is it animal cruelty? Options

[CrimsonArchangel]

No, this is not about fur, or wool or anything like that.

Its about science. Many of you have had to dissect several creatures for bio class, most likely. Today I had to do the frog ringer lab, where a frog has its brain removed (is it really dead?) and then we have to dissect it and add chemicals to its heart to see what happens, then add a third one that will kill it.

Now I ask. Despite the fact that many of those animals are bred for that purpose, "to further science", should we use animals as dissection subjects? Or should we just make plastic models and the such?

Is it animal cruelty to breed animals for the purpose of being cut up by students just to learn?

[racoons > you]

yes.

[karrar]

It is animal cruelty,but you can not risk a Human's life, so it's probaly nothing you can do about it . I Heard about some company getting sued becuase they where testing there product on animal's. If they do not test their products on animals, then how can they further their knowledge on the product so they canrelease medicine and other item's needed.

[racoons > you]

^^ what kind of company, if its cosmetics then its disgusting, because thats not at all esential for human survival.

and there are other ways of doing research for medical purposes. the human genome project, stem cells etc.

[karrar]

Human Genome project and stem cells still are not in full effect , people need result's now . A human's life can not be taken , So testing on animals is the only answer.

[CrimsonArchangel]

Humans *are* used for dissection. I've done it already. The thing with them is that they agree to let their bodies be used for that purpose. They die naturally (or from whatever disease they have) and then their bodies are given to med schools to use for about a year, after which they are returned to whatever company they donated their bodies to to be cremated and given proper burial.

About animals being used to test medicines and what not, that is another debate topic. What I'm talking about is dissection. There are companies that breed frogs for the purpose of dissection. Is *that* animal cruelty? How about the cats used for anatomy. They come from shelters. They are literally the *excess* animals that were going to be euthanized anyway. Is *that* animal cruelty? The fetal pigs are by-products of pork eaters. They take the mothers and adult animals and kill them to be eaten and they sell the fetal pigs to be dissected. Is *that* animal cruelty?

I say all of this because I've looked around and I asked my professor, so I have back up for that info.

[heyyfrankie]

this is a good point. from someone else's point of view, it could be considered cruelty. but me, i don't really consider it. i mean, we aren't just killing it for the fun of it; we are getting some knowledge out of it. but i am not totally 100% sure wether i think it is cruelty or not...

[cRaZiiXbEauTiFul]

^^ agreed,...but wait...you take out the frogs brain before you kill it??

[sporadic]

........It was still alive....?

[CrimsonArchangel]

^^ agreed,...but wait...you take out the frogs brain before you kill it??

Quoting my professor, "What do you define as alive?", meaning that to them, having no brain meant being dead... so I really don't know... The brain was removed and then we opened up its chest and fiddled around with its heart... it was unnerving to say the least...

Yes, dissecting animals can be a learning experience, but how about plastic models? How about realistic gel models that can also be dissected but are not impregnated with formaldehyde (that stuff can stuck in your nose for days...)?

[Gypsy Eyes]

Oi vey, i'm going o try not to go overboard on this. A few friends and I actually led a petition to remove animal dissectons from the ciriculum. It almost worked. *cough* anyway.

I personally feel that it is indeed animal cruelty. "oh it's necessary". I is not. There are many movies about it. If you were to watch a movie compared to doing a dissection, there would only be one animal dead instead of over a hundred.

and kaar. Where did you get animal testing from? Please stick to the topic, if you wish to post about animal testing, do it in the proper thread

[racoons > you]

^^ i'll sign

i will just say, that ive never actually found disection useful, it never looks like the diagrams and i cant find the right parts. it just upsets me

[sammi rules you]

i don't think they're supposed to be alive when you dissect them..if they were alive, then that's not right.

[gelionie]

If the animals died naturally, then I think it's okay to dissect them for research/study purposes. Otherwise, I think it's really cruel to do so.

[racoons > you]

i don't think they're supposed to be alive when you dissect them..if they were alive, then that's not right.

we did a live worm disection in 7th grade. the poor things wouldnt stop wiggli ng even when they were cut open *shudders*

[CrimsonArchangel]

If the animals died naturally, then I think it's okay to dissect them for research/study purposes. Otherwise, I think it's really cruel to do so.

I agree with ^.

That's why I'm ok with human dissection. The human cadavers belong to people that died naturally and consented to the dissections being done.

[sammi rules you]

we did a live worm disection in 7th grade. the poor things wouldnt stop wiggli ng even when they were cut open *shudders*

if you cut a worm in half it's still alive and forms into two different worms so..that should be ok.

[eunie03]

I don't think you should do anything to "animals" what you wouldn't do to humans.

Would you drench a premature baby in formaldehyde, cut it open, and see what spills out?

The pomposity of humans.

[racoons > you]

if you cut a worm in half it's still alive and forms into two different worms so..that should be ok.

no... we sliced it open down the middle length wys, not totally in half, but like spread it out. it was not pleasant

[Sumiaki]

I don't think you should do anything to "animals" what you wouldn't do to humans.

Would you drench a premature baby in formaldehyde, cut it open, and see what spills out?

The pomposity of humans.

Yes... lets eat humans.

[CrimsonArchangel]

I don't think you should do anything to "animals" what you wouldn't do to humans.

Would you drench a premature baby in formaldehyde, cut it open, and see what spills out?

The pomposity of humans.

Well, maybe not cut them open, but they already do drench premature babies in formaldehyde and keep them for display. I've seen a couple.
What about that?

[Spirited Away]

Well, maybe not cut them open, but they already do drench premature babies in formaldehyde and keep them for display. I've seen a couple.
What about that?

That is depraved and perverse.

[eunie03]

Well, maybe not cut them open, but they already do drench premature babies in formaldehyde and keep them for display. I've seen a couple.
What about that?

I'm not saying it's RIGHT. Both are ridiculous. I'm just saying... why are we doing this in the first place? For studies? I mean.. we've done it once already. We know what's in there. I doubt we grew another heart since the last time we checked.

I just find it a little off-setting that they make children do it in a lab.

Same goes for the person who said "Let's eat humans". What's wrong with just eating what we sow.

[racoons > you]

Same goes for the person who said "Let's eat humans". What's wrong with just eating what we sow.

amen. i wish i could be a veggie.... i like meat far too much. i tend to get bacon withdrawl symptoms every time i try. i do try not to eat meat as much as possibl ehowever

[eunie03]

amen. i wish i could be a veggie.... i like meat far too much. i tend to get bacon withdrawl symptoms every time i try. i do try not to eat meat as much as possibl ehowever

[CrimsonArchangel]

That is depraved and perverse.

I know... before that one lab I actually thought dissections were kinda cool.... now I really don't think so.... specially since I just found out today that the darn frogs were not sedated...

Like eunie30 said, we haven't grown any new organs, so there is no need to check over more than once. Make plastic dissectable models or something...

[Spirited Away]

You know, the blood and gore in movies can look really... erm... real. I wonder why they don't put together some plastic stuff and add those effects...

