Animal 'rights' versus human rights

[Holly9937]

Watcher, I'm not arguing with you, I know what you mean, but studying planets does not include killing millions of living things every year. I think our quest to know every nuance about some things should end. And like the cocaine use in pregnant mothers, for example, they have quite a list of side effects, I guess I feel like if those are not enough to make someone stop doing it, adding one more harmful thing to the list probably won't make a difference.

Very sad and true, those complaints could be about a number of places. There is a store down the road from me that sells puppys, however some of them are large puppys and still in enclosures the size of a milk crate. I walked in and turned right back around, the dogs looked miserable, it was awful...

 

[Raskolnikov]

Also, the standard of care that animals being experimented on is horrible. Many suffer, and nothing is done to make it better.

This kind of unmerited and absolutely incorrect statement completely riles me. I've worked for years in (medical) in-vivo labs first hand and I can tell you that the standards of living for these animals is the most tightly regulated and high quality that you'll ever find. From physical and mental enrichment to proper housing density, clean living conditions, and diet quality. If pet stores were required to follow the same guidelines as research vivariums, every single one that I've ever set foot in would be shut down.

Oh, and the "pet snatching"? Nothing more today than an old wives tale. With documentation of pedigree and purity of strains of paramount importance, pets are of no use in this field. The very reason that the concept of "pet snatching" has been spread about so much is because domestic terrorist groups find it hits home so well with the general public. "They're coming for your pets." No, they're not, because it's morally apprehensible, illegal, and most importantly, they have no use for them. The truth, that "They're trying to save your lives and the lives of those you love", just doesn't get the same effect out of the public.

Those of us who work with these animals care deeply about them and do everything within our ability to prevent unnecessary suffering not only because it's mandated, but because we care. The kind of statement that you made above is highly offensive to me.

 

[mrakins]

Experimenters tend to choose animals who are medium-sized, docile, and well socialized-those who have the greatest chance of leaving the shelters with a new family and experimenters take that chance away. They don't want the sick, injured, or aggressive dogs and cats. The more socialized and friendly they are, the less chance the animal will turn against the hand that tortures them. Sadly, that is the reason why the pound animals are so "popular" in the world of experimentation.

Also, if the animal is already sick, then the results of any experiment will be hard to interpret. Did the animal get sicker because of the experimental treatment or because of the natural course of the disease it already had.

March of dimes research:
implanted electric pumps into the backs of pregnant rats to inject nicotine, even though the dangers of cigarette smoking to
human babies is already known.

injected pregnant rats with cocaine, though the dangers of cocaine to human babies is already known.

injected newborn opossums with alcohol, decapitated them an hour to 32 weeks later, then removed and studied the
(immature sexual organs), though the dangers of alcohol to human babies is well known.

Really? All these dangers are well known? I agree with Watcher--it is simply known THAT they're bad, not really HOW they're bad. And drugs of abuse are a chronic problem that have been with humans probably forever but have really taken off over the last couple centuries. Knowing just in what way they affect animals (and, by extension, people) will allow us to improve education and treatment. Don't overlook that last part about treatment--that's really where this research is headed. For example, knowing how drugs affect the development of sex organs could allow treatment to counteract the effects and perhaps a greater understanding of psychiatric disorders that arise later in life do to the hormonal imbalance that would arise from misdeveloped sex organs. The other option, by the way, is to not study these things in animals and just perform autopsies on humans--medical research has fortunately advanced us far beyond that level of investigation.

Also, working in a lab that uses animal models, I can assure you of several things. First off, there is NO WAY that animal abuse could go on without it being detected and the institution losing massive amounts of money. Also, people who work with animals are not animal haters. They're not there to torture the animals but to use them to gain insights into the human condition. I assure you that we take every step conceivable to make the animals feel comfortable in both life and death.

I'd be careful getting information from groups operating based on an ideology--information can very easily be selected and manipulated to imply truth where there isn't.

 

[Watcher74]

I'm glad that there is some first hand knowledge on how these institutions are run. I'd rather hear it from the "horse's mouth" than reading PETA propaganda.

Whenever there is a practice that some humans disagree with they have to make it sound like a WWII death camp. Logically, it doesn't make any sense. You need healthy subjects to determine the effects of something on them. And as thoroughly strict as all professional businesses have become, I highly doubt that they are operated by sadistic animal beaters.

Go out in the wild where an animal gets an infection in it's leg and can't run. Watch what tortures and pain that animal goes to as it slowly starves to death. Most likely ending up being eaten alive. That makes animal testing look like animal heaven in comparison.

We do these tests to make a more humane world. Not to be inhumane.

Nature is the cruel one.

 

[Holly9937]

Raskolnikov~I apologize, I don't mean to offend you or anyone else, I guess the media and other sources always just show the 2% of the worst aspect of things, and it can get you a little agitated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT totally against animal testing. And with the example I used about the march of dimes, I mean more that some of the same tests are done over and over again, ones that have been done a thousand times and yield the same results. Not the tests where they may actually be learning/testing something new.

And I am glad to hear from people working at these places too. It is great to know that in most cases the welfare of the animal is considered. All I meant to show by the govt. act I posted is that most things that are pointed out as
abuse have a loophole where the institution could explain how or why something happened and suffer from no repercussion. And I'm sure that is the rare instance, or at least I hope.

