Animal Rights

[!ightoftruth]

i have just read this article in the bbc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.st m

I personally think that anyone with any link to huntingdon life sciences or any company which tests on animals is no better than anyone who profited from the holocaust because animal iis just as sick and pointless as the holocaust.

[edited by AB]

[shammydodger]

Are you offering yourself up for testing Vivacia?

[shammydodger]

Before the nasty rats and mice, I mean?

[Oneeyedvic]

Firstly - the biggest animal rights group in the world are PETA - have a look at this website for how THEY kill and dispose of animals: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Secondly, To any one who thinks that animal testing should be banned and are happy to condone the use of illegal means to intimidate shareholders, employees etc:

PUT YOUR OWN NAME & ADDRESS on a public forum with your views. I will happily come round, smash your windows, shout abuse at you, cover your car with paint, grafitti your building, remove the ones of a dead relative etc etc.

SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT for expressing your views and not doing anything illegal.

[flip-flop]

You're an idiot.

[JudgeJ]

Well, lightoftruth, I don�t want to get involved with the rights and wrongs of vivisection. It�s a far too complicated and emotive subject to be properly debated on AB. Everybody thinks they are right and, in truth, probably nobody is.

I�m more concerned with the rule of law. You do not have the right to act as you think fit simply because you think that something being done lawfully is wrong. I think it is wrong that I have money stolen from me each month in the form of Income Tax. Am I therefore justified in performing a �night raid� on the offices of the Inland Revenue to destroy my records and so avoid paying any more tax?

We have laws which either compel or prevent people from doing something specifically. If you act within the law nobody has the �right� to take illegal action simply because they do not agree with what you are doing. This, ironically, is one of the things that separates humans from animals.

[BigDogsWang]

Why don't you concentrate your efforts into something more constructive, like working for the RSPCA, and saving animals that have been tortured by members of the public? The amount of stories I read / hear about how animals who have suffered cruelty at the hands of 'bored' teenagers shocks and digusts me far more than anything you can suggest.

[Vivacia]

shammydodger - no i am not, there is no need - There are a huge range of sophisticated, advanced non-animal research techniques such as computer simulations, cell, tissue or organ cultures, complex artificial systems, epidemiology, QSARs or brain imaging that utilise human biological material or data so that the results are directly applicable to the human situation. These techniques are not only more humane but also often cheaper and quicker to perform as well as offering more relevant and reliable results.

Hope that answers your question.

[Vivacia]

flipflop - you are obviously incapable of posting an intellectual answer judging by your very immature response.

I see that noone has been able to answer my previous question - which just proves the point that animal testing is an outdated and unreliable method of testing drugs / medicine and cannot be justifiably backed up. I would wager that those who condone animal testing do not even realise that it is actually dangerous for humans.

[jedimistress]

I'd shoot too.

[BigDogsWang]

So you would murder a human being, who may have a wife and children, to save a few mice / rabbits / rats, etc?

The mind boggles......

[jedimistress]

I often think if I was diagnosed with a terminal disease, I would not offer myself up for research but go and take out Colin Blakemore and as many more of those torturers I could find. Or I would let him live but prise out his eyeballs and sew his eyelids shut, just like he does to those poor cats.

Why don't the vivisectionists or vivisectors offer themselves up for research if they think it is so lovely???

[jedimistress]

Life is life wether it's human or another species. Who are we to say they have less of a right to it??? God?

[undercovers]

jedimistress you seem to be rambling about killing scientists and then saying no one has the right to kill any living animal - please develop a coherent argument before posting again

[flip-flop]

Can't be bothered - anybody who supports the terrorist activities of these 'activists' is an idiot, [edited by AB]

Their activities are terrorist in nature just as much as 9/11 was - it is just a matter of scale.

Their supporters are idiots, they are idiots, lightoftruth is an idiot and so are you.

[BigDogsWang]

"Life is life whether human or another species"

Hmmm....OK. I sucked a spider up the hover last week, does that make me a murderer?

Oh, and I hit a bumble bee on my way to work this morning. Show me the to the gallows.

[jedimistress]

Good point Undercovers. I'll crawl back under my stone now and never post again.

[jedimistress]

Apart from to say where is everyones conscience? Can't you think more deeply about what you are doing? Can;t you feel more empathy with a creature born into the world as a different species?

Bigdog. If you intentionally hoovered up the spider, then that really isn't very thoughtful or nice is it, as for the bumble bee, I do that too sometimes, bummer isn't it. Some things can't be helped, others can.

To think he was just flying around and then.......:-(

[BigDogsWang]

As I said in a earlier post, those so keen to 'fight the power' should direct their efforts to ridding the streets of scum who strap fireworks to cats & dogs. Or shoot cats with air guns (happened to my childhood pet cat, who died of liver failure as a result of a pellet).

Your notion of men / women in white coats drilling holes into rabbits skulls for kicks whilst laughing "Mwahahahaha!!" just doesn�t hold any water with me.

[Gevs1966]

lightoftruth, just to pick up on a couple of your points. You say a few times tha humans and animals are so physiologically different that testing on animals is pointless. In actual fact the genetic make up and DNA coding of all mammals on this planet differs by only a couple of percent meaning that the genetic base is fair for comparison.

Secondly, you keep implying that these drugs are not tested on humans when in fact they are. They are tested on volunteers before any release to market the animal testing aspect is just a small part in a long chain of events.

All of the alternative methods you have mentioned can also be argued against in the same way that animal testing can be argued against, if you were to research arguments for alternative testing methods I could probably find plenty of research against them.

You are actively condoning unlawful and terrorist activities and judgej has summed up this point perfectly so I don't need to go on.

[!ightoftruth]

To gevs- whilst me may share a great deal of genetic information with other mammalian creatures you must also realise that this tiny diffrence accounts for the massive diffrences between us. If but a single gene is mutated it can cause many forms of malignant cancers. I drug tested on a animal could mutate one gene that is not expressed in the genotype of the animal but would affect the genotype of a human due to the diffrences in our genetic structure.

As for my statement {edited by AB] is based on a formula i have constructed to judge what is right and it goes like this....

if the act produces more good than the evil produced in doing the act and the evil that would be caused by not doing it then it should be classed as a "morally correct thing"

Example if i was to go to zimbabwe (sorry if i misspell) and was to kill mugabe then the evil that would be taking another humans life would be overcome by the good that would be caused by killing him. and the evil that would occure if he was not killed would be greater than the evil if i did kill him.

I hope this makes sense to you