[HongKongDong]

What about vegetable cruelty? Plants too are living things, you don't even take into consideration of their feelings x]

Veggie's are torn out of the fertile soiled ground, cute up, cleaned with numerous chemicals.
Yet noone complains x]
--------------------

ON-TOPIC
Is it animal cruelty? I believe it is... of course thats me. Giving them life just to cut them up for study. =/

[sadolakced acid]

the contrast between disection models and the real thing is very different.

how will doctors learn how find the gallbladder by touch if all the plastic models are , will, plastic and hard?

does plastic beat? like a plastic beating heart?

the problem with these substitutes is they can only be used so much. Eventually, live animals must be used.

and on the subject of cosmetic testing.

all cosmetic testing is humane. HUMANe, if not particarlly nice to animals.
I would like all those people opposed to cosmetic testing to think of this:

imagine i decide to be a cosmetic maker. I decide to make PETA certified ones that aren't tested on animals.

hmm... for some reason i put a chemical in mascera. it's great, makes lashes really great.

i sell it. it's great. thousands buy it.

one month later, i find out that this chemical i put in this mascera, it causes blinding! prolonged exposure causes blinding! and it comes off into the eye whenever someone blinks!!

so, there goes thousands of people's sight. Thousands of people, blind. Why? because PETA would not let me stick the chemical forciblly into many rabbits eyes untill they were almost bleeding from the eyes.

Sure, it's not great for the animals. But it's great for the humans. thus, it's HUMANe. as in HUMAN.

(anyways: something like this actually happened. Someone made a mascera not tested on animals. and it blinded a few hundred people. )

cosmetics MUST be tested, (or at least all chemicals used in the cosmetic), on animals BEFORE humans use it, or else the HUMANS are the beta testers of potentially lethal blush or lipstick.

cosmetics, because they are used so close to the eyes, and they are applied to the skin, and the lips, MUST be tested, because someone WILL get some in thier mouth, or in thier eye, or it will leeech into thier skin.

and we are HUMANS first, and which would you rather? 10,000 people blind, so that 20 rabbits don't die?

maybe those priorities need considering.

(Note: i don't like the thought of sticking chemicals in rabbit's eyes till they bleed. i wouldn't want to watch it. but it is nessisary. for safety reasons. )

[demolished]

yea, all the ideas are pass by generations and people can make a difference ..

[Spirited Away]

how will doctors learn how find the gallbladder by touch if all the plastic models are , will, plastic and hard?

does plastic beat? like a plastic beating heart?

Plastics do not need to be hard and unrealistic....

There are ways to make plastics like the real thing, I'm sure...

There are sex toys that feel like the real thing. Why not just make the rest of our body parts feel like the real thing since we can already make certain parts?

yea, all the ideas are pass by generations and people can make a difference ..

What are you talking about, boredperson?

[racoons > you]

cosmetics MUST be tested, (or at least all chemicals used in the cosmetic), on animals BEFORE humans use it, or else the HUMANS are the beta testers of potentially lethal blush or lipstick.

yes but on the flip side there are things which, whn tested on animals which dont cause any effect, but do in humans

like one asthma medication caused a thousand deaths when released herre over a couple year period, with side effects which scientists were unable to reproduce in animals even when they tried

[*xcaitlinx*]

no, because you DONT DISSECT THEM ALIVE.



unless they are killed purposely [are they]?

[smthngcrprategrl...]

yea it does sound like that too me. 9th grade we had to do pig disections. they told us the pigs had been dead before birth and it was a natural death. but i still got out of it cuz i switched bio classes. i was very happy when i'd heard that

[sammi rules you]

no, because you DONT DISSECT THEM ALIVE.
unless they are killed purposely [are they]?

read the whole topic before you post.

the animals are brought up and then killed with fromaldehyde so we can dissect them.

[eunie03]

(anyways: something like this actually happened.  Someone made a mascera not tested on animals.  and it blinded a few hundred people.  ) 

cosmetics MUST be tested, (or at least all chemicals used in the cosmetic), on animals BEFORE humans use it, or else the HUMANS are the beta testers of potentially lethal blush or lipstick. 

That's what I find so sick about this society. Why would you put potentially lethal chemicals on your face? I don't care if it makes better makeup. I don't care if the people who want this make-up riot for it.

If they want it so bad, make them test it on their face. Rather than testing HUMAN make-up on rabbits, why don't you risk those human's faces, lives, whatever. It's not like the rabbits are gonna wear blush, for Christ's sake.

I'm sick of people risking other living things' lives because they're too chicken spit to check it out for themselves.

[im2tall]

I'm sorry, but most of your comments are based on wrong facts...

Formaldehyde is not used to kill any animals.. the chemical is used to preserve the dead animal so that it doesn't rotten. Most of the animals that are used for dissection in high school labs aren't killed on purpose... they were "put to sleep" by the animal shelter.

Stem cells are not some animal cell. It's embryonic cells.. meaning it's from unborn fetuses.. usually from those that are aborted or from unused eggs that were artificially inseminated. those "lives" are being used for experiment to advance the scientific knowledge and medicine.

As many have said, animal use for medical advancement is crucial. Without using animals for testing, there won't the kind of medical care that we take advantage of..... organ transplants, surgeries, cold medicine, etc. You can only test the effectiveness in theory for so much and practical application must be done to prove its effectiveness and safety for human.

I myself work in a lab that breeds and kills rodents for microsurgical transplantation. Everyday I kill at least 2 rats, practicing surgical procedures and transplanting organs for scientific studies. Without such studies and experiments, people who have diabetes and kidney failures won't survive..

For those that think that killing animals are cruel, then how can you be eating chicken and beef? These animals are bred and grown to specifically feed us. How about eggs? They're unborn chickens...

I understand that killing a living thing may seem crucial, but there are ethical guidelines in place to insure that these animals are not used in vein and treated well. There is absolutely no way of avoiding killing a living matter in order for other animals to survive.

It's hard to say what life is more important than another. However, there are fundamental reasons for doing what we do now. If my mother and a dog was drawing, I think I would no doubt save my mother than my dog... am i being cruel?

[sadolakced acid]

im2tall, you know that formaldehyde isn't actually used to preserve the animals?

formalin is used, which is basically a 10% formaldehyde solution.

If they want it so bad, make them test it on their face. Rather than testing HUMAN make-up on rabbits, why don't you risk those human's faces, lives, whatever. It's not like the rabbits are gonna wear blush, for Christ's sake.

because we are human. we care more about the life of a human than an animal. it's they way things are. Humans and animals are not equal. you can't get life in prision if you shoot an animal. in fact, it's legal. the government gets money from it.
Note: these animals are bred for the purpose. Only when you get to cats and dogs are they actual pets, and then it's from a shelter that has to put them to sleep anyways. Monkeys and primates, however, are activley captured. they are, however, nessicary.

Plastics do not need to be hard and unrealistic....

There are ways to make plastics like the real thing, I'm sure...

There are sex toys that feel like the real thing. Why not just make the rest of our body parts feel like the real thing since we can already make certain parts?

the problem is these organs are not the real thing... you don't actually disect them. you pull them apart at the handles.

I'd like to see a plastic model that correctly simulates facae so the students can learn how to pull skin off of an animal without damaging muscles.

we can sythesis skin pretty well; but can we synthesis the way muscles are held together? how about the layers of skin?

no, because you DONT DISSECT THEM ALIVE.



unless they are killed purposely [are they]?

some disections are done on live animals. All laboratory animals, to my knowledge, are killed purposely.

yes but on the flip side there are things which, whn tested on animals which dont cause any effect, but do in humans

like one asthma medication caused a thousand deaths when released herre over a couple year period, with side effects which scientists were unable to reproduce in animals even when they tried

yes; but it still remains. testing on animals has saved more lives than 911.

