Animal Rights nutters

[Loosehead]

Just reading about the body of Gladys Hammond. Have they done their cause more harm than good?

[mushroom25]

despite their methods being (at very best) questionable, and despite some of their "activists" ending up in jail, their campaigns have been remarkably successful in achieving their set objectives - closure of the guinea pig farm, abandonment of Huntingdon by their bankers, prolonged delays to building of research establishments, etc.

[youngmafbog]

Once again the criminal wins and the minority are listened to.

Wont change until a hard stance is taken against these sort of people and they are locked up. Doubtful many of them pay taxes either as I can't see how they work with all the protests and action. Perhaps cut their dole after all why should I pay for that sort.

There is plenty of ranting about BNP knuckle draggers - cant see how this lot are any better myself. Same aim achieve your end by violence and intimidation.

[undercovers]

i think / hope it will make the young and impressionable think twice about getting mixed up with this sort of organisation.

also think that all supporters of these sort of groups should sign a legally binding contract denying them access to any form of medical treatment that has in the past ever been tested on animals (so all treatment then)

[sp1814]

They're terrorists.

I see no difference between them and religious fundamentalists who want to force their agenda by means of intimidation, threat and attack.

[flip-flop]

These people are animals - and anybody who supports them are idiots. Scum of the tallest order.

I'd bet my mortgage that if one of these scumbags was screaming in pain, they'd beg to be treated with a drug tested on an animal.

[libertie]

Despicable bunch of cretins!!

[alfiebrady]

Interesting question and answers. Following on from that, and thinking back to the recent TeGenero drug trial, do anti-vivisectionists offer to take the place of animals in testing?

[vehelpfulguy]

People thought Charles Darwin was mad when he said we were decended from monkeys.

People thought the suffragettes were mad asking for the vote for women. One lady had to throw herself in front of a horse at the Grand National to raise awareness of their plight.

Not many years ago we had bear baiting on the streets of Britain. How horrified we would be if anyone suggested bringing it back.

Why do the human race think the whole animal kingdom is theirs to do with as they wish. Animals have rights as well.

Suppose someone was raising human babies to do experiments on. But its ok, it only dogs, or monkeys.

[andy-hughes]

Like most people, I tend to agree in principle with the activists, it's their methods that are unpalatable.

I have always thought that frightening or hurting people in the name of animal rights seemed to be a contradiction - doing harm to one species of animal in the name of the rights of other species.

That said, I have never particularly explored the reasoning that activists have for their behaviour - and this is far too obvious an argument for them not to have explored, and resolved, to their own satisfaction.

[El D]

Of course, if we applied the standards of collective guilt so beloved of the animal rights protesters (e.g. terrorising the families of those involved) then we could legitimately arrest and imprison all the peaceful protesters. Would people feel that was just?

Unpalatable as medical (not cosmetic) animal testing is, until an alternative is found human life must be prioritised.

[Hammer Head]

It was the Epsom Derby not the Grand National.

[flip-flop]

I don't find drug testing on animals for medical purposes even slightly unpalatable - in fact, I wholeheartedly support it.

[!ightoftruth]

I admit that the desecration of the grave was too far. I myslef am strongly against animal testing and find iit sad to admit that mushroom25 is correct. The only thing that is working at the moment is military action. And as for all this business that all of us that are against animal teting should not take drugs i quote...

"just because drugs have been tested on animals doesn't mean that the tests were relevant, useful or valid. The drugs would have been produced more speedily and more safely without animal tests. Clinical developments may have followed animal experiments but that does not mean that there is any connection between the two. Medical progress continues despite - and definitely not because of - animal research." (quoted from Dr Vernon Coleman)

I hope this somewhat rekindles the much needed debate on the subject

[Vivacia]

welldone vehelpfulguy & !ightoftruth for making some very valid points.

I am totally against animal testing though I dont agree with the desecration of the grave, but because these are the type of actions that grab the media's attention ignorant people tend to stereotype all animal rights supporters as extremists or 'terrorists' and what these people dont seem to realise is that there are many more animal rights supporters that campaign / protest peacefully and legally without using threats or violence.

Also alot of people don't realise that there are already humane alternatives to animal testing which are more reliable for example 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.

Another fact people dont realise is that animal testing can actually be dangerous to humans as well - In 1998 an American medical journal concluded that 106,000 deaths PER YEAR in the US alone were caused by medical drugs passed safe on animals. A UK medical journal estimated 70,000 people in England each year are killed or seriously disabled by medical drugs, yet all of these pass animal tests. there can be huge differences in the responses to drug effects in humans and other animals. Aspirin is used as a relatively safe and effective painkiller for humans but can be fatal to cats; Penicillin is a widely used antibiotic in humans and yet it can kill guinea pigs; Arsenic is very dangerous for humans but does not present the same level of threat to rats, mice or sheep; insulin, a drug used safely by people with diabetes, can produce terrible deformities in mice, rabbits and chickens.

[Vivacia]

cont...

and in response to the person who said 'if one of these scumbags were screaming in pain they would beg to be treated with a drug tested on an animal' I quote the following taken from the BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) website;

Unfortunately almost everything in modern society has been tested on animals at one point or another. The dye in the carpet we walk on, the chemicals in the plastics from which our computers are made, the colouring in our food, even water. Clearly, it is impossible to live without water and unless all anti-vivisectionists condemn themselves to a virtually hermitic lifestyle excluding all interaction with the outside world, it is clearly impossible as citizens to either explicitly or implicitly avoid animal testing altogether. It is to the advantage of only the pro-vivisectionist to convince those who object to vivisection, that a pre-requisite for that position is total abstention from pharmaceuticals. That simply is not a valid argument because its only logical conclusion is that we should in fact abstain from everything.
There may well be reasonable health limits to how far an individual can boycott certain products such as prescription drugs, and certainly limits to how far any of us can totally eliminate animal testing from our lives. Sometimes that's a matter of personal choice, other times it's a matter of medical necessity. As anti-vivisectionists we cannot alter what has been done to animals in the past, against our wishes - in years past the UK city of Liverpool was the centre of the British slave trade responsible for the suffering and death of thousands of individuals around the world, but boycotting Liverpool won't bring those lives back. The important point is that animal testing should stop now and for the future.

[Vivacia]

For more information read the BUAV's FAQ section on animal testing;

http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq12

[!ightoftruth]

Vivacia- you also make some very good points i think you would like what Dr Vernon Coleman has to say on the matter he can be found at www.vernoncoleman.com and if you want to read some of his books for free go to www.vernoncoleman.com/downloads