Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
MEAT IS MURDER
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
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ann Bledsoe" data-source="post: 19943" data-attributes="member: 60"><p>Now I don't want to be accused of slamming anybody because everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe, but the particular person that I had in mind when posting was Mary Tyler Moore. She's been very outspoken about Animal Rights -- and she's a diabetic. We all know that the treatments for diabetes were developed on animals.</p><p>This just seems extremely hypocritical to me -- her very life depends on treatments that were developed on animals and there is ongoing animal research for diabetes, so if they ever find a cure, she'll owe that to animal testing also.</p><p></p><p>I am a big proponent of Animal Welfare, but totally against Animal Rights (amazing how many people don't know the difference).</p><p>Animals don't have rights, only humans have rights. Only humans have that (potential) ability to understand what rights are.</p><p>Animals should be treated humanely, no matter their purpose -- treated humanely all the way from birth to the dinner table. I do believe that since these animals are giving their lives to feed us and enhance our lives, that they do deserve humane treatment during their life and a painless death.</p><p></p><p>When it comes to product testing -- I'm a fence sitter! Yes, new products should be tested -- but do we really need to keep testing substances that have been tested over and over and over again for years and years? For example, the rabbit eye test. The rabbit eye test is used to determine if a substance is caustic to the eyes -- and I'll admit, I wouldn't want to buy a product designed to use around the eyes, if it hadn't been tested on the animals. But, it makes no senses to me why they continue to test substances that they KNOW the results of! If they know a certain substance will burn the eyes, why retest it everytime they add a new fragrance or new color!?!? They didn't change the compound, so why would they need to test again?</p><p></p><p>Ann B</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ann Bledsoe, post: 19943, member: 60"] Now I don't want to be accused of slamming anybody because everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe, but the particular person that I had in mind when posting was Mary Tyler Moore. She's been very outspoken about Animal Rights -- and she's a diabetic. We all know that the treatments for diabetes were developed on animals. This just seems extremely hypocritical to me -- her very life depends on treatments that were developed on animals and there is ongoing animal research for diabetes, so if they ever find a cure, she'll owe that to animal testing also. I am a big proponent of Animal Welfare, but totally against Animal Rights (amazing how many people don't know the difference). Animals don't have rights, only humans have rights. Only humans have that (potential) ability to understand what rights are. Animals should be treated humanely, no matter their purpose -- treated humanely all the way from birth to the dinner table. I do believe that since these animals are giving their lives to feed us and enhance our lives, that they do deserve humane treatment during their life and a painless death. When it comes to product testing -- I'm a fence sitter! Yes, new products should be tested -- but do we really need to keep testing substances that have been tested over and over and over again for years and years? For example, the rabbit eye test. The rabbit eye test is used to determine if a substance is caustic to the eyes -- and I'll admit, I wouldn't want to buy a product designed to use around the eyes, if it hadn't been tested on the animals. But, it makes no senses to me why they continue to test substances that they KNOW the results of! If they know a certain substance will burn the eyes, why retest it everytime they add a new fragrance or new color!?!? They didn't change the compound, so why would they need to test again? Ann B [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
MEAT IS MURDER
Top