# Animal Testing



## Hali (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm half and half on this issue.

I agree with animal testing for medicines - IMO this is necessary for medical advances. As long as the animals are handled humanely and professionally.

I currently only purchase products that have undergone no animal testing. I feel that animal testing isn't entirely necessary for cosmetics, household cleaning products, etc. I'm currently happy with my cruelty free products and don't mind paying a higher cost to obtain them.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

I am in the same boat as Hali. 

Research for medical purposes I support done on animals. I don't exactly like it, but I support it. I wouldn't take a drug that no living creature had taken before and if testing on rats or whatever cures can save lives, I am for it. 

For frivolous things like hair spray or shampoo it doesn't sit well with me. 

As far as what animals they test on... I have no real line in my logic other than certain animals make me personally more uncomfortable than others. Especially testing on primates. It really unsettles me. That is just a personal thing though.

Important to keep in mind though is that research facilities which use animals are under strict guidelines and the animals wellbeing is monitored quite closely.


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

I never check bottles of shampoo to see if they've been tested on animals. I've just never thought about it.

But I agree with the above posters: Animal testing is required for medical advancements. The APA (American Psychology Association) has beyond strict rules for using animals in any type of medical or psychological experiment. They're also very heavily enforced and you can have your license suspended or revoked if you break the rules.

Like my Psych teacher said a couple weeks ago: If the crazy animal rights people don't believe in medical testing on animals, they can step right up and have a person who has never performed surgery do it on them. They can also test all sorts of new medications and procedures. It'll get rid of them so we don't have to deal with them anymore.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

I wouldn't exactly say I support it but I do realize it's necessary for research. As long as they are treated humanely. Obviously it's not an ideal situation for the animals..
I do wish there was another way though, and hope one day there is.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

Spastic_Dove said:


> I am in the same boat as Hali.
> 
> Research for medical purposes I support done on animals. I don't exactly like it, but I support it. I wouldn't take a drug that no living creature had taken before and if testing on rats or whatever cures can save lives, I am for it.
> 
> ...


Well said!

Also I want to highlight that when doing that testing, I see it's important that the animals are made as comfort as possible.

Personally I think I accept usage of some lower life forms more easier than usage of some more developed animals... I'm not all sure why, perhaps these more developed animals have too many junctures with human and it makes the thing feel kind of inhumane in my mind. Even I want to highlight that I appreciate all kind of life and see there's no life form which should be allowed to suffer without _proper_ reason.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

I support it for the most part, it helps the society in whole. 

I don't think it matters of the type of animal. They have a strict ethical code for these animals. I'm not going into them all, but there's a lot of ethics that must be followed


----------



## Claudettebillie (Feb 9, 2011)

Where I stand depends on what is being tested. I think pouring shampoo into the eyes of animals just so we can find out what we knew before (it burns! surprise!) is absolutely cruel and unnecessary, but if using them will save more lives than it kills, then it is worth it. 

I do not think the type of animal matters. A life lost is a life lost and the species doesn't matter. 


A really, REALLY interesting read is "Some we Love, Some we Hate, Some we Eat". I forgot who it is by, but it's someone who studies the human mind- why some people think it's okay to perform tests on mice but not chimps, why people can eat fish but not mammals or birds, etc. One thing that always keeps me thinking is if you were in a trolley with a man, and were going towards a group of people, would you push the man off so that the weight wouldn't be heavy enough to kill the people below, or leave him. Then, if the man standing with you was a chimp, and at the bottom was a group of chimps, would you push the chimp off to save the other lives? Anyway, I found it really interesting and shows how every human mind is full of inconsistencies.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Very interesting topic and one close to my heart. Having spent over five years in medical research testing all manner of pharmacalogical agents, their biochemical targets and the various interactions that occur as a resut of introducing a foreign, often synthetic compound into a biological system I guess you could say it is my career.

HOWEVER: I am a biochemist. We work purely on a molecular level (i.e. we play with immortalized cell lines in culture, bacteria, viruses etc) and the research that I was involved in was usually the very first step towards developing a new treatment, no animals needed. 