[Spirited Away]

I'd like to see a plastic model that correctly simulates facae so the students can learn how to pull skin off of an animal without damaging muscles. 

I'm not sure if all surgeries require such extensive detail on all the parts. On the parts that we can emulate, use plastics, on the parts that we cannot, use the real thing. At the very least, we can lessen the use of real parts.

I'd like to see a plastic model that correctly simulates facae so the students can learn how to pull skin off of an animal without damaging muscles.

we can sythesis skin pretty well; but can we synthesis the way muscles are held together? how about the layers of skin?

I think if some scientists, technicians, or whatever you call them, put their mind to it, they can come up with something.

[eunie03]

Humans and animals are not equal.

They are to me.

you can't get life in prision if you shoot an animal. in fact, it's legal. the government gets money from it

The government gets money from it... that makes everything right, doesn't it?
I could name a number of things wrong with the government (as I'm sure anyone can)... but let's not get into that.

For those that think that killing animals are cruel, then how can you be eating chicken and beef?  These animals are bred and grown to specifically feed us.  How about eggs?  They're unborn chickens...

That's why there are vegetarians and vegans, my dear.

It's hard to say what life is more important than another.  However, there are fundamental reasons for doing what we do now.  If my mother and a dog was drawing, I think I would no doubt save my mother than my dog... am i being cruel?

If your mother and a lab assistant were in a drawing.... you would no doubt save your mother.

Are you being cruel?


(I hope you guys don't think I'm attacking you. I see your side....)

At the very least, we can lessen the use of real parts.

[xGlovex]

yes.

[sadolakced acid]

They are to me.

The government gets money from it... that makes everything right, doesn't it?
I could name a number of things wrong with the government (as I'm sure anyone can)... but let's not get into that.

That's why there are vegetarians and vegans, my dear.

If your mother and a lab assistant were in a drawing.... you would no doubt save your mother.

Are you being cruel?


(I hope you guys don't think I'm attacking you. I see your side....)

animals and humans may be equal to you. they are to some people. those people happen to annoy me, because animals don't care about being equal. in the animal world, no one is equal. there is always an alpha, and always an omega.

anyways: an animal cannot speak to defend it's rights. It is not equal to humans, because they are not humans.

[*xcaitlinx*]

animals and humans may be equal to you.  they are to some people.  those people happen to annoy me, because animals don't care about being equal.  in the animal world, no one is equal.  there is always an alpha, and always an omega. 

anyways:  an animal cannot speak to defend it's rights.  It is not equal to humans, because they are not humans.

animals were here first. we invaded their territory. we knock down trees to build homes. we pollute the water. we pollute the air. the list goes on and on....

idk how ppl can say that humans are so much better than animals. we're the ones slowly destroying the land and water by using valuable resources that are depleting and causing global warming to become a major issue.

the world was a whole lot better off when humans weren't there to screw it up. all because animals can't express themselves through language...they still communicate with each other. animals a lot smarter than people give them credit for being...and may be smarter than some humans as well. Without animals, we wouldn't even be alive. [evolution...food]

[sadolakced acid]

yes... but we are still human.

loyalty to species first.

[im2tall]

im2tall, you know that formaldehyde isn't actually used to preserve the animals? 

formalin is used, which is basically a 10% formaldehyde solution. 

of course... most of the solutions used are not in pure concentration... I was just trying to make a point that this chemical is not used to kill the animal.

If your mother and a lab assistant were in a drawing.... you would no doubt save your mother.

Are you being cruel?


(I hope you guys don't think I'm attacking you. I see your side....)

Although I understand that you're trying to make a point, it doesn't have any relevance to what we are discussing here. Your hypothetical question compares the value of one human life to another (which is a whole another issue). When I gave my hypothetical question I was comparing the value of one human life to one animal. nice try though...

[CrimsonArchangel]

Well.... I guess the debate has stemmed to the issue if an animal's life is worth protecting or not... eh, no matter. Its still in the same area.

I'm going to agree with Fae again. If skin can be made to resemble organic skin, and if sex toys can be made to feel like the real thing and if certain prosthetics and even movie props can be made to look and feel like the real thing, why not do that with human and animal anatomy models? Make them unlabeled so the task of labeling is still there.

Humans and animals are not the same, but animals *are* alive. They have a right to get their lives preserved.

[Spirited Away]

anyways:  an animal cannot speak to defend it's rights.  It is not equal to humans, because they are not humans.

Though I see your point, but I must also say that some mentally disabled humans cannot speak to defend their rights either. Does that mean they do not have a right to life?

I do not believe humans and animals are equal simply because I believe in survival of the fittest. But you know, we are here to survive foremost but we live beyond that. We know and understand love (most of us anyway), experience morality first hand... etc. Animals may not know love and morality as we do, but they have their own laws and ethics, which is called nature. They kill because it is in their nature to do so in order to survive and it would make sense that we kill them to survive as well. However, killing them in countless painful, bloody ways such as injecting chemicals in them are not always necessary for our survival.

Because I, too, care for human life more than the life of lower species (with rare exceptions), I think that animals should be used, if need be, for our security. But can using them to test makeup and the likes be called a "need"?

I should hope not, else I would be lead to believe we all have truly lost our morals and our common sense.

[eunie03]

Although I understand that you're trying to make a point, it doesn't have any relevance to what we are discussing here.  Your hypothetical question compares the value of one human life to another (which is a whole another issue).  When I gave my hypothetical question I was comparing the value of one human life to one animal.  nice try though... 

Actually, it has every relevance in my standpoint. I'm trying to tell you that the value of a human life should be treated with the value of an animal's life. If I had the choice to save you, a total stranger (no offense) and a befriended animal, I would save the animal. I don't happen to think I'm being cruel for not saving the glorified human.

Don't tell me what's relevant to me.



And I reiterate: humans are animals too. We happen to be at the top of the food chain.... because we're geniuses who know how to create weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn't give us the right to raise animals to poke and prod them to death for our own understanding.

....Man, didn't anyone watch Planet of the Apes
(Bad attempt at lightening the mood... )

[racoons > you]

anyways:  an animal cannot speak to defend it's rights.  It is not equal to humans, because they are not humans.

then surely it is the responsibility of humans to defend them where they cannot?

the lives of animals shouldnot be sacrificed, of rsomething as needless as cosmetics. humans wont die without mascara you know.

medical test have more weight to them, but i personally still think its wrong...

Though I see your point, but I must also say that some mentally disabled humans cannot speak to defend their rights either. Does that mean they do not have a right to life?

good point? can u test tings on people in comas? they cant say 'no', can they

[CrimsonArchangel]

medical test have more weight to them, but i personally still think its wrong...
good point? can u test tings on people in comas? they cant say 'no', can they

Yes, medical testing has more good reasons behind it, but student don't open up cats and pigs to test medicines, now do they? Unless a student is going to become a veterinarian, I really don't see why dissections are required for human Anatomy and Physiology courses. That is totally pointless.

