Hannah:
--------: I belive that animal testing is good for many reasons.
: 1: We have so many products that have been tested on animals could we get a long with out them?
Me:
----
I agree that you can't really avoid using some products tested on animals.
However, avoiding products tested on animals is usually people saying they don't want any further animal testing from that company (..and so avoid products already tested on animals to show you don't want to create a demand).
It is not so much saying that it WAS tested on animals before so its use must be avoided purely because of that. You can't change what has already been done, I agree with you there.
I boycott a few companies that test on animals. I will buy their products, however, if they have stopped and changed to an ethical policy (even if that product was previously tested on animals).
Hannah:
--------
: 2: There has many lives saved from animal testing. The information that we have gained from animal testing is so great.
Me:
----
Yep, yep, that's true. That's the good side of it. But the suffering does not justify the testing.
And the products can be tested just as well now without animals. Powerful computer models now exist that determine how chemicals and common ingredients, mixed or alone, react with human tissues (and so on).
This itself is probably more reliable than animal testing, since animal testing has failed to point out many problems before where humans are different from animals. But ethical testing companies don't stop there. They also test on humans. Surely that's bad..? No, not if they choose to be tested on, if they are told about the risks and if the product has already gone through computer models (and scientific tests, etc). If someone chooses to be tested on, then there's no problem. That would be the case with animals as well ... except of course they aren't given a choice.
Now. What makes you think that animal's lives are less important than human's? I personally think that animals and humans are equal, some believe that human lives are worth more and I respect that since I don't know for sure.
What is sure though, is the fact that animal's lives are WORTH SOMETHING. They don't deserve to be treated like non-living matter with no feelings, thrown about by twats. These twats don't have the right to do that.
And to anyone to says animals don't have feelings: poppy-cock (amazing term that!!)!!! You can tell animals suffer from the squeels, frightened eyes, locked up limbs and frustration written across their face. They suffer as much as if someone did it to us.
Hannah:
--------
: 3: If we would not test on animals there would be a overpopulation of animals. You will say that we can hunt them but if that happened wouldn't we have more deaths from shooting.
Me:
----
Popy-cock agin!
Ar, so you admit that the amount of animal testing that goes on kills enough animals to significantly reduce the animal population. This is certainly true with the worst animal testers that test to ludicrous extremes. Where they are experminting with an animal as if they were a piece of filter paper that can be "abused" as much as you like and thrown away at the end of the day. (Eg. L'Oreal cosmetics brand - which is 50% owned by that Nestlé group - has a very bad animal testing reputation and has been known to fry animals alive to test resistence to sun screen. This is purely sick.)
Hunting would be slightly more ethical than this, but I don't agree with that either.
The so-called "population problem" with animals is, I consider, rubbish. In natural circumstances, the food chain sorts this out. Us humans have indeed removed some upper bits of the food chain that sort out fox and rabbit populations, etc., so it is true that there is an issue. But the problem tends to be exaggerated in many cases. The problem isn't as big a scale as you might've been suggested. Where it is a problem, humane controls could be done, like introducing genes into the fox or rabbit system to reduce births. Whatever the case, any way is better than reducing the population via animal testing. Many animals are bred for animal testing rather than being taken from the "wild" anyway.
Hannah:
--------
: So what do you think is animal testing still bad well if you think so I think that it is good. Think of it this way the animals are helping us to live longer.
Me:
----
I know where you're coming from but that's a gak way to think. Animal testing has helped us to live longer - but it doesn't need to carry on any more, testing other ways is just as effective. Anyway, as pointed out before, most testing is for cosmetics (although this is reducing considerably from public pressure now) and this DOESN'T save anyone's life ! The cruel situations in animal testing labs are nothing like anything you might conisder cruel that happens in nature. Mam! Open you thoughts a little and realise animal testing in principle is not a good idea.
Hannah:
--------
: email me your thoughts at dixie25@hotmail.com
Me:
----
Will do mam.
Hannah:
--------
: thank you for reading this
Me:
----
That's alright. Thank YOU for reading this, er, if you have. Sorry this is so INSANELY long. I get carried away with length when I feel strongly.
Please email me if you disagree with what I've said (although I should read "followup"s you post as well). My email is Thop.Hesketh-Roberts@usa.net
Cheers
Thop H-R :-)
