The European parliament outlaw the cosmetic animal testing by the year 2009? Is there any upcoming good news?

Question

I feel this is a beginning of victory for the activist like vegetarians, the pressure from free-thinkers, environmentalist and the next coming generations.

http://www.clearleadinc.com/site/cosmetic-animal.html

Answer 1

Yeah, we should just pay hobos to be test subjects!

Answer 2

Do you really have a question here? You admit, "Just to make it a question..", so it's obviously a rant. Do I support the abolishing of cosmetic animal testing? NO, I Do Not! You evidently want humans to use products that haven't been tested on any living things. That's grossly irresponsible to say the least. Indeed it's incredibly barbaric. "Methinks thou doeth protest too much!", to paraphrase Shakespeare in "The Taming Of The Shrew". If you have the same crusade against animal testing that PETA began and use PETA tactics, e.g. defamation, hen it's futile to deny being a PETA fanatic. You're not really asking but delivering a PETA sermon. Calling people names is vile and ridiculing them to try to boost our rant is evil too. Your intnt is obviously to try to discredit someone who doesn't agree with your thoughtless rant. It looks as if others repeat yopur insults. This is defamation and perhaps conspiracy to do it. Both are crimes I'm sure. some people will copy all of this for legal action. Will PETA pay your defense fund?

Answer 3

As a free thinker I'm against such a stupid ban.

I dislike the idea of intelligent humans being forced to die so that some non-intelligent animal can live. I hope the French can find a way to stop the stupid law from taking effect.

OTOH there has been a lot of public support for animal testing in the UK after terrorist actions by some activists.

Answer 4

I think that animal testing on cosmetic problems is bad, provided there are other effective alternatives for testing a product. But I'm not for a ban. While killing rabbits is not my idea of humane behavior, let's consider that we use animals for other purposes (eating) and the treatment is not very different. I support letting consumers decide -- government restrictions tend to reduce personal liberty.

I am also in full support of animals for medical research. It's a case of humans vs. not testing. I support humans.

Answer 5

I am not sure if this will put human beings in danger.

God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: "Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth. Dread fear of you shall come upon all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon all the creatures that move about on the ground and all the fishes of the sea; into your power they are delivered. Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. (Genesis 9:1-3)

The Catholic Church teaches:

+ It is a sin to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

+ It is not a sin to kill animals with as little suffering as possible for food, clothing, and the health and safety of humans.

+ Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving of human lives.

For more information, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2415-2418 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art7.htm#2415

With love in Christ.

Answer 6

I tend to agree with Tardis Girl. If there's a viable alternative, I'd rather not see animals used in testing. However, if it's a choice between animal rights and human rights, I'll go with humans every time. I happen to be human, popular opinion not withstanding.

Answer 7

They can always outsource animal testing to other countries.