NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the new version of the animal rights protection act discussed before. It makes for a legalization of animal testing for medicinal purposes and other necessities, yet bans it for inhumane reasons, such as testing for cosmetics purposes:

Description: Draft of the Ammended Act:

Description: Determined that the UN shall have the responsibility to create and protect the right of its animal denizens not to be tested nor experimented on by any person, organization, faction or company for the purposes of cosmetics and other non-medicinal, non-protective purposes

Affirming that animals shall have at least the basic rights allowing them freedom from testing or experimentation by persons, organizations, factions or companies

Recognizing the severe impact such testing has had on our worldwide eco-systems

Recognizing that such testing is not only damaging to the environment, but is furthermore immoral as well

Recognizing that the use of such testing for the purposes of cosmetics, medicines, etc. is an injust excuse for the killing/harming of animals

Recognizing that the use of such testing is out-dated and that most human products experimented with during such testing are still not proven safe nor successful

Proclaims the following:

1) Defines an animal as any living creature from the kingdom Animalia.

2) Defines a test animal as any such animal in the possession of any person, organization, faction or company, that is having some form of chemical, biological, or mechanical product being used on it in order to assess whether the product is suitable for use by humans.

3) Defines the forms of such testing that are to be restricted as any such testing of products meant for cosmetic or other non-essential purposes

4) Defines essential products permitted to be tested on animals as any product which has the purpose of promoting medical advances (IE chemicals used in vaccinations, chemicals used to further stem-cell research, mechanical devices used to further production of artificial body parts, etc.)

5) Designates that any species of animal that continually causes harm to humans and becomes a danger to human civilization may be tested on in order to produce a way to defend against such dangerous animals (IE the Mauri bird may be used to test some way in which to ward off the Mauri so it does not cause harm to humans as it historically does)

6) All such test animals are to be released into the custody of licensed animal professionals working in animal care facilities and shelters. If a nation does not have any licensed animal proffesionals, then the animals are to remain in the custody of the persons, organizations, factions or companies to whom they belonged. Animals under such circumastances will continue to benefit from this resolution and will be fed and taken care of by the said persons or groups. Harming or maltreatment of any animals under such circumstances will result in a violation of UN law.
If the persons or groups do not have the funds/ supplies to continue caring for such animals, they will turn the animals over for adoption, and then the ones that are not adopted will be given into the care of other such persons or groups. Extremely sick or harmed animals are to be put to sleep peacefully.

7) All persons,organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing shall be ordered to halt such experiments immediately after this order has been given to them

8) All persons, organizations, factions and companies who engage in such testing will be ordered to take off any product labels stating that their product has been tested on animals

9) Such testing is deemed immoral and illegal under UN law


I ask that nations find this bill and approve it so that it may come to vote.

If the act is already in place, you can't amend it. You'd have to repeal and then reintroduce, as I've learned from my unnoticed attempts at the new GL resolutions. Has this resolution been repealed?

Oh no it was never put into place because so many people had issues with the medicinal purposes issue.

Recognizing the severe impact such testing has had on our worldwide eco-systems

How does a lab rat affect the worldwide ecosystem? It would be better to leave this out of your proposal.

Recognizing that the use of such testing for the purposes of cosmetics, medicines, etc. is an injust excuse for the killing/harming of animals

injust=unjust (other minor typos, but much better than most!)

And, you say that using animals to test medicines is unjust, yet this proposal allows us to do so. Probably a minor oversite when changing your proposal, but pretty major when submitting.

I would support this proposal, and bring it to the attention of my UN Delegate after the deletion of "medicines" from your list of unjust purposes for using animals in testing.

Erm...I can't remember, are bacteria considered animals? Also, aren't the animals used in testing selected because of their similarities to humans in regards to what is to be tested?

No bacteria have their own kingdom either called "Bacteria," "Monera," or "Eubacteria."

Also I didn't make any point about tested animals being similar to humans.

Jeinga:

I was not reffering solely to rats when I said "animals." Dogs, rabbits, cats, and many different types of animals are tested on.

(Oh and sorry about the medicinal conflict)

I don't even understand this proposal anymore, it's such a mishmash.

You're still wrong and immoral for saying that cosmetics testing is a bad thing.

I still oppose.

