Animal rights; which is your view?

8pnoodles

I work in a place where a LOT of animal testing is done and it's high profile and occasionally we're targetted by animal rights activists. I have to be careful who I tell about what I do, and I don't actually do anything, I just work in a office.

I also keep pet rats and many of these are rescue cases.

There is a lot of work in the UK that goes on to make sure animals suffer the smallest amount possible, but that the experiment goes ahead. This is a good thing. I think we need to strike a balance.

In a burning building, would you rescue a small child or an animal (assuming you couldn't get both out?). Personally, I get ill a lot. I'd be fairly happy if it was some higher entity entity experimenting on me, to further the knowledge of science. Cos at the end of the day I'm not aware of what's going on, I don't know any different.

Unfortunately (it sickens me to say) animal rights protesting has done a lot for animals in this country as the legislation now is so tight in the UK on animal experiments.

I say it sickens me because this seems to add fuel to those who think that violent means of protesting is acceptable. If anyone cared enough they'd gowork for government and get the laws changed that way. But no, it's much easier to scare people into submission. Some of the tactics used are basically terrorism. A car bomb was put under one of the vet's cars a few years ago where I work. She was lucky not to lose both legs.

Here the primates are spoiled and watch sky tv, the guinea pigs are in MASSIVE floor pens, I've seen it.

If you REALLY want to protest about the mistratment of animals, go to your nearest petstore and complain that rodent cages are FAR too small, complain that they sell woodshavings and sawdust made from pine that cause lung toxicity. Complain about the cotton wool type bedding that severes the limbs of small animals.

Complain about your neighbours and people down the street, people who leave dogs home alone all day, the number of horrific cases of pet abuse on a daily basis is horrendous is this country. but no one wants to complain about that because it's not cool and exciting and dangerous. No, far better to complain about big coporations and the government.

Why don't animal rights protesters seem to care about the abuse of pets, when there is NO reason for the abuse whatsoever, but with animal experiments - there is a reason?

Finally, to those who say there are alternative methods for drugs testing, and we only test on animals because we like to - get a grip. Animal studies are THE MOST EXPENSIVE kind of study you could possibly imagine. If we didn't NEED to use animals, that'd be fab, because it would save us all a fortune!!

Finally some food for thought - drugs tested on animals are then also used to treat animals. Ok it's a numbers game, but if we didn't test on a few animals, then millions over the years would suffer more and for longer. Are you ok with that scenario?

hercules_2

How sad to see, when voting, that results so far indicate that 10% of money-savers are idiotic, bullying, anti-social morons, who think they have a right to enforce their views on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.

And yet these same cowards (stand in the middle of town and espouse your views if you're not) do not accord their fellow human beings with the same "rights" they demand unconditionally for animals.

I have much loved pets and I'd do (almost) anything for them - which will sadly include putting them down humanely if they are suffering with no possibility of recovery - perhaps the lunatic anti-democratic fringe could be persuaded to take their place when the time comes?

Use the ballot box and grow up.

Fifer

shokadelika wrote:

You also run the risk by experimenting on Primates (and Pigs) our nearest relative of a virus or some other unmetionable jumping cross species.........Bird Flu anyone.

The risk of Avian Flu jumping the species barrier has nothing to do with animal testing. Why conflate two separate issues?

shokadelika wrote:

As for the safety of drug testing shalll we mention Voixx around 150,000 deaths worldwide.
Thailidomide etc etc etc.or the 15000 deaths in this country alone from prescription drugs

I think you should check your facts. A major factor which allowed the Thalidomide tragedy to occur was that proper animal testing was not carried out. The requirement for all medicinal products to be tested on animals was a direct result of the Thalidomide fallout.

russellgreeno wrote:

I've been vegan for about 1.5 years and vegetarian for quite a while before that.

It's interesting how many of you have said that all animal rights protestors are hypocrites, when I became vegan, not only did I decide to avoid all forms of food relating to animals, household products that were tested on them and drugs tested on them too.

Basically when i get ill (recently I had a bad throat and cold) I just rested as much as I can and eat/drink well, I've not needed to rush to the doctors to get any drugs just because I have a sniffle.

If you are saying that you never take medicinal products and would not under any circumstances, then I do not agree with your position but I respect your principled stance.

MORPH3US

hercules wrote:

How sad to see, when voting, that results so far indicate that 10% of money-savers are idiotic, bullying, anti-social morons, who think they have a right to enforce their views on the rest of us, using violence if necessary.

And yet these same cowards (stand in the middle of town and espouse your views if you're not) do not accord their fellow human beings with the same "rights" they demand unconditionally for animals.

I have much loved pets and I'd do (almost) anything for them - which will sadly include putting them down humanely if they are suffering with no possibility of recovery - perhaps the lunatic anti-democratic fringe could be persuaded to take their place when the time comes?

Use the ballot box and grow up.

To be fair, just because people agree with it, doesn't mean that they actually do it. So your piece about 10% of moneysavers being "idiotic, bullying, anti-social morons" is wrong.

The 10% that you quote voted that it was fair enough to "target directors, families and shareholders of drugs and other companies which do animal experiments. Which of the following is the closest to your view of it?" but what does target mean??!?!?

Obviously you have decided that it means 'cutting brake pipes, blowing up houses, digging up dead relatives' and all the other horror stories you see in the press. However not all animal rights protesters are this extreme. To some protesters, "targeting shareholders" means writing to them and explaining that the drug company they hold shares in actually test on / kill innocent animals!

The poll isn't clear enough and that is where the confusion comes in.

There is also a big difference in putting down an animal humanely and delivberately breeding an animal, infecting it with cancerous cells and then allowing it to suffer with said cancer before killing it and testing the cancerous cells!

And BTW, i'm not an Animal Rights protester and never have been. I just think its wrong that humans think that they can do what they want to anyone and anything!

M

Fifer

MORPH3US wrote:

To some protesters, "targeting shareholders" means writing to them and explaining that the drug company they hold shares in actually test on / kill innocent animals!

Surely it would be more effective to write to voters explaining that it is the government which requires drug companies to test on animals by law. Drug companies cannot change the law. That's the job of government.

Why is it that Animal Rights Protesters don't campaign for a total boycott on all medicines? Might it be because that wouldn't be too popular with the public? :think:

rdwarr

Is it regarded as OK to test medicines on animals if they're intended for use on animals?

Basil_Fawlty

rdwarr wrote:

Is it regarded as OK to test medicines on animals if they're intended for use on animals?

Depends, does the government [Home Office] demand it as a condition of drug development?? :rolleyes:

meher

Fifer wrote:

Surely it would be more effective to write to voters explaining that it is the government which requires drug companies to test on animals by law. Drug companies cannot change the law. That's the job of government.

Why is it that Animal Rights Protesters don't campaign for a total boycott on all medicines? Might it be because that wouldn't be too popular with the public? :think:

I appreciate that, but drug companies can stop competeing and making drugs that's already there in the market meeting an unwell person's needs. Even the doctors are governed by morals and ethics. Drug companies need to realize that their's is not 'ordinary business' - they need a culture which attachs some significance to humanity and benevolence. Don't abuse the vulnerability of ordinary people or exploit animals which are usually so sweet and so much at our mercy.

In my view the drug companies and the medical personnel and all the bigwigs involved in getting their share of profits should get themselves and their family members who gladly live on these profits to be the guinnea pigs :rolleyes:

Gingham_Ribbon

I have been a vegetarian for nearly 20 years and I would like to see a time where animals are not used in testing anything. But terrorist activities can NEVER be justified.

IvanOpinion

Why not just use the prison population ... its about time some of them made a useful contribution to society

Ivan