Let me tell you, every chemical was handled with gloves, mask, and sexy lab coat as until it has been tried and tested in a more complex biological system as there is just no telling what it can and will do to different organs, the circulation, your nervous system etc etc. That is, until you test it on an animal. Then you can see the effects - both good and bad.

So animal testing for medicine - horrible. Glad it wasn't me doing it. Unfortunately it is necessary for the types of nasty substances that are tested as therepeutic agents it would be criminal to try that in humans without some preliminary research. There are cases of very serious side effects in clinical trials, and even drugs that have been approved by the FDA, some of which have resulted in hefty lawsuits. Only about 2% of drugs are even approved by the FDA, imagine the consequences if the other 98% were left to go straight to human clinical trials?


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

Spastic_Dove said:


> I am in the same boat as Hali.
> 
> Research for medical purposes I support done on animals. I don't exactly like it, but I support it. I wouldn't take a drug that no living creature had taken before and if testing on rats or whatever cures can save lives, I am for it.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%. For the more frivolous things, I think it's cruel and unessesary. Why can't we have PETA advocates testing hair spray for us? :roll:


----------



## Sophie19 (Apr 13, 2009)

I support animal testing, even for things like shampoo. If theres some weird chemical reaction thats gonna create toxic fumes, or blind me if it gets in my eyes, I want it to be discovered on a rat instead of a person.


----------



## mirta (Feb 7, 2011)

it sounds me very strange that all people answered "yes i agree but.."

i'm on an italian horse forum, too. And there, quite all people said NO to animal testing in every case!! No for cosmetics and no for medicine. The supporters of this "absolutely no" say that it is useless testing medicines on animals because the reaction to the medicine may depend on the species of the animal on you have tested which (i'm sorry, i dont know if this sentence is in a correct english form!!! i'm really sorry..anyway can you understand me ?). I mean: the medicine XYZ can be useful for a rat, but useless for a person.
for example:the nimesulide drug (in italy it is known as "aulin"..) appeared to be not dangerous: in fact you could buy it without medical prescription (like aspirin)! today you can buy this drug only after a medical evaluation of benefit/risk profile.. And i think in Ireland this drug is still forbidden (but i am not sure about this)!

Furthermore, they say that who make people thinking that animal tasting is important are the multinational companies which earn by this experiments....

what do u think about this points?

ps: is it correct in english "make people thinking" or do you say "make people think" ??? thanx for help me!


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

i support animal testing for medical reasons [not shampoo or anything !]

i know a lot of people who work in vaccine development for animals and humans who do animal testing. the truth is that these people dont like testing on animals, they do it so they can treat these animals as nicely and humanely as possible, not so they can hurt them.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

mirta said:


> it sounds me very strange that all people answered "yes i agree but.."
> 
> i'm on an italian horse forum, too. And there, quite all people said NO to animal testing in every case!! No for cosmetics and no for medicine. The supporters of this "absolutely no" say that it is useless testing medicines on animals because the reaction to the medicine may depend on the species of the animal on you have tested which (i'm sorry, i dont know if this sentence is in a correct english form!!! i'm really sorry..anyway can you understand me ?). I mean: the medicine XYZ can be useful for a rat, but useless for a person.
> for example:the nimesulide drug (in italy it is known as "aulin"..) appeared to be not dangerous: in fact you could buy it without medical prescription (like aspirin)! today you can buy this drug only after a medical evaluation of benefit/risk profile.. And i think in Ireland this drug is still forbidden (but i am not sure about this)!
> ...


researchers choose animals who have certain similarities physically to people depending on what part of the body the medicine will effect. it is not garanteed that the research done on a drug in a baboon will carry over to how a similar drug [based on the animal one but made for humans] will work in a human but at least they have done a lot of research on the drug. if the benefits out way the risks they test on humans, and if they get good results then they can start selling the drug.


