer, and nothing is done to make it better. If anything, the tests should be absolutely necessary, and more extreme lengths should be taken to ensure that they do not suffer.
Animal 'rights' versus human rights
- Thread starter fishypoo2
- Start date
Holly9937 said:
I certainly agree with that. There is no reason animals can't be given pain meds and made comfortable, and kept in a clean enviroment with adequate food and water.
Holly, can you give sources for this? I would be interested in reading factual info on it.
Thanks!
"Riso-chan...there has been history of prisoners being used as test subjects. Not sure what the current status of that is tho.
Even if someone has commited a heinous crime it is still our obligation to treat them humanely. (I don't intend to have the death penalty debate again...it can be done humanely if it's done and lets leave it at that)
How criminals treat themselves and each other in prison is another matter."
You're right nursie. I just get so worked up with issues like this, and being a youngin' can make one behave rash. I have too much vigor for my own good. It is true too, that some people do change after a while in prison, but whether or not they're rehabilitated is another question.
Even if someone has commited a heinous crime it is still our obligation to treat them humanely. (I don't intend to have the death penalty debate again...it can be done humanely if it's done and lets leave it at that)
How criminals treat themselves and each other in prison is another matter."
You're right nursie. I just get so worked up with issues like this, and being a youngin' can make one behave rash. I have too much vigor for my own good. It is true too, that some people do change after a while in prison, but whether or not they're rehabilitated is another question.
Last edited:
For the useless testing or the suffering? It can be difficult to find, most agencies, testing facilities, make-up companys, etc. don't exactly advertise the fact that they test at all. But in general, why isn't every make-up company animal testing free? Read the list of ingredients on some powder or mascara one day, do we really need to add more to the list, something that hasn't already been proven safe? That is one major thing I was referring to
I'll see if I can't dig something up@!!
I'll see if I can't dig something up@!!
I don't even where much makeup anymore. I pretty much just let my natural features be what they are. Hell, it gets to be a hassel having to paint a mask on at every outing. If anything, the cosmetic testing on animals makes me despise some of the bimbos who can't go on without it. So phoney sometimes. You could say this though, maybe as a result of using more harmful materials in cosmetics it will come to light that this is what makes some of the real bimbettes out there as stupid as they are. Could be killing brain cells, you never know. BTW, have you ever gotten an accidental whiff of hairspray? It gave me a real coughing fit once, from just one breath.
The animal welfare act, as per the government
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm
Read carefully and you will see there are exceptions to every rule, so that basically it does not have to be followed. No one will get in trouble if things are done incorrectly.
Section 3. (basically that you have to have a license to sell animals to a lab and that the lab can only buy from people with said license EXCEPT:"any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this Act."****(How do they know the dog was bred on their own premises and not stolen from someones yard, picked up from pound, etc.?)
This leads to a practice known as
POUND SEIZURE:
Many states have laws that require local pounds to turn over to laboratories on demand those animals who remain unclaimed five days after their arrival. This practice is called "pound seizure." The animals, mostly cats, dogs, kittens and puppies-are used in medical experiments.
Class "B" dealers are licensed by the USDA to purchase animals for the purpose of selling them to laboratories. Dealers obtain animals from unclaimed animals at pounds, from people who decide to relinquish guardianship of their pet, through "free to good home" ads and by picking up stray animals who are lost or homeless. Some of the animals are brought to the pounds and shelters by guardians who can no longer keep them. Usually the guardians hope that they will be adopted to another family that will give their pet a loving and trusting environment. In communities where pound animals are sold to research, some guardians will leave their pets on the streets to fend for themselves, afraid that their pet will not be humanely euthanized at the community pound, but instead sold for research.
There is little supervision as to where these dealers obtain animals or in what kind of surroundings the animals are kept in before they are sold to the laboratories. Complaints of filthy conditions, inhumane methods of transport, and lack of veterinary care are common. Having a pound, shelter or humane society that practices pound seizure in your area means that every pet is worth money, and increases the chances of pet theft occurring in your community. It is suspected that some Class "B" dealers traffic in stolen animals.
Experimenters tend to choose animals who are medium-sized, docile, and well socialized-those who have the greatest chance of leaving the shelters with a new family and experimenters take that chance away. They don't want the sick, injured, or aggressive dogs and cats. The more socialized and friendly they are, the less chance the animal will turn against the hand that tortures them. Sadly, that is the reason why the pound animals are so "popular" in the world of experimentation.