I was not reffering solely to rats when I said "animals." Dogs, rabbits, cats, and many different types of animals are tested on.


Rats were an example, and so is your list above. My question remains. How does this affect the world's ecosystem?

I don't have a problem with your proposal's intent, I just find that the cause is blown out of proportion when you say that testing on rats/cats/dogs/rabbits/etc will affect the entire world's ecosystem. A bit too melodramatic for my tastes.

ANYway - just one little line in a proposal, but one line can make all the difference.

Well, I didn't exactly say it was the cause. Anyway if I have to make another one I'll consider taking it out.

And Asshelmeta can you answer me this single question? (Not that one the one I'm about to ask)

Do you or do you not think that it is moral to test upon and possibly kill living creatures for the purposes of appearance?

Asshelmeta can you answer me this single question? (Not that one the one I'm about to ask)

Do you or do you not think that it is moral to test upon and possibly kill living creatures for the purposes of appearance?
Yes I can, and yes I do.

I think testing cosmetics on animals before marketing them to humans is the only possible moral policy, absent some sci-fi technology that could prove them safe without animal testing.

The lives of animals have no value. Period.
I eat animals every day (I scored a trifecta today - pig for breakfast, chicken for lunch, cow for dinner!).

The pain and suffering of vain women (paraphrasing you from the previous thread) may be of little importance in your opinion, but it's still qualitatively more important thing than pain and suffering of lab animals.

I just don't see why people need to go over more hurldes in the cosmetics industry. There is no need to test any new products because we know what all products used in current makeups do, and the new cosmetics are just different variations of those makeups. One major thing people test is mascara, by putting it directly on the eyes of animals. Well, usually when I get something other than water in my eye, it hurts like hell.I don't think mascara is an exception. It's just kind of an obvious thing.

The point is, even if you believe testing on animals is moral, (which I don't), there is no point in it, because all the best cosmetics chemicals have been tested already, and the effects of mixing one tested chemical with another can be easily figured out on paper, or with cheaper experimentation that doesn't subject animals.

And btw when I never actually compared the suffering of vain women and that of animals. I just think that if a woman wants to like an extra 2% better, then she should either use a cosmetic that is proven safe or take the risk. But she should not need to have an animal killed so she can use the cosmetic.

Anyway this morning I had bacon and eggs, turkey for lunch, and I think it's veal and lamb for dinner. I mean don't get me wrong, I love eating them, just not killing them pointlessly.

I just don't see why people need to go over more hurldes in the cosmetics industry. There is no need to test any new products because we know what all products used in current makeups do, and the new cosmetics are just different variations of those makeups. One major thing people test is mascara, by putting it directly on the eyes of animals. Well, usually when I get something other than water in my eye, it hurts like hell.I don't think mascara is an exception. It's just kind of an obvious thing.

The point is, even if you believe testing on animals is moral, (which I don't), there is no point in it, because all the best cosmetics chemicals have been tested already, and the effects of mixing one tested chemical with another can be easily figured out on paper, or with cheaper experimentation that doesn't subject animals.


I'll try one more time. Think it through before you answer.

If these tests were of no value, why are cosmetics companies performing them?

What possible economic rationale would there be for the tests, if the same results - or better results - could be achieved far more cheaply by other means?

No, seriously. Mull that point over before you read the rest of this post.




I don't know how to say this, other than to say: you're wrong that new combinations don't need to be tested. Chemisty is the study of the surprising reactions known chemicals can have when mixed together in various ways.

Another thing: please stop minimizing the potential suffering these products could cause. It's not just about minor irritation, but about permanent damage.

...and I think it's veil and lamb for dinner.

Would it be inappropriate to make a joke about Turkish restaurants in response to that tpyo?

Speaking of typos, what on God's green earth is "Chemisty?"

Making a profit is not worth the lives of anything.

I opose

:headbang:

Speaking of typos, what on God's green earth is "Chemisty?"
hey, it's cold ovah heah!

you should try typing when you can't feel your fingers!

Making a profit is not worth the lives of anything.
tell it to burger king.

you're just being an animal chauvinist, is what. plants are living beings too! should we have a Vegetable Rights Protection Act next?

When animals can create literature or technological advances, then they'll deserve rights. Until that time, they're food.