----------



## Claudettebillie (Feb 9, 2011)

The main reason I don't support animal testing on cosmetics and shampoo is because it CAN be done without animal testing! There are a ton of vitamins, makeup, shampoo, etc. that are 100% vegan and I use a lot of them and find that I like them a lot more than most things that are animal tested.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm really gonna upset things. I support using death row inmates for testing of medical drugs, surgeries, etc.
They are on death row for a reason, we support them for years and years where they go to law school free, get appeal after appeal for free, free meals, free tv, free everything and know it will be years and years before they fill their death sentence if ever.
Might as well make them useful for something while sponging off of society.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

^^ yeah but sometimes we make mistakes, lots of innocent people have been killed by the states =[


----------



## twogeldings (Aug 11, 2008)

Like many others, I agree that medical testing is a necessary evil. 
Those who appose it, are YOU going to line right up to be tested with a new cancer medication? Are YOU going to say "Me first!" when they need to test the possibly side effects of a new pain medication?

I bet 100% would say 'NO! It's not necessary at all!'

Well, when your child, friend, or family member comes down with some horrible form of cancer (possibly prevented by animal testing) come back and we'll talk. :wink:

The same goes for stem cell research. Everyone screams and gasps and cries "ATROCITY!" when they hear "stem cell research". You realize that...their not using _babies_, right? You realize that the stem cells from from _a collection of cells_....
Right? 
Stem cells come from fetuses that are quite literally, not babies. They don't have a heart beat, it's pretty much a blob of cells busily dividing. 
http://www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/stemcells2-GIF.gif
Literally.

But thats the problem with people who appose animal testing or VERY important medical things like Embryonic Stem Cell research. They don't want to see the facts, all they see are adorable little puppies and babies and rainbows and adorableness. 

Not the end product. Which is sad.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Yea, and lots more innocent people have been killed by the people on death row. 
I am just saying, they are sentenced to death for whatever reason and will wait years sponging off taxpayers while they wait for the sentence to either be finished or if innocent let go.
I didn't say kill them sooner, I said use them for medical testing. At least it would be on humans and will have real indications of whether a drug or surgery would work.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

that is so unethical its not even funny !

people who kill other people have something wrong with them mentally...that does not make it ok but does that mean they should have to die ?

anyways isnt it more expensive to kill them then to keep them alive and in prison for life ?


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Didn't say it to be funny.READ WHAT I SAID BEFORE YOU TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH

YOU keep saying the death row inmates shouldnt have to die or how unethical or expensive to kill them as opposed to keeping them alive for life.

I NEVER said anything about killing the death row inmates. 

WHAT I said was it seems to me since WE the taxpayers who are paying to keep them alive in prison while they do their appeals, and everything to delay their sentences why not USE THEM for the medical testing for cancer drugs, epilepsy, tumors or anything else. Since they are living off the taxpayers, why not make use of their bodies?


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

whoa what ?? i dont 'keep saying' anything, nor did i say you were trying to be funny nor was i putting words in your mouth. not really sure how you got any of those ideas from my post....

anyways my point is that testing on death row inmates is EXTREMELY unethical, like it or not they are people too.

we are forcing them to live off tax payers anyways, prisons are supposed to rehabilite inmates and we all know they dont do that !


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Glad you can keep your head in the sand and live in a land of "supposed to" and not reality.


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

wyominggrandma said:


> I'm really gonna upset things. I support using death row inmates for testing of medical drugs, surgeries, etc.
> They are on death row for a reason, we support them for years and years where they go to law school free, get appeal after appeal for free, free meals, free tv, free everything and know it will be years and years before they fill their death sentence if ever.
> Might as well make them useful for something while sponging off of society.



I have to say, I agree with you here. It gets my blood boiling when I think about killers and rapists spending up tax dollars while they get to watch tv and eat free everyday. I say if we don't use them for research, they could at least be put to work and earn their keep. We need more people working the border...send 'em down there.


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

Sarahver, appreciate your comments and agree with you that even with animal testing and FDA approval, we can't be sure that some meds on the market today are actually safe. 

Wyominggrandma, you've made people think. Ipersonally don't think that the good Lord wants us to test chemicals on the death row inmates but I'm sure that He would like to see them contribute something to humanity before they die. Too bad the ACLU won't let that happen. 

And as far as stem cell research, there have been major advances so far with adult stem cells, more than embryonic stem cells. There are no ethical issues with adult stem cell research that I've ever heard of....