March of dimes research:
implanted electric pumps into the backs of pregnant rats to inject nicotine, even though the dangers of cigarette smoking to
human babies is already known.
injected pregnant rats with cocaine, though the dangers of cocaine to human babies is already known.
injected newborn opossums with alcohol, decapitated them an hour to 32 weeks later, then removed and studied the
(immature sexual organs), though the dangers of alcohol to human babies is well known.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm
Read carefully and you will see there are exceptions to every rule, so that basically it does not have to be followed. No one will get in trouble if things are done incorrectly.
Section 3. (basically that you have to have a license to sell animals to a lab and that the lab can only buy from people with said license EXCEPT:"any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this Act."****(How do they know the dog was bred on their own premises and not stolen from someones yard, picked up from pound, etc.?)
This leads to a practice known as
POUND SEIZURE:
Many states have laws that require local pounds to turn over to laboratories on demand those animals who remain unclaimed five days after their arrival. This practice is called "pound seizure." The animals, mostly cats, dogs, kittens and puppies-are used in medical experiments.
Class "B" dealers are licensed by the USDA to purchase animals for the purpose of selling them to laboratories. Dealers obtain animals from unclaimed animals at pounds, from people who decide to relinquish guardianship of their pet, through "free to good home" ads and by picking up stray animals who are lost or homeless. Some of the animals are brought to the pounds and shelters by guardians who can no longer keep them. Usually the guardians hope that they will be adopted to another family that will give their pet a loving and trusting environment. In communities where pound animals are sold to research, some guardians will leave their pets on the streets to fend for themselves, afraid that their pet will not be humanely euthanized at the community pound, but instead sold for research.
There is little supervision as to where these dealers obtain animals or in what kind of surroundings the animals are kept in before they are sold to the laboratories. Complaints of filthy conditions, inhumane methods of transport, and lack of veterinary care are common. Having a pound, shelter or humane society that practices pound seizure in your area means that every pet is worth money, and increases the chances of pet theft occurring in your community. It is suspected that some Class "B" dealers traffic in stolen animals.
Experimenters tend to choose animals who are medium-sized, docile, and well socialized-those who have the greatest chance of leaving the shelters with a new family and experimenters take that chance away. They don't want the sick, injured, or aggressive dogs and cats. The more socialized and friendly they are, the less chance the animal will turn against the hand that tortures them. Sadly, that is the reason why the pound animals are so "popular" in the world of experimentation.
March of dimes research:
implanted electric pumps into the backs of pregnant rats to inject nicotine, even though the dangers of cigarette smoking to
human babies is already known.
injected pregnant rats with cocaine, though the dangers of cocaine to human babies is already known.
injected newborn opossums with alcohol, decapitated them an hour to 32 weeks later, then removed and studied the
(immature sexual organs), though the dangers of alcohol to human babies is well known.
Very good point...if the substances are already known to be harmful...why do we have to ahve more animal tests???
Is someone hoping their test data will prove something safe?
Anyone here remember Bloom County? We have one of the books called "The Night of the Mary Kay Commandos". Brethed really ripped on the cosmetic industry with it.
An interesting factiod: There were animal protection laws in this country before there were ones to protect children. They used the animal ones to save the kids at first. At one time a man's wife and children were under his control and there were no laws for intervening in abuse.
Is someone hoping their test data will prove something safe?
Anyone here remember Bloom County? We have one of the books called "The Night of the Mary Kay Commandos". Brethed really ripped on the cosmetic industry with it.
An interesting factiod: There were animal protection laws in this country before there were ones to protect children. They used the animal ones to save the kids at first. At one time a man's wife and children were under his control and there were no laws for intervening in abuse.
Last edited:
An interesting read. However most of it was concerned with how the animals are provided by individuals or obtained by the labs rather than the conditions or unnecessary cruelties visited upon them at the lab.
As for studying chemicals that are already known to be harmful...well that's like saying we already know that there is a universe, so there is no longer any reason to study it.
Just because you know something is bad, does not mean that we understand all the implications or possible effects it has.
Humans do not thrive on this planet by just labeling something "good" or "bad" but by learning exactly how it is so, and with all the tiny nuances that go along with it. If we had gone that route we would understand that some plants are good to eat, and some are bad. Why? It's just bad, ok?!
And this:
Could have read that from a thousand different complaints about Petco or PetSmart as well.
As for studying chemicals that are already known to be harmful...well that's like saying we already know that there is a universe, so there is no longer any reason to study it.
Just because you know something is bad, does not mean that we understand all the implications or possible effects it has.
Humans do not thrive on this planet by just labeling something "good" or "bad" but by learning exactly how it is so, and with all the tiny nuances that go along with it. If we had gone that route we would understand that some plants are good to eat, and some are bad. Why? It's just bad, ok?!
And this:
Could have read that from a thousand different complaints about Petco or PetSmart as well.