Of course there are bad people in every profession, just in those cases I find it a little more disturbing than say a shoe store employee who steals sandals (bad analogy, I know )

 

[mrakins]

Just wanted to make a few points clear below...

Raskolnikov~I apologize, I don't mean to offend you or anyone else, I guess the media and other sources always just show the 2% of the worst aspect of things, and it can get you a little agitated.

I figure you were just trying to pick a low number, but 2% is a REALLY high number. Something more like 0.002% (my own arbitrary low number) would be closer to appropriate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT totally against animal testing. And with the example I used about the march of dimes, I mean more that some of the same tests are done over and over again, ones that have been done a thousand times and yield the same results. Not the tests where they may actually be learning/testing something new.

I'm not aware of any situation where this would be done outside of educational environments where knowing the answer in advance is fundamental to the teaching process. Really, contrary to popular depiction, scientists aren't boring people One of the great things about being one is the fact that your job is always changing--no way people would be repeating tests just because.

And I am glad to hear from people working at these places too. It is great to know that in most cases the welfare of the animal is considered. All I meant to show by the govt. act I posted is that most things that are pointed out as
abuse have a loophole where the institution could explain how or why something happened and suffer from no repercussion. And I'm sure that is the rare instance, or at least I hope.

Of course there are bad people in every profession, just in those cases I find it a little more disturbing than say a shoe store employee who steals sandals (bad analogy, I know )

Again, just wanted to point out that when you say "most" it's really something like 99.999% not 70% (two random numbers both of which are "most").

Also, many laws have loopholes that were introduced originally for good reasons. Obviously, they can then be exploited. If such things happen, you can be certain that scientists themselves will support closing them. We hate the bad apples more than the general public! They make us look bad. That being said, I've never met one.

Sorry for the rant :rant: Just want to make sure it's clear that biologists are not cruel, crazed barbarians Crazed, maybe...

 

[Riso-chan]

I'm another person glad to hear that in the testing the animals are taken care of. Biologists get into their line of work because they love the animals they study. I also have a neighbor who was given a few test animals when they were no longer needed in the research. She gave a mouse who had Alzhiemers' named 'Beano' a good home for a few years. He wasn't even expected to live as long as he did. She had a friend who works in medical research with animals, and she told me that they're well taken care of because there with her. I myself could not do some sort of testing on an animal without feeling bad for the little guy, but in those jobs, often the only thing that can be done is to make them feel as comfortable for as long as possible. I don't know exactly how it works, but I would like to think that when the testing has affected an animal to a degree of no return, the doctors would release them from suffering by euthanizing. I appreciate the work that is being done, I have my isseus with it, but I know there are probably many people who truly care about the treatment of both animals and people.

 

[OrionGirl]

Glad some peopel spoke up. My sister has worked in the lab for years, using mice to research AIDS virus, breast cancer, and more recently, the growth of veins (crucial to many cancerous growths). She never was happy having to work with mice, but when you are dealing with a biological process, it's very important to having living cells to work with. The animals were always well cared for, well fed, and humanely treated.

Part of the problem is that groups with an agenda will always dig up the cruelty that really did exist in labs, and still happens in some areas. Most assuredly, some horrible things were done. But--that's par for the course in human history. Compare modern day US prisons to those in the middle ages--or even just those in our southern neighbor.

 

[fishypoo2]

This was a letter to the editor in response to the original commentary, printed in today's edition:

"Many animals are rational

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 14, 2005

I was surprised to read Edwin A. Locke's credentials (a college professor and senior writer) at the end of his June 8 Commentary piece "Animal 'rights' versus human rights."

For all of his emphasis on mankind's ability to use reason, he certainly misused it by twisting logic repeatedly. In fact, he bases his entire argument on an either-or fallacy: Either people are against animal-rights activists (such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), or they are against humanity itself. By limiting his audience to two choices, Locke shows that his blinders are firmly in place.

Through this narrow scope, the author lobs ad hominem fallacies at PETA, declaring that "These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men." With this volley, this cry of "misanthropy," Locke steers his argument off course, off into the same name-calling ditch that many conservatives root around in when the issue of animal rights arises.

Soon, Locke drops false analogies into his two-headed attack, comparing animal rights activists to the "Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers . . . nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction." Admittedly, PETA spokespeople make some outrageous statements, but doesn't Locke realize that they do so to get publicity, to get people talking about them and thinking about animal rights? They do so not "for the sake of destruction," but for the sake of animals.

Locke's entire rant reeks of begging the question fallacies and non sequiturs, such as the old view that animals "cannot reason." Jane Goodall and other naturalists dispelled that notion long ago (e.g., chimps make and use tools to eat termites), and anyone who owns dogs or cats and who has open eyes sees examples of his or her companions' rational thinking on a daily basis.

Like Edwin A. Locke, animal-rights opponents always march out the same tired arguments, no doubt to ease their consciences. For to see the truth, to accept responsibility for what we do to animals -- from injecting chimpanzees with AIDS, to putting unwanted dogs "to sleep," to raising the global temperature and destroying forests, to building killing factories in order to supply our insatiable appetite for Big Macs -- is to invite madness into what Locke calls our "code of morality," our so-called civilized souls.

DAVID GILLESPIE

Providence"