As for your second statement, where does that tie into this debate? Forgive me, but I really don't see the point of it.

[*xcaitlinx*]

Actually, it has every relevance in my standpoint. I'm trying to tell you that the value of a human life should be treated with the value of an animal's life. If I had the choice to save you, a total stranger (no offense) and a befriended animal, I would save the animal. I don't happen to think I'm being cruel for not saving the glorified human.

Don't tell me what's relevant to me.
And I reiterate: humans are animals too. We happen to be at the top of the food chain.... because we're geniuses who know how to create weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn't give us the right to raise animals to poke and prod them to death for our own understanding.

....Man, didn't anyone watch Planet of the Apes
(Bad attempt at lightening the mood... )

i agree with u 100%.

[racoons > you]

Yes, medical testing has more good reasons behind it, but student don't open up cats and pigs to test medicines, now do they? Unless a student is going to become a veterinarian, I really don't see why dissections are required for human Anatomy and Physiology courses. That is totally pointless.

As for your second statement, where does that tie into this debate? Forgive me, but I really don't see the point of it.

i was agreeing with the idea that disection was rong...

and if u'd read the whole deabte properly, u'd understand the relevance ( u do mean the second point u quoted, dont you?)

[PUNKINitup]

Yes it is. I'm a vegitarian, and the only reason i became a vegitarian is because i feel it it wrong to breed animals to kill them. i mean, look at it this way. every year in america, millions of women have kids and people pay tax dollars to feed their kids from welfare. but in society, it would be "wrong" to kill the kids after their born (which i agree is wrong). instead, there should a limit to thewelfare system, meaning after a certain number of kids, if the person does not get a job or something, they are put in jail and kids are put in faoster care.

[imm]

Yes it is. I'm a vegitarian, and the only reason i became a vegitarian is because i feel it it wrong to breed animals to kill them. i mean, look at it this way. every year in america, millions of women have kids and people pay tax dollars to feed their kids from welfare. but in society, it would be "wrong" to kill the kids after their born (which i agree is wrong). instead, there should a limit to thewelfare system, meaning after a certain number of kids, if the person does not get a job or something, they are put in jail and kids are put in faoster care.

OH HECK YEAH!

Yes, it is animal cruelty.

I'm a vegetarian too.

[sadolakced acid]

oh yes. it's so cruel. i mean, helping propogate the species is soo cruel. wow. if it were between me and the animal, i'd SOOO want you to pick the animal. because the animals are Cute and Fluffy? i don't CARE that the LION won't care i'm a vegan. I'll go try to free it. What? but i'm nice to animals... why is the lion coming at me that way? why is the lion eating me? ahh. Why is the lion propogating it's life and species? i was NICE to it... i didn't eat it...

LIFE's not FAIR. ANIMALS get the short end of the stick.

i mean, if some other animal were in charge of the world, i'm SURE they'd let themselves die out so we could take over. i mean, it's not like it's NATURAL to want to propogate your own species...


1. Food is food. Humans are Humans. Humans are omnivores. Humans need to eat meat. Humans have the teeth to eat meat. Animals are meat. Humans eat animals. It's the circle of life, it's the way things are. It's life.

2. Animals are Animals. Humans are humans. I value human life more. So do you. trust me. you value your own life (a human's by the way. i hope.) more than any animal. Between yourself and an animal, you'd choose the animal. Don't kid yourself. You're alive. which means you chose yourself.

3. Dissections are needed for expirence. Plastic can only go so far. I disected a cat for Human Anatomy and Physiology. I learn a lot more than the three-d models and 2-d pictures taught me. Plastic models are expensive. They'd be single use too. Economically, it can't be done (replacing dissections with plastic models). To replicate an animal exactly, that's still not possible. We, Humans, even disect ourselves becasue there is no alternative.

[mysticalazxn]

some animal must sacrafice for tthe shake of the human race! if we donnt test on animal as a peparation the studnet will probably screew up on a real human being.

[LadyXTor]

People are saying that we don't dissect until animals dead, completely untrue. Many animals are tested on while they're awake, without any anesthesia. I think it is animal cruelty because animals cannot defend themselves and are tested on involuntarily. Why not test on humans? many people donate their bodies when they die for science to test on and dissect. After all, we are trying to get further knowledge for science for our human kind so why torture the animals for ourselves?

[sadolakced acid]

because humans are not animals.

disections of cats, i know, takes the cats from animals put to sleep from a shelter.

not enough peopel donate bodies to use that.

[LadyXTor]

yes, but that's only cats from shelters. Some cats are found and tested on or bought. Iams (the dog food company) cuts up dog thighs until they're small slivers while they are alive and awake. Yes, humans are not animals but animals still have rights. They are tested on involuntarily and killed. It's OUR products we're testing on them and we're trying to get further knowledge for OURSELVES. So why do we test on animals that don't have to do with anything? Why do we get to say that our lives are more important than theirs?

[eunie03]

They are tested on involuntarily and killed.  It's OUR products we're testing on them and we're trying to get further knowledge for OURSELVES.  So why do we test on animals that don't have to do with anything?  Why do we get to say that our lives are more important than theirs?

Very nicely said. I agree whole-heartedly.

because humans are not animals. 

disections of cats, i know, takes the cats from animals put to sleep from a shelter. 

not enough peopel donate bodies to use that.

Why are humans not animals too?

animal (n): A multicellular organism with membranous cell walls of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

Of course humans don't donate bodies. Why would they do that when cats who can't defend themselves are in abundance? Humans can say no. Cats can't. They're involuntarily sacrificed for the good of mankind.

As for your lion argument... it was said earlier that we understand the need to fight for survival. Eating, feeding (yes, even if it involves killing) is to just get by. Do you think our whim and curiosity as to what's inside a living animal is necessary for survival? I doubt it. One less eyeliner on the market won't kill the entire human race.

You shouldn't try to make the lion seem like a cold-hearted killer, when humans murder humans for no good reason at all (not for rank or food or mates) every day.

[sadolakced acid]

ok, so the cats will be involuntarily scaraficed for the good of the landfill then, because they're going to be killed anyways.

and for live test subjects: the animals are bred for the purpose usually.

As for your lion argument... it was said earlier that we understand the need to fight for survival. Eating, feeding (yes, even if it involves killing) is to just get by. Do you think our whim and curiosity as to what's inside a living animal is necessary for survival? I doubt it. One less eyeliner on the market won't kill the entire human race.

this whim of curiosity has already saved your life. If you're alive, in this world, and not in a third world country, you have already benifited from animal testing.

you are guilty of supporting the tourture of animals for the benifit of yourself.

everyone is.

[racoons > you]

and for live test subjects: the animals are bred for the purpose usually.

well of course that makes it perfectly acceptable... jesus

you are guilty of supporting the tourture of animals for the benifit of yourself.

thats not necessarily true... i mean, i boycott animal tested products whenever possible, and im a member of an animal rights group...

just because the majortiy of society condones something, doesnt mean everyone in it does.

were german members of the anti-nazi resistance who smuggled jews out of denmark as guilty of the holocaust as the concentration camp guards... no.

[sadolakced acid]

thats not necessarily true... i mean, i boycott animal tested products whenever possible, and im a member of an animal rights group...

note: you said whenever possible.

it is not possible, if you've ever had any modern medicines, to have had something not tested on animals.

