Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Animal Experimentation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deamiter" data-source="post: 9247543" data-attributes="member: 17635"><p>So many vegetarians! Cruelty in testing on animals is in the minority these days, though nobody can argue that it doesn't exist. If you are seriously empathic to the suffering of animals, you can save MILLIONS more by going after chicken farms and slaughterhouses than fighting animal testing.</p><p> </p><p> Given that it truely does save lives by lessening human testing and speeding up the process for medical procedures, I can't label it as 'evil.' I'm certainly not offended, but I wonder what medical research has lead to the statement, "<span style="color: Black"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">there are many more methods that don't use animal testing and they're much more reliable" [heavily edited for grammar and spelling]. That is a very easy statement to make, but it borders on blatant misinformation! There are in fact VERY few methods (short of human testing) that produce quick, reliable data when testing drugs that require living tissue (like cancer drugs or anti-diabetes research) and cannot be reproduced in test-tube situations. Perhaps we should experiment on cancer patients instead?</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Black"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"> </span></span></span></p><p> <span style="color: Black"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Of COURSE I cannot support blatant disregard for the comfort of animals in research, but there are so many worse problems in animal abuse (especially in chicken farms where chickens grow up packed together by the thousands, unable to move, as developed muscles aren't as tasty)! The only reason people go after animal testing, in my opinion, is because farmers are often protected by strong lobby groups. It's certainly not because animal testing is a primary source of animal negligence in this country!</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Black"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"> </span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deamiter, post: 9247543, member: 17635"] So many vegetarians! Cruelty in testing on animals is in the minority these days, though nobody can argue that it doesn't exist. If you are seriously empathic to the suffering of animals, you can save MILLIONS more by going after chicken farms and slaughterhouses than fighting animal testing. Given that it truely does save lives by lessening human testing and speeding up the process for medical procedures, I can't label it as 'evil.' I'm certainly not offended, but I wonder what medical research has lead to the statement, "[color=Black][size=2][font=Arial]there are many more methods that don't use animal testing and they're much more reliable" [heavily edited for grammar and spelling]. That is a very easy statement to make, but it borders on blatant misinformation! There are in fact VERY few methods (short of human testing) that produce quick, reliable data when testing drugs that require living tissue (like cancer drugs or anti-diabetes research) and cannot be reproduced in test-tube situations. Perhaps we should experiment on cancer patients instead? Of COURSE I cannot support blatant disregard for the comfort of animals in research, but there are so many worse problems in animal abuse (especially in chicken farms where chickens grow up packed together by the thousands, unable to move, as developed muscles aren't as tasty)! The only reason people go after animal testing, in my opinion, is because farmers are often protected by strong lobby groups. It's certainly not because animal testing is a primary source of animal negligence in this country! [/font][/size][/color] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Animal Experimentation
Top
Bottom