Welcome to Gaia! ::

whee heart 4laugh 4laugh 4laugh

I love birds. (NOT WITH BARBECUE SAUCE! scream )

I love chicks. (NOT THE HUMAN KIND! scream )

I love quails! With the foofy spring on their heads! *glomps your quail chicks*

I have a cockatiel. I'd try to glomp her but she'd run away. stare

It is possible to test it on isolated human cells. For example, if you wanted to test a face cream, then one could grow human skin cells and test its reaction to them, the cells can be aquired as simply as a volunteer giving a swab. It is possible to grow almost any kind of tissue with just a tiny sample.

The best part is that it is so much more effective becuse it is actually human cells. The opposition mainly argues that it is only a part so you cant see tyhe result on the whole thing, which is fair enough...although its a lot more accurate thasn testing on any animal even other primates...so i think that that opposition seems a little illogical to me, and in my (admittedly bias) oppinion, like they are making excuses so they can continue animal testing, ecspecially since on the EU comittee to reduce and eventually eradicate it an overwhelming majority of the members are pro animal testing.

I'm dating a biologist so i'm trying to persuade him to help me get things like this studied in more detail to perfect them, with the idea that if studies prove it is much more effective than companies will have no excuse to test on animals other than that they are, i can think of no other word than evil...but then as i said...biased.

You can also test its effect on things like stem cells which can be used to grow an amazing amount of things, but this uses placenta stem cells which i think has substantially less opposition than embryonic stem cells as i've never met anyone who argued for the rights of the placenta xd

I read somewhere that a privatley funded testing group using this research have progressed further in discovering treatments for specific types of cancer over the last five years than traditional testing has done in 20. I can't find the source though so that I can check it up, so I dont take it as granted as the source may be one sided. I think it is still impressive though and if it's true it makes me really pissed off at companies making sure they get more money at a detriment to the public...

like they do with the permanent lightbulbs, or petrol pills. Those will never go on sale however eco friendly or money saving because they just dont make money for the companies...plus I know they exist, i have it from a very reliable source. sad

P.S I apologise for my typing. My computer was stolen amongst other things yesterday when the house was broken into whilst we were in, so i'm using my boyfriends computer until i hopefully manage to get another of my own.

What she's gettins at is the fact that PETA has, on multiple occasion in multiple interviews and press releases and documentations stated that they are not just agianst animal testing, but against the use of products that have arisen through animal testing. Which is made obvious by their majority agreence that, should animal testing lead to a cure for cancer (or, in perhaps relation to the abortion debate, a 100% fool prooth form of pregnancy controle that wasnt abstenece) they would be against it.

"If animal testing lead to a cure for cancer, we would be against it." ~ Ingrid Newkirk.

They have been asked, and multiple representatives claerly stated they are agianst the production, sale, and use of Insulin, Pennisilin, Asprin, and multiple other medicines that were firsttested on animals.

I know what she's getting at, and I am also against animal testing. However what she's saying is that people who are against animal testing should not use the medicine that has been discovered due to animal testing. The production and sale of items which have already been procured through the use of animal testing is one thing, however continuing to test on animals is completely different.

To quote myself;


And also from early in the thread;






Also there is a difference between killing an animal in the name of science, and torturing an animal in the name of science. This is not a humane, quick death, this is a prolonged torture session.

The reason for overpopulation right now? Longevity. People always talk about needing abortion in order to keep the population down however the truth of it all is that people are having less children now but are surviving to see their great grandchildren. Before you were old if you lived to be 30, now you're not old until your 90's or 100's.

Human's have become so self-absorbed that we're willing to torture other living being in order to perserve our lives even longer. Yes cancer is a horrible thing, my mothers best friend and a woman who I grew up as part of my family, recently died of cancer. However that does not give humans the right to torture other living beings in order to allow for our lives to be stretched out even longer.

At which point is enough enough? At which point are we supposed to stop fighting against nature and accept the act that death is in the natural order of things and we can't keep it away forever, nor should we try?

Edit: Also don't worry about coming across as rude to me. =P I've got pretty thick skin and when I get into debate mode I kind of go into "spare no feelings" mode.

And your comment on PETA, personally I'd love to see PETA put money towards anything worth while.

And lastly with your vegetarian analogy, I would compare it more to some vegetarian's who will not eat meat but will wear leather (not from certain brands, but general leather) because it is the by product of the cow being killed for its meat.

I'll be honest. If animal testing could make it so I'd be healthy again, I'd take it. I don't like living like this. I want to be back to normal. I probably am benefitting from animal testing, I don't know. I'm not in my 30s, I'm 19 years old, and am admittedly a selfish b***h who wants to live to have children of my own. I know toddlers like me. There are kids with cancer, children who are 5 years old. Is that old enough to live? Is that a good age to say, well you should just suffer with cancer and die now, because we wouldn't want to kill the rats looking for a cure, and besides that we're overpopulater. Babies born with AIDs, have they lived long enough?

Of course, every option besides animal testing should be used, but there are some things where we need to test on some organism. I'd rather it be rodents, and in some circumstances even primates, than
http://lowroad75.comicgenesis.com/d/20061118.html