Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!styx!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!jumbo!kolling
From: kolling@jumbo.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.consumers,net.veg,net.pets
Subject: Re: animal testing for cosmetic and household products
Message-ID: <569@jumbo.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 18:15:59 EST
Article-I.D.: jumbo.569
Posted: Tue Nov 18 18:15:59 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Nov-86 07:21:22 EST
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath soc.women:961 misc.consumers:238 net.veg:983 net.pets:2828


> Better the animal than me.  Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help.
> Also, would you seriously trust your life to a computer program,  given
> current software engineering standards.  

There are at least two aspects to testing using animals:  (1) testing
cosmetics and other non-essentials, and (2) testing medicines.  Possibly
someone can make a case for inflicting pain and death on an animal in the
latter case (although I wouldn't agree), but there is certainly no ethically
acceptable case for the former.  Also, even if you believe that the latter
is justified, many tests on animals simply have no relevance to humans, many
are unnecessary duplications, many involve much more mistreatment of animals
than is necessary to get the test results.

> Also,  there is a paradox here 
> if the animals are not used for testing, than they will not be born.
> Supply and demand, gotta love capitalism.  

This is a truly incredible statement.  One of the major causes of animal
suffering is the tremendous number of animals born who are destined to be
homeless because people don't have their present animals neutered.