I belive laundry detergent is also tested on animals...
as well as many different common day things...

[LadyXTor]

note: you said whenever possible.

it is not possible, if you've ever had any modern medicines, to have had something not tested on animals. 

I belive laundry detergent is also tested on animals... 
as well as many different common day things...

It is possible to avoid. You can just not take any modern medicines and be sick. =) There ARE medicines that haven't been tested on animals. There are MANY alternatives to animal testing. Such as putting human cells and the chemical in a petri dish and seeing if it reacts bad....or whatever. There ARE ways and it IS possible.

[sadolakced acid]

there are no medicines, that have not been tested on animals. unless you go to your tribal elder and get his herbal balm or something. which doens't count as a modern medicine

There are MANY alternatives to animal testing. Such as putting human cells and the chemical in a petri dish and seeing if it reacts bad....or whatever. There ARE ways and it IS possible.

you are refering to in vitro testing? why is invitro not viable? because it's not a living system.

example:

some scientist has stem cells from a man dieing, and he needed more brain cells. They had put the stem cells in a petri dish, and in vitro they grew into brain cells.

in his head they grew into hair, teeth, and nails.

Also: in vitro doesn't see the effects of everthing together.

there are NOT alternates for animal testing for MEDICINES.

FDA rules. you take tylenol, you tourture animals. same with advil. penicillin? yup.

[whomps]

What the hell, animals are bred for that purpose? I thought they just had dead animals.. What the hell..

I've never dissected any animals before.

[im2tall]

wow... you kids are amazing... I didn't want to bother with this topic anymore due to your ignorance, but I just didn't want you young people grow up with misled information..

People are saying that we don't dissect until animals dead, completely untrue.  Many animals are tested on while they're awake, without any anesthesia.  I think it is animal cruelty because animals cannot defend themselves and are tested on involuntarily.  Why not test on humans?  many people donate their bodies when they die for science to test on and dissect.  After all, we are trying to get further knowledge for science for our human kind so why torture the animals for ourselves?

First of all, how the heck could people dissect something that is alive? It will be physically impossible to prohibit the animals from defending themselves or fighting during the procedure... and like I have mentioned before, there are laws that protect the rights of the animal and guidelines for using the animals for testing.

Second, most animal testing is done on a live animal. Dissection is only performed for learning the anatomy... it's one thing to look at a picture and another to actually see the inter-workings of anatomy. Could you say that you've been to Italy by just seeing the pictures? This is also why "plastics" won't work of learning the anatomy completely. Yes you CAN see what it looks like, but it's quite different to actually see it in person... Could you train a doctor by just looking at plastic human model? Would you want that doctor to do surgeries on you? I sure wouldn't...

Thirdly, humans are used for testing... more specifically on drug trials... most companies are required by FDA to conduct double-blind studies on human to show the effectiveness of the drug before it's approved... so to say that humans are being selfish by only practicing on helpless animals are quite misleading.

For those that are arguing that animals shouldn't be used for dissection purposes, let me ask you this. Would you feel comfortable, as a high school student, to perform dissections on a dead human body? If you are, then you should become a doctor. But most people at that age can't handle it and this is why animals are used for the purpose of learning anatomy. In addition, most school considers dissection as an option, meaning that you may opt out of the experience. So if you feel so bad about using the animals, then don't... Other people are actually eager to learn and get the first hand experience in seeing the anatomy in person. Just because you don't like smoking, it doesn't mean that you can force other people from smoking. What I'm trying to say is that, just because you consider using animal for testing and dissection purposes don't make it morally wrong.

QUOTE
"and for live test subjects: the animals are bred for the purpose usually. "


well of course that makes it perfectly acceptable... jesus

Moral standards are based on social norms... you don't have to identify yourself with the social norm, but that doesn't change what's established by law what is ok and not ok. Again, there are laws that insures that the animals are treated respectfully.


It's easier to criticize something than providing solutions... if there are alternatives to animal testing for safety, then let's hear it... like sadolakced acid said, most medicines are based on tests performed by animals, including humans. If you don't like the fact that animals are being used for testing, then don't use the products like the animal rights group do... you don't have to wear animal tested cosmetics, but you should note that most vaccinations that you've received to protect your own health have been tested on animals before... this is the only reason why you are able to survive from previously deadly diseases... without small pox vaccines, you could actually die from getting small pox... heck, you can even die from flu if not treated.


Most of you are complaining and arguing based on what you've heard from someone or read on the internet... please educate yourselves properly by talking to someone that is actually in the field... it's ok to have your own ideas and opinions, but before your criticize, understand what you're trying to criticize.

[CrimsonArchangel]

WELL said.

I actually believe all you say. I started the topic just to hear from the other side.

One thing, however, there are dissections that are done in live animals. There is the whole frog's heart thing. The animal has its brain hacked off, and there is no point in seeing what chemicals do to the heart if its not beating, so its still alive.

Another one of my points is the fact that pre-med students in my school still have to dissect animals to learn anatomy. *That* I see no point in doing. Your point about high school students yadda yadda is perfectly plausible and I go for it 100%.

[Spirited Away]

If it's so gruesome for high school students to use a human body, it would be as gruesome for some students to see a dead animal. *Raises hand*, that was me in high school. I knew kids who had notes from parents to excuse them from class to read the book rather than perform dissections. Problems at home prevented me from coming up with the same excused note they had.

So then, why can't those students, and students like me who had to grudgingly stay in class trying not to throw up, learn by looking at plastic models? We still learn something, right?

That way, I don't have to feel guilty dissecting a fetal pig and still learn something rather than nothing at all. It also lessens one fetal pig from being wasted.

[im2tall]

If it's so gruesome for high school students to use a human body, it would be as gruesome for some students to see a dead animal. *Raises hand*, that was me in high school. I knew kids who had notes from parents to excuse them from class to read the book rather than perform dissections. Problems at home prevented me from coming up with the same excused note they had. 

So then, why can't those students, and students like me who had to grudgingly stay in class trying not to throw up, learn by looking at plastic models? We still learn something, right?

That way, I don't have to feel guilty dissecting a fetal pig and still learn something rather than nothing at all. It also lessens one fetal pig from being wasted.

You are definately learning something... like I have said before, however, it's one thing to learn based on models and quite another to learn based on real animals. If you are not trying to become a doctor/surgeon, you can totally learn everything you need to know for your field, be it chemist, biologist, etc., by just looking at the models and learning from the textbooks. But if you are trying to become a doctor, you should be able to handle the gruesome image of dead or live animals being opened up. This can not be taught through textbooks...

I personally think that anatomy classes that have dissections give the students the kind of experience they need to make proper decisions for their future goals/aspirations. I've heard many people dropping out of med school, after all the hard studying and work, just because they couldn't handle human dissection. That's 4 yrs of college wasted...

WELL said.

I actually believe all you say. I started the topic just to hear from the other side.

One thing, however, there are dissections that are done in live animals. There is the whole frog's heart thing. The animal has its brain hacked off, and there is no point in seeing what chemicals do to the heart if its not beating, so its still alive.

