|
U-Know! Forum » animal rights campaigners jailed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 21:48
|
||
|
dee wrote: handofdave wrote: There is no such thing as a 'nice' example of animal testing OR abortion. They are difficult choices that people make. They weigh the pros and cons of those choices and go forward with the choice that they deem to be the best one under the circumstances. Of course not, but you have introduced abortion into this discussion and are using it to prove your point. your last sentence is a massive generalisation, not everyone who enters into abortion or animal testing weighs up the pros and cons. Dont know where you got that from. OK, some people abort or use lab animals without any moral struggle whatsoever, but would you criminalize abortion because some women blithely use it? I'm guessing not. As for making massive generalizations, does all animal testing involve vivisection or cruelty? Perhaps we ought to put this another way. If a couple of rats sacrificed to science made it possible for a loved one of yours to be cured of a terrible disease, would your moral certainty be unbudged? Are you a vegetarian? (I'm guessing so).
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 22:22
|
||
|
Got you, yeah, I'm with that. You did get the gist of what I'm saying. I can see that as a possible, as a replacement to the first trial stage, animal testing. Mind you it will still require a lot of animal testing in order to get the information required to get the model into a usable state. With that in mind, modeling the systems of animals would be the correct way forward, and would be attainable in a shorter time span too I'd imagine.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 26, 2009, 02:07
|
||
|
stray wrote: Got you, yeah, I'm with that. You did get the gist of what I'm saying. I can see that as a possible, as a replacement to the first trial stage, animal testing. Mind you it will still require a lot of animal testing in order to get the information required to get the model into a usable state. With that in mind, modeling the systems of animals would be the correct way forward, and would be attainable in a shorter time span too I'd imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if the behavioral and physiological attributes of insect-level organisms weren't living out some churning iteration set in some lab somewhere right now.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 26, 2009, 19:58
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: dee wrote: handofdave wrote: There is no such thing as a 'nice' example of animal testing OR abortion. They are difficult choices that people make. They weigh the pros and cons of those choices and go forward with the choice that they deem to be the best one under the circumstances. Of course not, but you have introduced abortion into this discussion and are using it to prove your point. your last sentence is a massive generalisation, not everyone who enters into abortion or animal testing weighs up the pros and cons. Dont know where you got that from. OK, some people abort or use lab animals without any moral struggle whatsoever, but would you criminalize abortion because some women blithely use it? I'm guessing not. As for making massive generalizations, does all animal testing involve vivisection or cruelty? Perhaps we ought to put this another way. If a couple of rats sacrificed to science made it possible for a loved one of yours to be cured of a terrible disease, would your moral certainty be unbudged? Are you a vegetarian? (I'm guessing so). All animal testing etc assumes that we, the humans , have the supreme right as the 'so called' dominant or master species, to use all species for our own gain. A lot of this so called 'gain' comes down to money and economics ie. slaughter houses, battery farms, fur trade, cosmetic testing, medical testing etc and the total disregard for wellbeing of the animals involved. This leads me to believe that we are probably a lot less evolved than the animals we are 'abusing' but we generally believe that we have the right or believe that 'thats what animals are here for'. And pulling out the old chestnut about a couple of rats sacrificed etc is pretty low and predictable Dave. Its a bit like 'oh, youre a vegetarian.....i bet you wear leather though!' ....I am a veggie btw Peace geezer
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 26, 2009, 23:48
|
||
You've made your position quite clear, I guess. As you've got very, very clear lines drawn and wouldn't budge from them (and I'm not asking you to) I guess we're going to have to leave it where it is. I still think there's a certain odd schism between your consent to abortion and the position that animals are totally off limits. Does that mean that human fetuses have no rights, but animals do? It just seems like a strange distinction at best, if the basic premise is that we have no right to destroy a defenseless life.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jan 27, 2009, 12:46
|
||
|
I have'nt really followed this thread, yet I'm on the side of animal activists, extreme behaviour is at the end of the scale but has decent results that actually make people think. I start from the premise that animals have rights of equality with the human species and that has thinking beings we should legislate and protect. Three campaigns that I became involved in have now reached a greater understanding of what we do to animals. The first was years ago, beagles that were bred in factory farms, forced to smoke to see what effect it had on their lungs! The second was battery hens; travelling behind an open lorry one day, there were pallets of what I thought were dead chickens, but one pallet fell to the road and shed its load, and I realised the chickens were all alive, I was just witnessing a complete disregard for the suffering of other creatures - we are now on the way with free range chickens and eggs. The last was badger baiting, (setting dogs on badgers,) a particularly cruel sport as it involves setting one animal against another till death is achieved - again legislation was brought into affect to outlaw it. I still cannot argue against all animal experimentation because my son is insulin dependent and would benefit from stem cell research.... but what I would argue is that morally and ethically we should recognise our power to cause pain to other species on this earth and that they have equal rights to our compassion...
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 27, 2009, 19:48
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: You've made your position quite clear, I guess. As you've got very, very clear lines drawn and wouldn't budge from them (and I'm not asking you to) I guess we're going to have to leave it where it is. I still think there's a certain odd schism between your consent to abortion and the position that animals are totally off limits. Does that mean that human fetuses have no rights, but animals do? It just seems like a strange distinction at best, if the basic premise is that we have no right to destroy a defenseless life. Im a man, Dave. What I am getting at is that I am pro choice, ie I support a womens right to choose. Abortion IS horrific and should not be entered into lightly. Its a very emotive and sensitive issue. i've never had experience of it in my life.Dunno what else to say apart from yeah, i can see where you are coming from with your connection of the two, but they are seperate issues imo. I dont think we should continue this one!!!! I respect your views though.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 27, 2009, 21:29
|
||
|
dee wrote: handofdave wrote: You've made your position quite clear, I guess. As you've got very, very clear lines drawn and wouldn't budge from them (and I'm not asking you to) I guess we're going to have to leave it where it is. I still think there's a certain odd schism between your consent to abortion and the position that animals are totally off limits. Does that mean that human fetuses have no rights, but animals do? It just seems like a strange distinction at best, if the basic premise is that we have no right to destroy a defenseless life. Im a man, Dave. What I am getting at is that I am pro choice, ie I support a womens right to choose. Abortion IS horrific and should not be entered into lightly. Its a very emotive and sensitive issue. i've never had experience of it in my life.Dunno what else to say apart from yeah, i can see where you are coming from with your connection of the two, but they are seperate issues imo. I dont think we should continue this one!!!! I respect your views though. They are separate issues. I suppose that I probably see a personal policy of not harming or eating animals a spiritual decision. And so maybe I'm jumping the gun in assuming that you'd arrived at a philosophy in that regard, which might include some other decisions that have closely related themes. There is no one size fits all way of thinking, and I'm glad for it. If there were, people wouldn't examine their beliefs.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
