Animal rights; which is your view?

sneekymum

IvanOpinion wrote:

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

Ivan

perhaps just the guilty ones?

IvanOpinion

sneekymum wrote:

perhaps just the guilty ones?

definitely not the remand ones .. they should be put in the fields breaking boulders all day or better still administering the drugs

Ivan

Fifer

meher wrote:

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:

That sounds like a call for nationalising the pharma industry meher? Unfortunately that wouldn't work as the competition is international.

Ina ant case, similar versions of drug types is a good thing. Some people respond to one formulation but not another. Some have severe allergies to one drug of a type, but not to another. The development of drug resistance can be overcome by varying formulations. We'd be in a pretty sorry state if we only had one antibiotic of each class for example.

I can assure you that the culture of pharma companies in my experience attaches a lot of significance to humanity and benevolence.

sneekymum

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025552.900.html

Basil_Fawlty

To all those who say that animal testing should stop completely, how do you propose we test the effects of novel pharmacological compounds?? Computer modelling and in vitro trials are proven not to be anywhere near indicative of what comes up in the in vivo trials. So what do you say?? :rolleyes:

nej

russellgreeno wrote:

Hi,

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.

...

Obviously I don't think we should test on starving, diasbled or poor people, but to throw NEJ's question back at him.

So NEJ, if a close relatives was seriously ill, would you prefer to let them die or use a drug that was tested on a mentally disabled person who just sat in a wheelchair for 30 years and cost the NHS £500,000 in care during their lifetime.

That argument is complete shashh.

I respect your moral standpoint with your vegan ways (I loate vegetarians who refuse meat but eat fish. Seems to be missing the point entirely, unless their digestive system cannot cope with meat), and your lack of drug taking. I don't really agree, but you are of course entitled to your own opinons, and you have taken the moral highground in this stance. This is commendable, if not a little shortsighted.

But, I don't understand you asking me about about testing on a mentally disabled person who sat in a wheelchair for 30 years. Nobody does test on these people, so this is a pointless question. You also avoided answering my question, but I shan't shy away. If my son were dying then I would do anything in my power to save his life, including using a drug that was testing on a mentally disabled person. You (any many others) may not like that opinion, but I'm not going to change it.

The point is nobody thinks animal testing is a nice thing, probably including the people who do it. It is a neccessary evil, there is simply no other way to do it. You can shout computer modelling all you want, but the data you get out of that will be according to the parameters you put in. Computers simply cannot model or predict the complex biology of life.

What if animal testing provides a cure for cancer, or for HIV? Is this not worth it?

There is never an excuse for violence, however. The people who do the testing also have rights, and that is to carry out their work for the good of society without fear and harrasment.

ravenlighte

Coveredinbees!!!! wrote:

Why is it that just because I have a differnet opinion you think you have the right to call me an idiot? Is it that your arguement is so weak you have to resort to name calling? Ever consider a career in politics you would fit right in with all the rest of the mud slingers who run this once great country.:mad:

Here is a question for you...why is it ok to call animal rights protesters and activists 'idiots'? Is that a professional opinion? I find it most interesting that the folks who most often resort to name calling and insults are the apparent majority who believe that animal testing is right and justified, and fox hunting for that matter. That to me is a sign of barbarism rather than civilised.

I believe that because of this testing, and modern medicine in general, we all live way past our 'use by date'. The human species was not meant to live 80 plus years. There is a reason why at a certain age women can no loger naturally conceive, why we become ill and decrepid, why our hips give out and need replacing, why our hearts pack in and we have to kill an innocent pig to keep us ticking over for another couple of years.

Here is another thought...why don't we test drugs on prison inmates? Rapists, murderers, child abusers and such like. It would be giving them some worth to call them animals, so why don't we use them. As payment of their debt to society.

I think a previous reference to the huge gap between animals and humans was nothing to do with position on the food chain, rather that testing on animals so genetically different from humans is redundant, as the side effects are not truely comparable.

I think also, that history will show that when peaceful protest fails, the next best thing is intimidation and threat. If I can't move you on compassionate grounds, then maybe I can scare the hell out of you. You all talk as if no animal rights campaigner/protester/activist ever made a peacefull protest. People who care that much about the suffering of animals, are by definition compassionate, so I doubt that they are ever violent without extreme provocation. I think they are justified. When all else fails, give society a kick in the pants. The same goes for fox hunting/ hunting / bull fighting...getting your jollies by killing or watching an innocent animal brutaly killed, says something about you and your perversion don't you think? (That being the Royal 'you' folks).

Me thinks you all do protest too much, about animal rights protesters that is. If it irks you so much that you think they are idiots and terrorists, it is most likely that you feel secretly ashamed and chastised. And most likely you wish you were that dedicated to something other than your good selves.

My last thought for the day, is that surely we should take anything said by someone who actually takes part in animal testiing or vivisection or hunting, with a handful of salt. Aninal rights activists/protestors are doing what they do out of love, comapssion and sympathy for innocent animals who cannot defend themselves. A selfless act. Folks on the other side of the debate can make no such claim. For them it is all about greed, money, their ego, their perversion...all about self. And if you try and call it sympathy for the suffering of mankind...that is suffering that is self inflicted for the most part.

As far as being at the top of the food chain...well that is debatable. Put on an even playing field with no weapons, we all know who would win. And it is not the one who thinks he wears the trousers.

That said, if any activist is involved in violence for violence sake, then they should indeed be prosecuted along with all the other filth of society.

Fifer

ravenlighte wrote:

My last thought for the day, is that surely we should take anything said by someone who actually takes part in animal testiing or vivisection or hunting, with a handful of salt. Aninal rights activists/protestors are doing what they do out of love, comapssion and sympathy for innocent animals who cannot defend themselves. A selfless act. Folks on the other side of the debate can make no such claim. For them it is all about greed, money, their ego, their perversion...all about self. And if you try and call it sympathy for the suffering of mankind...that is suffering that is self inflicted for the most part.

I presume you mean the people on the other side of the debate who dedicate their lives to researching cures for life-threatening human illnesses out of love, compassion and sympathy for innocent humans? Why is doing something for one's own species less worthy than doing something for another species? How can a genetic or congenital illness be self-inflicted?

Basil_Fawlty

ravenlighte wrote:

I think a previous reference to the huge gap between animals and humans was nothing to do with position on the food chain, rather that testing on animals so genetically different from humans is redundant, as the side effects are not truely comparable.

It is the similarities that make them viable subjects for testing.

IvanOpinion

spaceage wrote:

It is the similarities that make them viable subjects for testing.

.. so another good argument to use prison inmates for testing purposes ... the revolution is gathering pace

Ivan