National Animal Safety and Protection Month on October, 2017: Animal Testing- philosophical question?
October, 2017 is National Animal Safety and Protection Month 2017. Teaching Animal Safety Live Animal Education Presentations That Teach Respect & Kindness!
There was a time when I was against animal testing to some degree, and without much forethought. I then ruptured a disc in my back and screamed in pain for months unable to walk or get up to walk to the bathroom. I actually wished myself dead because the medical office I was dealing with at the time did not tell me it would get any better. That is when I realized that no matter how much testing it took, or even if an animal's transplanted disc could work, I was is so much pain I would be for it.
While needless testing may be done, no one has taken into account that the companies that do that testing are subject to one of our countries biggest products;
LAW SUITS. I don't mean law suits from Peta, dressed in monkey outfits, but law suits from Americans even for rashes from using shampoo. Like it or not we are a sue happy country. Further I have never known companies, in business for profit to spend funds needlessly which dip into that profit.
Right now, as we type a "Three agencies — the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health — have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" to develop and implement the new methods. The collaboration is described in today's edition of the journal Science."
According to the quoted article at
Which goes onto say "The agreement is a "milestone" says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States. "We believe this is the beginning of the end for animal testing. We think the (conversion) process will take about 10 years."
Now we have to remember that the Humane Society of the United States is a Vegan organization that is against all animal use, including for our food and for the food of our pets, which according to them should not exist and should be returned to their wild state.
That isn't the only thing happening at the moment:
High Speed Robots to Replace Animal Testing of Toxic Chemicals
"WASHINGTON, DC, February 14, 2008 (ENS) - Fewer laboratory animals will be used to test the safety of chemicals such as pesticides and household cleaners under a new agreement announced jointly today by the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA."
How much faith we have in robotic testing remains to be seen. Sooner or later robotic testing may prove inadequate. If YOUR dog suffers DEATH from some robotic tested cleaning fluid how upset would you be? Would you forget about the loss of your pet in consideration for the mouse that wasn't bred for testing, didn't ever live at all, and consequently never suffered testing? What if the affected is not your dog but your CHILD? Remember that most of the testing being replaced through robotics (if not all of it) is currently performed on MICE and not higher level animals.
In this election year we are hearing a lot about the suffering economy. Have provisions been made to eliminate the liability should a company produce a robotic tested product that causes infants to die?
If not, is this move going to drive more companies off shore and away from our sue happy country? Can we afford the economic losses?
Animal testing as was said before is a necessary evil. Consider also some of the medical advances not only to humans but to animals themselves that have been developed through the use of animals in scientific research. I will put in some links bellow for your consideration.
So I suppose my answer which comes from a once anti animal testing old lady who has suffered great pain, is that I have changed my mind. Testing on animals is a necessary evil, only those products which can be pardoned liability because they cannot cause such danger should be removed from the requirement. However, that removal should also come with the removal of their liability based on some scientific presentation and determined prior to the removal of liability. Are we ready to remove liability and have products labeled "this untested product is to be used at your own risk?" Without the removal of such a liability that product will not be manufactured in the US. Can we afford the job losses and send more money over seas? Would we use products labeled for use at our own risk?
On a personal level I would not mind taking such risks with certain things but not all things therefore I as the consumer would be making the choice as to which types of products I felt needed the additional security of testing.
Government doesn't usually work that way but I would not support anti animal testing without protecting our economy and allowing people to select whether they felt secure in the products they choose with proper labeling. Okay so I am dreaming...
I realize that I eat animals when I am hungry, and I also want the security of testing on certain things with higher risks.
This goes beyond testing for products though. A related question is; are we ready to give up medical advancements to appease Peta and HSUS Vegans? What have we learned and accomplished form scientific uses of animals? This is the short list:
Smallpox vaccine developed
Anthrax vaccine developed
Rabies vaccine developed
Lifecyle of Malaria discovered
Immunity mechanisms discovered
Rabbit, Horse, Guinea Pig
Neuron function discovered
Tetanus vaccine developed
Polio vaccine developed
Open-heart surgery & pacemakers developed
Cholesterol regulation discovered
Social & behavioral patterns in animals discovered
Fish, Bee, Bird
Leprosy treatment developed
Organ transplant techniques advanced
Dog, Pig, Sheep, Cow
Prions discovered & characterized
Brain signal transduction discovered
Sea Slug, Mouse, Rat
Cell death mechanism discovered
"UCLA remains steadfast in its commitment to the legal use of laboratory animals in research for the benefit of society. Such research has enhanced our understanding of how the human body functions and has led to the development of lifesaving procedures and medicines — among them radiation therapy and other cancer treatments, open-heart surgery, fetal circulatory health treatments, organ transplantation, mental health treatments, and vaccines. Discontinuing all animal research would diminish hope for millions of people with AIDS, cancer, heart disease and other ailments."
"For several years, UCLA researchers and administrators have been subjected to an organized campaign of harassment intended to halt the use of all animals in research. This has included the attempted firebombing of a faculty member’s vehicle, a separate attempted firebombing directed at a faculty member’s home, significant vandalism, threatening phone calls and e-mails, and demonstrations on campus and at the private residences of faculty and administrators."
But who is harassing and bombing researchers?
Are we really ready to give up the future of medicine to appease a bunch of people who are so fanatical that they won't even wear wool from a shaved sheep that suffered no harm to produce it?
Exactly what were GW Bush's accomplishments the first 10 months in office as president?
In his first year, GWB:
1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
10. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
11. Appointed John Negroponte -- an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of
care for people without insurance.
14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
16. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
24. Appointed Otto Reich -- an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure -- to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
31. Closed the White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
32. Nominated David Lauriski -- an ex-mining company executive --- to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
33. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
34. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
35. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling outside of national monuments.
36. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
37. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers' rights and safeguards for the environment.
38. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
39. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior..
40. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
41. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
42. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
43. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
Is this essay about changing the amendments good?
Well, on the bright side your grammar is excellent.
Unfortunately, your logic looks like a second grader wrote it without bothering to do any research to support their claims. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is unclear to you? The Supreme Court of the United States of America seems to understand it perfectly clear in their ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller.
This one line made me crack up. "We should change this amendment to only people with the authority of having a gun have the right to bear and keep arms. Such people would be police officers, people of the army, bodyguards, and others that would be using this weapon for an advantage." This idea has already been thought of by a guy by the name of Adolf Hitler. I think we all know how that ended.
THis line was completely unfounded and made it seem blatantly obvious that you did not bother to do any research. "This will decrease our crime rates and assure citizens full protection." In 1976, Washington D.C. instutited one of the toughest gun control laws in the country. The murder rate in D.C. rose 134% in the same time that the national average declined by 2%.
"We have to add on to this amendment so our crime rates will decrease and security for our citizens will rise." We already have one.
"If you want to possess a gun for hunting purposes, you shouldn’t hurt the animal for that. This is why many animals are going into extinction." WTF. Another completely unfounded statement with absolutly no proof to back up your claim. You eat hamburgers and bacon don't you? Where exactly do you think they come from?
Yeah, if you intend to do even remotely well, you should pretty much just erase everything you wrote down, do some research and then rewrite your paper. You obviously just sat down at your computer one day and started writing things you thought sounded intelligent but really just showed your lack of effort. Better luck next time.