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

gypsygirl said:


> ^^ yeah but sometimes we make mistakes, lots of innocent people have been killed by the states =[


 It's harder than you think to be wrongly convicted. The process takes years, sometimes more than 20, before someone is sentenced to the death penalty. They have many hearings and court trials to defend themselves, it's rare that someone is wrongly convicted. In any case, the miniscule population that is wrongly sentenced is ridiculous compared to the thousands that die every year from homocide.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

LIke I explained, I suppose its not a reality, but at least they would be contributing something. Does make you think about it, huh?


----------



## justjump (Jan 18, 2011)

wyominggrandma said:


> I'm really gonna upset things. I support using death row inmates for testing of medical drugs, surgeries, etc.
> They are on death row for a reason, we support them for years and years where they go to law school free, get appeal after appeal for free, free meals, free tv, free everything and know it will be years and years before they fill their death sentence if ever.
> Might as well make them useful for something while sponging off of society.


Hmm. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

You know, on the topic of stem cells, interestingly I am not sold on the concept.

Here's the thing: There are many different types of stem cells, varying from their origin, type of culture and ability to differentiate into different cell types. Every organ has its own stem cell population which is how new tissue is produced when damage occurs. These organ specific stem cells are limited however as they are partially differentiated. That just means that they have the ability to become a variety of cells _within that organ_, but nothing else. Very useful for all types of treatments for that particular organ e.g. liver disease, lung disease etc.

Embryonic stem cells are slightly different, they are called 'pluripotent' which means that they can differentiate (become) any cell type in the body which is MASSIVE as these cells can be cultured as therepeutic agents for any cell type of the body. They are like the holy grail of medical research, hence the massive push for their use. The down side is that they are derived from an embryo, even in the initial 8 or 16 cell stage, it is still technically an embryo. I don't want to get into a debate on whether that is actually a human or not as that is one ethical debate I don't have a clear position on myself.

Here's my problem: If we give free rein to science without ethical consideration, science takes the shortest route. It's like water (metaphorically) and follows the path of least resistance.

That doesn't make it 'right'.

Interestingly, new research shows that skin cells can be differentiated into other cell types of the body given the correct conditions. Additionally, cord blood contains a small population of embryonic stem cells that can be harvested without jeapordising crossing ethical lines that we don't have the right to decide to cross.

So I am against using embryonic stem cells as I think if it is allowed, other avenues which are valid and promising areas of research, but perhaps more problematic in their execution will never be followed because we took the easier route.

Science will find a way, we just need to have strong ethical compasses to make sure that science finds the way that is most beneficial for humanity, not just the quickest way possible.

JMO.


----------



## mirta (Feb 7, 2011)

well...i won't speak about ethic, humanity, good God, etc
i will speak about the usefulness in "using" death row inmates.
if you think about it just for 1 moment, you understand that it is absolutely useless!
It is useless because the medical science works with statistic maths and statistic needs a highest number of experiments!!! have you got in america, china, afganistan, ecc ecc enough death row inmates to create a suitable sample survey? i dont think so. 

furthermore, when you test something on a animal, one of your purpose is to known if the drug has some effects on fetus and sons...well...what do you do? do u say to all death row inmates: please, have sex now!!!And then, pregnant women, give us your fetus!

And, if you really did it, would you wait 20 years to understand if your drug has some bad effect on the sons of these mothers-guineapig??????

Do you know why scientists prefer rats, rabbit, midges and cells? because they reproduce themself very quickly, they grown quickly and in few months you can have a lot of generarations!

anyway, do u know who thought like you about death row inmates? Nazi scientist...


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

> I'm really gonna upset things. I support using death row inmates for testing of medical drugs, surgeries, etc.
> They are on death row for a reason, we support them for years and years where they go to law school free, get appeal after appeal for free, free meals, free tv, free everything and know it will be years and years before they fill their death sentence if ever.
> Might as well make them useful for something while sponging off of society


I absolutely agree. Some people are just sick and deserve to be punished ethical or not ethical. 
I believe in an eye for an eye.. 

And the ones I think should be used for instead of animals are Pedifiles. There is no excuse for that IMO. 

