- Report Post
- Posted: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:36:50 +0000
Well here's a thought... before we started animal testing LONG ago, we didn't have all these vaccines and all this s**t... We lived in caves once and we got by alright. Do we really need all these vaccines and medicines that one day our bodies will become immune to anyway? I don't want to argue a case, I'm just trying to see the other side of this.
We got by with living usually about 20-30 years. 30 was considered being -old- in the cave days. Just to have your child survive or the mother survive during birth was a miracle.
Life span has been improved by far as compared to the cave days. We didn't get by alright really, we survived while we learned more about the land around us and what to do. As time progressed we began having longer life spans.
In the Tudor days, think about them. Dying during child birth left and right, dying from the bubonic plague or even diphtheria. Simple things we can now fix. Diabetes was unknown and there was no fix for it and many people lost limbs and in turn died from that. Lifespan if I remember right was about 50 years old then? No. I lied. Just googled it and it came up with average lifespan of 35. Obviously I over shot it.
Our bodies do not become immune to Vaccines and Medications unless they are over used and that is up to the individual user.
Anyone can become immune to Vicodin if they over use it. Anyone can be immune to one type of Antibiotic if they over use that or are often sick.
That's why we have more than one type of medication and vaccine to help aid in certain things.
I think your arguments are well revised and admittedly well backed up, although I still say I'm against animal testing.
So yeah, it means that there's a chance I might now be here right now if animal testing wasn't around but... If I can avoid it, I will.
I do appreciate that we use an animal to test vaccines and treatments for our health, but when it comes to cosmetics and our own luxuries, that is what I disagree with.
I'm impressed by your arguments for the issue. Keep it up.
Majoring in Psychology, i'm obviously for it but for the -right- reasons, and have at the very least learned about it some in my past. Nothing wrong with a bit of on the side research either.
I think cosmetic testing is pretty much pointless. I don't go out of my way to look for something not tested on animals, though. But at least in the cosmetics industry you do find more humans being tested on, while yes still animals are tested as well. I know it's pretty common to see Ads to become a tester for the latest foundation in newspapers and such. They pay anywhere from 20-100 dollars, i've heard of more before too. To be honest too, I absolutely don't know how they go about cosmetic testing on animals either. Hair Dye, I figure obviously they may dye the animal. But other things I do not know.
As much as I don't like the idea of cosmetic animal testing, it always kinda makes me giggle to picture a monkey with curled eyelashes and glossy lips eek