Another one of my points is the fact that pre-med students in my school still have to dissect animals to learn anatomy. *That* I see no point in doing. Your point about high school students yadda yadda is perfectly plausible and I go for it 100%.

Thanks... .. I totally understand what you're trying to do.... it's always better to understand other people's point of view when you're trying to argue your point. I honestly think that people should challenge the conventional view, but at the same time, respect the conventional view. It's like religion... it's fine if you so strongly belive in something, as long as it helps you to make the right and good decisions... however it's not ok to force someone to believe in the same way... it's one thing to talk about it, but another when someone is trying to win the argument.
You do not need other people's approval to justify your opinion. So let's just get along hehe

[Spirited Away]

You are definately learning something... like I have said before, however, it's one thing to learn based on models and quite another to learn based on real animals.  If you are not trying to become a doctor/surgeon, you can totally learn everything you need to know for your field, be it chemist, biologist, etc., by just looking at the models and learning from the textbooks.  But if you are trying to become a doctor, you should be able to handle the gruesome image of dead or live animals being opened up.  This can not be taught through textbooks...

I personally think that anatomy classes that have dissections give the students the kind of experience they need to make proper decisions for their future goals/aspirations.  I've heard many people dropping out of med school, after all the hard studying and work, just because they couldn't handle human dissection.  That's 4 yrs of college wasted...

Seeing how my original point is that we can lessen the use of real animals through plastic models, unless they are required for a study that could better our survival, I don't think I learned anything I didn't know before . Indeed there is a difference between dissectting a fleshy fetal pig and a fake, but to those who really have a problem with the real thing, at least they have a choice, and those who have interest in pursuing science can still have their experience.

I totally agree that science classes that offer hands on activities are great for a student's decision making process, but the class that I had to dissect a fetal pig was not anatomy; it was 9th grade intro to biology class. There isn't a doubt that I enjoyed the course, but it would have been more pleasant had I not done the dissection.

I also agree that it's like religion, and one shouldn't press one's views on others, but it works both ways. Why not give a choice to people who do not agree with dissecting the real thing? Instead of forcing them between learning how to dissect and not at all, give a choice to dissect a fake.

[sadolakced acid]

i agree plastic and silicone models can be good teaching tools... better than real life in some cases ( how many live samples of breast cancer can students use to practice feeling for lumps? compared to silicone models?)

however, they can only go so far:

plastic models cannot mimic the actual dissection, that is the cutting, etc. that is nessisary for doctors to know.

Plastic models will also all be the same; whereas two cats rarely have organs that all look alike.

plastic models would be very, very expensive to cover an animal in depth. or a human... and if it were to try to mimic the disection aspect, it'd be one use...


If someone were pursuing a career in science, at one point they would HAVE to disect something, or quit thier job... so why can't they just quit the disection courses when they start, instead of relying upon plastic models (which would not really be sufficent)?

plastic models are like trying to create a universal computer that every other type looks like, and functions like. All computers do the same things (usually), but they can vary dramatically in thier insides and appearance. same with animals, but a LOT more...

[Spirited Away]

Yes, yes. And once again, we can lessen the use of real animals by offering fake models to those who do not wish to pursue a medical/science career. That way, at least there is choice.

Sorry to be repeative but I liked bio, but the fact that I KNEW what I wanted to do with my life really made dissecting that pig unpleasant in more ways than one.

If required for the betterment of our survival, then I will not hesitate to admit that animal testing/expirimentation is necessary. But as a teaching tool for students who aren't interested, plastics will be just dandy.

Price would not be a problem if there is competition to provide the product. That means, if there is more than one seller, it will not be sold at an outrageous price. Many plastics are recyclable thus it should be easy, low cost, to acquire the parts needed.

My point is to lessen the use of real animals if and only if plastics can be an alternative.

[racoons > you]

I belive laundry detergent is also tested on animals...
as well as many different common day things...

its illegal in britain to test on animals for non medical processes... as long as i buy home grown stuff, im ok

And once again, we can lessen the use of real animals by offering fake models to those who do not wish to pursue a medical/science career

exactly, i want to be a journalist. i do not need to know about the inner workings of a guinea pig. why make me cut one up?

and to everyone who has said that because its legal, we should just shut up and it must be ok, then i ask you if martin luther king should have shut up, because segregation was legal, or if emmeline pankhurst and millicent fawcett should have shut up because it was legal to deny women the vote ...

[sadolakced acid]

most school have classes sans disection.

its illegal in britain to test on animals for non medical processes... as long as i buy home grown stuff, im ok happy.gif

no, you're not ok...

because those chemicals used have been tested on animals already.

the individual components are already tested on animals.

just because someone else did the testing doesn't mean it's not animal texted, even though technially you didn't test on animals. It was because of animal testing that those chemicals were deemed safe, and thus, avalible to be used to various 'not tested on animals ' products.

[empyrean102]

Personaly, i don't mind doing things to already cut out body parts but live animals, ican't bring myself to it.

But it also depends on the reasons for what you are about to do to the animals, for example:

cosmetics: a big huge NO!!!!!
lab testing on new medecins: ...yeah
sick minded children: just learn to say no
pervs: NO


basicly, if it helps a human being's life, do it but for any other reasons, I doubt I wouldn't call it animal cruelty

I kinda really like animals

[eunie03]

ok, so the cats will be involuntarily scaraficed for the good of the landfill then, because they're going to be killed anyways. 

and for live test subjects: the animals are bred for the purpose usually. 
this whim of curiosity has already saved your life.  If you're alive, in this world, and not in a third world country, you have already benifited from animal testing. 

you are guilty of supporting the tourture of animals for the benifit of yourself.

everyone is.

I don't know if you realize this, but you're gonna eventually die anyway too. Sacrifice yourself for the good of the landfill, then.

I'll have you know, I keep away from animal-tested products. I believe someone else mentioned that just because a majority of the population does it, it does not mean everyone does.

I like to think of myself as an animal lover, not an animal torturer, mind you.

wow... you kids are amazing... I didn't want to bother with this topic anymore due to your ignorance, but I just didn't want you young people grow up with misled information..

Most of you are complaining and arguing based on what you've heard from someone or read on the internet... please educate yourselves properly by talking to someone that is actually in the field... it's ok to have your own ideas and opinions, but before your criticize, understand what you're trying to criticize.

I wish you wouldn't act so smarter-than-thou about this. Just because some of the ones who are on the anti side are giving misled information, does not mean all of us ignorant fools with pitchforks and whatnot. I'm just speaking my beliefs. You said yourself it's one thing to speak your opinions, and another to try to force it on others.

You seem to be crossing the line yourself.

[sadolakced acid]

I don't know if you realize this, but you're gonna eventually die anyway too. Sacrifice yourself for the good of the landfill, then.

I'll have you know, I keep away from animal-tested products. I believe someone else mentioned that just because a majority of the population does it, it does not mean everyone does.

I like to think of myself as an animal lover, not an animal torturer, mind you.

you're using a computer right now. i assume that means you have embraced some sort of technology.

it doens't matter who you are, if you're not someone who shuns all modern tech, you've used animal tested produces. during your birth, or early childhood. probably didn't stop, and you probably still use some (unknowingly) but i'll grant that you probably don't use any products tested directly on animals. also, unless you make your own natural shampoo, it's probably been tested on animals.


my shampoo said (i changed) 'never tested on animals' but a little research revealed that the shampoo itself had never been tested on animals, but the active ingredient had, by someone else.


my point is, anyone using a computer must have had used animal tested products sometime. it's inevitable.


eunie03- the following would be an example of misled information found on this thread...