I'm no nazi but I do think people should be punished for there crimes. And I'm sorry but spending life in jail on taxpayers money is not punishment. IMO

I personally think that god would "rather" us test on sick people who are murderers, and pedifiles. Than inocent animals. Animals don't plan out murders or plan how there going to kidnap someone child to take there innocence.


----------



## justjump (Jan 18, 2011)

mirta said:


> well...i won't speak about ethic, humanity, good God, etc
> i will speak about the usefulness in "using" death row inmates.
> if you think about it just for 1 moment, you understand that it is absolutely useless!
> It is useless because the medical science works with statistic and statistic need a highest number of experiments!!! have you got in america, china, afganistan, ecc ecc enough death row inmates to create a suitable sample survey? i dont think so.
> ...


Oh lord. Nazi scientist? Give me a break.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

what about the HIV or other STDs and diseases that inmates have ? they probably cant be used for testing.

scientists dont just used animals that reproduce quickly, that is not their main or only criteria. they need animals with qualities that they can apply to humans. like doing aids research on baboons.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Mirta is right, the Nazis were the last that thought it would be good to use people as models. Not so much. They had themselves a wonderful time doing all sorts of heinous things to people and in the process, gained some medical knowledge also.

I agree that death row inmates deserve what is coming to them.

From a scientific and clinical perspective though, they would make TERRIBLE models. How many do you think are free from other drugs that interact and interefere with your treatment? How many haven't had a tattoo in recent times? How many are disease free? Their immune systems are most likely compromised from less than amazing living conditions.

Additionally, the first stage of clinical trials on humans are reserved for those with conditions that are incurable, resistant to other forms of treatment and these individuals are deteriorating rapidly. Radical new medicines are offered to these people as they have don't really have much hope otherwise.

Sometimes the treatments work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they make them worse off than they were prior to treatment and sometimes they only marginally improve these peoples quality of life.

I think it is fair to offer these types of people one last chance at survival if they are willing to accept the inherent risks associated.

ETA: Gypsy, you and I posted at the same time!


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

^^great post !!!

buckcherry... keep in mind, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm not saying it would actually be realistic to test on inmates. Because of their diseases and what not. 
But if were going to discuss ethical and not ethical, 
lets take a moment to think about what the animals have done wrong to deserve being tested on. 

Inmates would be bringing it on themselves if it were possible. Maybe people would think twice before committing a crime if they knew scientist were going to experiment on them if they did. It would be a little more scarey than just sitting in a cell for the rest of your life.

Thats all I'm saying but I do realize it's not realistic.


----------



## mirta (Feb 7, 2011)

Buckcherry said:


> I absolutely agree. Some people are just sick and deserve to be punished ethical or not ethical.
> I believe in an eye for an eye..
> 
> And the ones I think should be used for instead of animals are Pedifiles. There is no excuse for that IMO.
> ...


ethical or not....anyhow it is not usefull to do this! it would be a cruelty without a purpose. If you want torture them or make them working, do it....but for Medicine they are useless


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

You know, it is an interesting point Buck, I see what you are saying. Why do we afford more rights to the scum of humanity than we do to innocent animals?

I have no idea.

Fundamentally, we, the human race, have an innate desire to survive. That means that we tend to make decisions about these types of issues from a very people-centric perspective. Doesn't make it 'right'. But there are so many shades of right and wrong.

P.S. People generally make terrible models anyway as they lie about their symptoms. That's partly why we have placebo drugs. You can't rely on a human to tell the truth, even in the face of death ha ha.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

> Why do we afford more rights to the scum of humanity than we do to innocent animals?


That was exactly my point.



> People generally make terrible models anyway as they lie about their symptoms.


Yeah especially if they were inmates, why would they want to tell the truth. (theres a reason thery're in jail after all)


----------



## mirta (Feb 7, 2011)

Buckcherry said:


> Maybe people would think twice before committing a crime if they knew scientist were going to experiment on them if they did. It would be a little more scarey than just sitting in a cell for the rest of your life.
> .


 i dont think so...i suggest you a good book about it: On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria: he said that what is important is not the cruelty of the punishments, but the certainty of the sentence

Dei delitti e delle pene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'm sorry i'm off topic, now!


