For Those Who Support PETA

[- PC -]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17343

Sacrificing humans to save animals?
PETA gives grants to develop use of embryos, alternative to rat tests


By Joseph Farah
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The latest issue of Animal Times, the quarterly publication of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, announces the group's grants to companies developing human embryo testing as one of the alternatives to the use of rats and other beasts in product safety tests.

"PETA has given $250,000 to assist in the validation of non-animal test methods to replace existing animal tests," an article in the Winter 1999 edition of the journal says. "PETA awarded a $200,000 grant to the Institute for In Vitro Science (IIVS) in Maryland to support a replacement for the use of rats in lethal dose poisoning tests for chemicals, household products and pharmaceuticals."

BREAK

The literature of the groups and companies active in this area suggest it is time to create human tissue banks as suppliers for expanded experimentation and testing in the future.

A spokeswoman for PETA found no contradiction in its support of organizations involved in human and animal embryo tests.
______________________________________________

Basically PETA support the use of Embryos over rats in poison testing.

For all you who think PETA are a moral and righteous group of people ..then god help humanity.

How anyone can morally accept that it is better to test on a human being instead of an animal needs some serious treatment.

 

[DaveW]

I've got no objections to testing on either rodents or embryos.

But they're free to spend their money as they see fit.

 

[MightyFighting]

I have no problem with embryonic testing or animal testing.

...Now, if we could only get the anti-embryonic testing people to fund the animal testing...

 

[mantis]

I will start off by saying I hate PETA, but the embryos they will be using are dead right, so it is better to test on something that's dead, rather than something that's live.

Plus you would get more accurate results from testing on our own species, rather than an animal.

Edit: No testing should be done on anything, if it's for cosmetics or chemicals, only for medical research.

 

[CharlieG]

Very rarely do I find fault with what DaveW and Mightyfighting have to say, and this time is no exception.

 

[Birdy]

I would love to see these so-called "scientists" who test on animals have their ungodly experiments done on themselves and see how they like it. Download this .pdf picture to see what they do, they are sick mongrels indeed:

http://petaliterature.com/ProductImages/Malishposter.pdf

 

[Thrawn]

For medical reasons? Fine. Cosmetics and likewise? No way. As an aside, most lab experiments regarding medical testing are humane as possible, where all animals are treated in the best manner possible with the least amount of suffering. It's not all that bad as some animal-rights activists make us believe it is.

And where the procedure is too painful for the animal, they will not continue on with the experiment, but rather use alternatives.

 

[Thrawn]

Institute for In Vitro Science (IIVS) in Maryland to support a replacement for the use of rats in lethal dose poisoning tests for chemicals, household products and pharmaceuticals."

Hmmm... household products? Such as? This is the only one where I disagree having the animals tested on - most household products (if not all of them) are not required to prolong life, let alone save them. I would therefore disagree using rats - or any other animal for that matter, to use as test subjects for household products.

 

[Shinboners]

Hmmm... household products? Such as? This is the only one where I disagree having the animals tested on - most household products (if not all of them) are not required to prolong life, let alone save them. I would therefore disagree using rats - or any other animal for that matter, to use as test subjects for household products.

I would have thought that for household products, the simplest test would have been to take the new product to the Board of Director's meeting room, have the scientists give the directors a brief overview of the product (chemical composition, how it works, how it's made, etc) and then give each director a sample with the following instructions, "It's up to you to test this product at your own home with your wife and children around".

Agree with many others here - animal testing for medical research is fine. Animal testing for domestic products isn't.

 

[medusala]

I would have thought that for household products, the simplest test would have been to take the new product to the Board of Director's meeting room, have the scientists give the directors a brief overview of the product (chemical composition, how it works, how it's made, etc) and then give each director a sample with the following instructions, "It's up to you to test this product at your own home with your wife and children around".

Agree with many others here - animal testing for medical research is fine. Animal testing for domestic products isn't.

As much as you and PETA might like to think so its not so simple. Take asbestos for example. Thousands of lives would have been saved if we knew it was so dangerous. Thats a household product. What about other household products such as detergents which people can be allergic to? There are other products which may be carconogens or poisonous ie lead in paint etc etc. How do you establish the safe level of mercury, vitamin A etc in people without testing them on animals?

 

[Shinboners]

medusala, my post was slightly tongue in cheek, but the point I was trying to make was on why we needed more powerful detergents, paints, and other every day domestic products? Sure, testing on animals does have to go through "ethics committees", but I think that plenty of animals would get wasted from product testing that we don't need. I sometimes think that by "personalising" the issue with those who make the decisions might persuade them not to push the limits on new products and their testing.

On a product like asbestos, would that have been picked up by animal testing? It's the nature of product development that corporations want their new items out on the market as soon as possible. I think the symptoms for the cancers that are caused by asbestos don't appear for at least 10 years, so would it have been picked up? It doesn't invalidate your point though.

 

[M29]

No testing should be done on anything, if it's for cosmetics

Ugly animals deserve to look pretty as much as ugly girls.

 

[M29]

I would love to see these so-called "scientists" who test on animals have their ungodly experiments done on themselves and see how they like it. Download this .pdf picture to see what they do, they are sick mongrels indeed:

http://petaliterature.com/ProductImages/Malishposter.pdf

That new iPod dosen't look functional does it?

 

[Thrawn]

As much as you and PETA might like to think so its not so simple. Take asbestos for example. Thousands of lives would have been saved if we knew it was so dangerous. Thats a household product. What about other household products such as detergents which people can be allergic to? There are other products which may be carconogens or poisonous ie lead in paint etc etc. How do you establish the safe level of mercury, vitamin A etc in people without testing them on animals?

That depends on whether the product is 'beneficial' enough to either prolong or save human lives to warrant animal testing, or at least justify it. This is why the things we don't really need to survive (cosmetics, pine-o-clean, and the like) should not be tested on animals IMHO. As for allergies - tell me, how are you going to come to a successful conclusion if the animals you are testing on have a totally different allergic reaction (if at all)? Shinners makes an excellent point on asbestos - it takes years to notice an effect, something most lab animals do not have due to their life spans.

I agree with your point to a certain extent though, but a line has to be drawn when we are talking about non-medical testing, and whether animal suffering is justified by keeping your dishes clean, or by your face looking younger.

 

[WA ROO]

There should be no testing on embryos or animals
We should use lawyers for testing

 

[Borry]

There should be no testing on embryos or animals
We should use lawyers for testing

GOLD!!

 

[Bombers 2003]

There should be no testing on embryos or animals
We should use lawyers for testing

Because they're Non Human?.

 

[jim boy]

Agree with many others here - animal testing for medical research is fine. Animal testing for domestic products isn't.

How do you figure that? Do you think that they test cosmetics on animals to see if a new colour of lipstick will match a certain eye-liner?

Of course they don't. They test cosmetics to ensure they're are no health side effects. And while development of cosmetics might seem vain and vacuous, the reality is that new cosmetics are going to be developed and they are going to have to be checked to make sure that they are medically safe.