But it also depends on the reasons for what you are about to do to the animals, for example:

cosmetics: a big huge NO!!!!!
lab testing on new medecins: ...yeah
sick minded children: just learn to say no
pervs: NO


basicly, if it helps a human being's life, do it but for any other reasons, I doubt I wouldn't call it animal cruelty

cosmetics- benifits a human's life
lab testing on new medicines- benifits a human's life
sick minded children- benifits a human's life
pervs- benifits a human's life

cosmetics, as i have already said before in the thread, must be tested for safety reasons. the only way to aviod usuing animal tested products is to use no products at all, because just because the bottle says 'never tested on animals' doesn't mean you're not supporting animal testing, it means the completed product was never tested on animals, and the manufactures didn't test part of it on any animals. what it neglects to mention is someone else has already tested the active ingredient, and that's how they know it's safe, and if it was not already animal tested, they would not be using it.

lab testing on new medicines- well you said yes. so i guess it's pretty obvious to everyone else too, why this benifits humans.

sick minded children-

i'll ignore the fact that you are most likely refering to children like me, who take classes specifically for the dissections, eh? and everyone else who does dissesctions in school.

how is this not benifiting a human's life? first (and the only one that you'll probably accept) is that you're training the future doctors. If no children dissect animals, then none of them will become doctors. If they do disect animals, some of them will become doctors. and benifit many human lives.

second- the kid's lives are benifited. is everyone who dissects something an animal tourturer? there was a girl in my class who loved animals- but knew that she needed to learn the stuff. she could have taken a class without dissection, but she said she knew it was a good experience.

pervs-

now who would this be? really. who? can't be the kids in disection class, you alredy mentioned them...

oh... so that leave laboratory researchers, right?
well, i'll let you explain this one before i crush the argument. because even if it's just perverted people disecting animals for fun, and then throwing them away, well. it makes a human happy. so it benifits thier life.

[sammi rules you]

^ i think she means bestiality..which has nothing to do with this topic..

[CrimsonArchangel]

my shampoo said (i changed) 'never tested on animals' but a little research revealed that the shampoo itself had never been tested on animals, but the active ingredient had, by someone else. 

Really? I didn't know that... just to satisfy my curiosity, cann you prove this?

And about cosmetics... I really don't see how they can benefit human life... I'm not against them, mind you. I do use foundation just to cover some scars I have in my face... is that what you mean by cosmetics being beneficial? To preserve a person's self conciousness?

[sammi rules you]

^ and, if a kid got in a fire and there's like one big scar across their face, and they use makeup to cover it up, it prevents them being made fun of for it, which, in turn, is beneficial to their lives.

[Paradox of Life]

Bah, I'm a major animal supporter and I think it's very unfair to do dissections. I'm dreading highschool or whenever I'm going to have to dissect an animal. I'm not going to give a whole speech, but I really think people are being profusely narrow-minded. They think it's okay to torture animals because they can't fight back. If animals could talk and tell us how they felt, perhaps we would compromise, but for now we take advantage of our powers and use innocent creatures as subject of experimentation. They use monkeys for laboratory testing and don't at all think it's wrong. Bottom line, I'm against dissection, animal testing, or animal abuse in anyway.

[eunie03]

you're using a computer right now.  i assume that means you have embraced some sort of technology.   

it doens't matter who you are, if you're not someone who shuns all modern tech, you've used animal tested produces.  during your birth, or early childhood.  probably  didn't stop, and you probably still use some (unknowingly)  but i'll grant that you probably don't use any products tested directly on animals.  also, unless you make your own natural shampoo, it's probably been tested on animals.
my shampoo said (i changed) 'never tested on animals' but a little research revealed that the shampoo itself had never been tested on animals, but the active ingredient had, by someone else. 
my point is, anyone using a computer must have had used animal tested products sometime.   it's inevitable.
eunie03-  the following would be an example of misled information found on this thread... 

I already said a lot of misled people exist. Just like misled people exist on your side of the story (I'd like to see some proof as well.. of your shampoo argument. I use Garnier Fructis, if that helps). Just the same, a lot are NOT misled. We have our own strong beliefs. This is just petty business to you, but this is one of my passions. I believe just one animal's life is worth saving, and that NONE... or as little as possible... should be sacrificed for our own good. (A lion comes charging at you, you shoot him. Fine. That's defense, leading us back to the need for survival).

And I strongly... strongly doubt people test the computer I'm using on animals -.-;;

I think we both agree life is sacred. The difference between you and me is that I believe a human is no more valuable than an "animal's", whereas you seem to believe a human's life should be upheld (even for a "perv's" benefit....). I don't aree with you. If you don't agree with me.... then okay.

My bottom line is that I'd choose to save an animal's life over a person's self-image and self-enlightenment.

I'm done here.

[lakerfever2476]

I think it's wrong. Ever heard of posters? Diagrams? SYNTHETIC FROGS?! lol

[sadolakced acid]

pyrithione zinc is the active ingredent in Garnier Fructis.

here is the paper on Pyrithione Zinc, and if it is safe to use in cosmetics.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/c...s/out225_en.pdf

you will see that they say they try to use alternates to animal testing. keep reading.

go to the toxicology report

it reads:

TOXICOLOGICAL CHARACTERISATION
2.3. Toxicity
2.3.1. Acute oral toxicity
Ingredient based data
LD50 values for zinc pyrithione have been determined in various species after oral administration.
The values in the rat ranged from 92 to 266 mg/kg and in the mouse from 160 to 1000 mg/kg.
Six hundred mg/kg was found to be the LD50 when administered orally to dogs.
Ref. : 6, 10, 33, 57, 71, 73

This is on page 5 of the PDF.

as you can see, Pyrithione Zinc has been tested on rats and dogs. The Pyrithione Zinc was administerd to the orally.


additionally:

For the cream shampoo form in pigeons, the ED100 was 0.1 g/kg, the ED0 was 0.02 g/kg, and the
ED50 was approximately 0.05 g/kg.

page 6

In the emetic studies with dogs, the emesis typically occurred within 60 minutes of dosing, the
average being 30 minutes, and involved two to four episodes. Occasional bloody vomitus was
seen, indicating gastric irritation.

as you can see, the dogs were force fed, and some vomited blood. emesis means vomiting.

Dermal LD50 values for albino rabbits that range from < 2,000 mg/kg to 10,000 mg/kg.

A shampoo containing 2% ZPT at levels of 2.5, 5.0, 10.0, and 20.0 g/kg was tested on rabbits.

Pyrithione Zinc has been tested on rabbits (applied to their skin)

Generally, 25 mg/kg of ZPT was fatal to both dogs and monkeys within 24 hours and produced
cholinergic-like effects prior to death. Doses of 15 and 20 mg/kg produced slight cholinergic
stimulation in dogs but death did not result. One of two Yorkshire pigs died when injected intravenously
with 20mg/kg and 10 mg/kg was a lethal dose for rabbits. Intravenous doses of 5 mg/kg
or less produced only transient effects.

monkeys, rabbits, pigs, and dogs were injected with Pyrithione Zinc untill they died.