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

like i said in one of my first posts, the actual people who test on animals do it because they love animals and want them to be treated kindly. 

i wonder if you feel so badly for the animals, are you a vegan ?


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

gypsygirl said:


> like i said in one of my first posts, the actual people who test on animals do it because they love animals and want them to be treated kindly.
> 
> i wonder if you feel so badly for the animals, are you a vegan ?


There's so many products out there made from animals. Is it even possible to be vegan, anyway?


----------



## amschrader87 (Oct 30, 2010)

animal testing sucks lol


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

Katesrider011 said:


> There's so many products out there made from animals. Is it even possible to be vegan, anyway?


yes it is ! my sister is a strict vegan.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

> like i said in one of my first posts, the actual people who test on animals do it because they love animals and want them to be treated kindly.
> 
> i wonder if you feel so badly for the animals, are you a vegan


I wouldn't want to be around animal testing or participate in it if I really loved animals..
and No I am no vegan or crazed animal activist, and never said I was totally against animal testing. I just said i would like the animals to be treated in a humane mannor, and i wish there was another way ( which is only normal I think)

I am torn because I do disagree with things that are unnecessary such as make-up and shampoos. 
But if they can find cures for things like cancer, dementia (which my grandma has) and other life threatening diseases that would be great. But I would still feel bad for the animals.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

> i dont think so...i suggest you a good book about it: On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria: he said that what is important is not the cruelty of the punishments, but the certainty of the sentence


Everyone has there own opinions about how criminal should be punished. I didn't actually say they would ever use inmates for animal testing. I was just sayiing they would deserve it. IMO


----------



## Sophie19 (Apr 13, 2009)

We have this thing called the Bill of Rights. It strictly forbids cruel and unusual punishment. So discussing inmates being used to test unknown drugs is pointless. It's morally, patriotically, and scientifically unsound.


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

> We have this thing called the Bill of Rights. It strictly forbids cruel and unusual punishment. So discussing inmates being used to test unknown drugs is pointless. It's morally, patriotically, and scientifically unsound.


No duh, but we also have freedom of speech


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

gypsygirl said:


> yes it is ! my sister is a strict vegan.


How does she do it? Does she like go through everything to make sure it isn't made of animal?


----------



## Buckcherry (Nov 18, 2010)

A true vegan eats only plant based foods


And are also supposed to stay away from this stuff too

gelatin (made using meat byproducts)
lanolin (made from wool)
rennet (an enzyme found in the stomach of calves, young goats, and lambs that's used in cheese-making)
honey and beeswax (made by bees)
silk (made by silkworms)
shellac (the resinous secretion of the tiny lac insect)
cochineal (a red dye derived from the cochineal insect)
Oh and no leather, wool or fur

No saddles for vegans lol


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Buckcherry said:


> A true vegan eats only plant based foods
> 
> 
> And are also supposed to stay away from this stuff too
> ...


Just seems like there are so many products out there made from animal products that it seems impossible to avoid. But Hmm. But I'm off topic now so 

Animal testing is worth it. And I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## Claudettebillie (Feb 9, 2011)

I'm just going to chime in and say that if we used people on death row for testing, do you think that would actually help the community? Would it possibly lower crime rates because of people afraid to be sentenced to death? Just food for thought. 

I believe testing criminals on death row is a great idea, although it would never work like mentioned earlier. Ethically, it's probably not right, but is killing animals ethic? It's not, but sometimes people need to compromise to save others. 

In the government standpoint (not ethics), it's cheap as you already have to feed and take care of these criminals, and they are under YOUR control. Criminals have no rights where they are so if the government thought it was a good idea, they would do it. 

I'm vegan and try my best to see things rationally, and if I don't I simply don't say anything. I am vegan myself, but not for my animals, so I DO feed my carnivorous pets meat because they didn't choose their lifestyle.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

Katesrider011 said:


> How does she do it? Does she like go through everything to make sure it isn't made of animal?


yes she does. she knows most things already because she has been a vegan for a few years. she doesnt really eat out either bc it is really hard to find meals that are vegan at resturants besides salads which she can eat at home !


----------