Reno and Banas (1975) also studied the effects of ZPT incorporated into the diet of rhesus
monkeys at higher levels. In this study the animals were fed diet containing 500 and 5000 ppm
of ZPT (12 and 30 mg/kg/day) for 28 days. There were three animals in each test group and two
animals in the control group. No adverse effects were observed in the monkeys fed ZPT at the
lower dose level. The animals receiving the higher dose level, however, exhibited
lethargy, anorexia, weight loss, soft faeces, or diarrhoea, and one of them died on Day 23 of the
study. The two remaining animals experienced a 25-30% weight loss over the study, and signs of
neurological deficit were noted. The only compound-related histopathology was limited to
atrophy of the musculature of monkeys in the high-dose group. There were no unusual
findings associated with the peripheral or central nervous system..

more testing on monkeys.

note that the monkeys experience fatiuge, diarrheoa, and death. Also, Brain damage.

Larson (1957) conducted a 90-day percutaneous toxicity study with ZPT (2 ml of water per gram
of 50% wettable ZPT powder) using albino rabbits. Doses of 125, 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 mg/kg
were applied daily (5 days per week) to groups of three or four animals for 13 weeks. The
animals were harnessed during application and remained so until the material dried, at which
time the animals were washed. None of the rabbits receiving 1000 or 2000 mg/kg survived the
90-day test period, the longest survival being 21 days. Four of twelve animals dosed at the lower
levels survived, and those were necropsied at that time. Focal necrosis of either the brain or
spinal cord in three of the four surviving animals. There were no histological changes in other
organs.

Read that carefully. Rabbits were locked up so they couldn't move, and Pyrithione Zinc was dumped on them. they all died. after substantial brain damage.




These are various mentions of animal testing i caught when skimming the first 10 pages.

there are 36 pages.

if your bottle of Garnier Fructis says that it was never tested on animals, this is becuase the completed product was never tested on animals.


Now i realize that your Garnier Fructis may be a different type, with a different active ingredient.

please read your bottle and post the complete name of your shampoo and the active ingredient, if you wish.

the point of this is, everything is tested on animals.

who else wants to try thier shampoo?

[sadolakced acid]

The last post was just too long for an edit to add more; plus this is a different arguemnt.

Really? I didn't know that... just to satisfy my curiosity, cann you prove this?

And about cosmetics... I really don't see how they can benefit human life... I'm not against them, mind you. I do use foundation just to cover some scars I have in my face... is that what you mean by cosmetics being beneficial? To preserve a person's self conciousness?

she said "benefit a human's life"

cosmetics industry provides jobs to many.
it doens't save lives, it doesn't cure disabilities. But that wasn't the requirement.


i won't defend the use of cosmtics- i think they're stupid. i just think they must be tested as long as they're used.

Bah, I'm a major animal supporter and I think it's very unfair to do dissections. I'm dreading highschool or whenever I'm going to have to dissect an animal. I'm not going to give a whole speech, but I really think people are being profusely narrow-minded. They think it's okay to torture animals because they can't fight back. If animals could talk and tell us how they felt, perhaps we would compromise, but for now we take advantage of our powers and use innocent creatures as subject of experimentation. They use monkeys for laboratory testing and don't at all think it's wrong. Bottom line, I'm against dissection, animal testing, or animal abuse in anyway. 

or are you? refer to my previous post. next time, consider that shampoo you're using, even if it says never tested on animals.

I already said a lot of misled people exist. Just like misled people exist on your side of the story (I'd like to see some proof as well.. of your shampoo argument. I use Garnier Fructis, if that helps). Just the same, a lot are NOT misled. We have our own strong beliefs. This is just petty business to you, but this is one of my passions. I believe just one animal's life is worth saving, and that NONE... or as little as possible... should be sacrificed for our own good. (A lion comes charging at you, you shoot him. Fine. That's defense, leading us back to the need for survival).

And I strongly... strongly doubt people test the computer I'm using on animals -.-;;

I think we both agree life is sacred. The difference between you and me is that I believe a human is no more valuable than an "animal's", whereas you seem to believe a human's life should be upheld (even for a "perv's" benefit....). I don't aree with you. If you don't agree with me.... then okay.

My bottom line is that I'd choose to save an animal's life over a person's self-image and self-enlightenment.

I'm done here.

come on... it's debate. the point is to argue.

i don't believe a human's life is always better. it was just the question of would it benifit a human, and yes all those things would.

you have beliefs and i'm not trying to change that. I respect those beliefs, i'm just saying it's nearly impossible to hold completely true to them, even if you exclude testing for medicenes.

I do belive a human's life is worth more than an animal's. I don't want to mistreat animals, i'm not advocating kicking dogs. it's just my belief that humans are better than the rest of the animals, just as i belive a lion is better than a zebra, and a bird better than a worm, and a spider better than a fly.

and yes, i don't really think your computer is tested on animals... but how would you know? it very well could have. If you have a cell phone, that has been tested on rats, so why not a computer?

read the bottom of your keyboard. (there should be a warning there. if not, go find another keyboard)

they say that it might cause cancer.

how did they find out it causes cancer? animal testing most likely...

[racoons > you]

ithink you've won the debate to be honest

i really can tbe bothered to do any research, ive got more other things to do

i still dont agree, i think animal testing is deeply wrong, and ive been in a debate about this before, and found reasonable alternatives which are becomng more available and widely used, but ive lost the notes from that debate, and dont want to look it up again

in terms of this debate, youve won, though. well done

[eunie03]

I am well aware of what emesis means... don't treat me like a child. I took the SAT's as well.

Good job on the research, and I guess I can't get around that. Curse this nation. I will do some research myself and find a friggin shampoo (God... how do you test something as petty as shampoo --;; ). I do say I am disturbed by this. But I swear I will never EVER willingly use a product tested on animals. Even if its just an ingredient.

However.... you yourself make it sound like the actions are cruel. And I still don't agree with animal testing to no degree. Or dissections... which is animal testing to some extent.

it's just my belief that humans are better than the rest of the animals, just as i belive a lion is better than a zebra, and a bird better than a worm, and a spider better than a fly.

That helps me understand your view a bit more. Thank you. I myself do not think that way. My world is not based on the food web (No, I do not eat food.... I eat food's food) Thus the friction.

God... I should just move to England or something. I can't stand America's policies... but that's a whole 'nother argument.

[sadolakced acid]

well that's not fun...

someone should try to prove me wrong...

[racoons > you]

cant be assed. revel in your victory

God... I should just move to England or something. I can't stand America's policies... but that's a whole 'nother argument.

sure come visit, w'll campaign to stop medical testing

[sammi rules you]

we don't want to. you're intelligent, we like you.

yea, you won. wooo go..justin i think your name is..whatever you call yourself these days.

wow. i don't think this has ever happened before..

[CrimsonArchangel]

Well... I certainly cannot given that I agree with at least 90% of what you said...
But go you!

[racoons > you]

can we close this? i mean, it would be nice to end it on a serene note...

[eunie03]

sure come visit, w'll campaign to stop medical testing

Maybe I will one day

[racoons > you]

^^

lookin forward to it...