Should animal testing be banned? - Page 5 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: Should all animal testing be banned?
I accept that animal testing should be banned. 1 100.00%
I don’t accept that animal testing should be banned. 0 0%
I don’t know that animal testing should be banned. 0 0%
Voters: 1. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 Old 04-16-2007, 02:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
True dat.
kpickell is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 Old 04-17-2007, 12:50 AM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post


Some more quotes:

I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't.... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. ~Mark Twain



It didn't seem to bother his appetite much.



"Nothing helps scenery like ham and eggs. Ham and eggs, and after these a pipean old, rank, delicious pipeham and eggs and scenery, a down-grade, a flying coach, a fragrant pipe, and a contented heartthese make happiness. It is what all the ages have struggled for." ~Mark Twain
Red is offline  
#123 Old 04-17-2007, 01:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

It didn't seem to bother his appetite much.



"Nothing helps scenery like ham and eggs. Ham and eggs, and after these a pipean old, rank, delicious pipeham and eggs and scenery, a down-grade, a flying coach, a fragrant pipe, and a contented heartthese make happiness. It is what all the ages have struggled for." ~Mark Twain

Good of you to point that out: even some meat-eaters realize the immorality of vivisection. That's certainly something worth thinking about.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#124 Old 04-18-2007, 09:26 AM
Tom
Veggie Regular
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The problem with claiming that only vivisection advocates care about the "big picture" is that both pro- and anti-AR people can hold the belief that advancing medicine is extremely important but inherently valuable beings cannot be sacrificed for that goal. Where they disagree is in what beings they consider inherently valuable. So, the difference between the views is in the moral status of animals, not in how important the "big picture" is (whatever that means exactly).



Good point.



About omnis who oppose vivisection... I've never understood this. Even if you grew up thinking charred animal flesh tastes good (like I did), it's not a necessity for health (for at least most of us).



Earlier in this thread I was going to argue that even if I don't consider animals to be property, the necessity of curing disease might justify vivisection- assuming vivisection can produce worthwhile medical information. The issue of whether or not it works is still important, even though it is also important to consider whether or not we have a right to subject an animal to experiments regardless of whether or not it could save human lives. If enough people decided vivisection should be banned, that ban would have to be legally enforced upon researchers who still want to perform such experiments. And they probably would ask why humans do not have a right to kill in order to preserve their lives when animal predators do that all the time.



Considering that someone may not be motivated enough to refrain from having animals killed merely because animal flesh tastes good to them, I always find it hard to believe such a person would oppose vivisection if they thought it would save lives. Maybe it's because the desire for a steak dinner is immediate, but the threat of serious illness is only a far-off possibility they don't bother confronting until they have to.

Peasant (1963-1972) and Fluffy (1970s?-1982- I think of you as 'Ambrose' now)- Your spirits outshone some humans I have known. Be happy forever.
Tom is offline  
#125 Old 04-18-2007, 03:16 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

It didn't seem to bother his appetite much.



"Nothing helps scenery like ham and eggs. Ham and eggs, and after these a pipean old, rank, delicious pipeham and eggs and scenery, a down-grade, a flying coach, a fragrant pipe, and a contented heartthese make happiness. It is what all the ages have struggled for." ~Mark Twain



its a good point red , where the great majority are actually put of by the slaughter of animals ....and then go and have a good old meat up afterwords
bluegold is offline  
#126 Old 04-19-2007, 10:21 PM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
I think what bothers me the most is the fact that companies say what they're doing is "humane" when in reality, it's sick and cruel torture. This is how I know... would the scientists do these experiments on their own kids? If the answer is no, animal testing should be banned.
danakscully64 is offline  
#127 Old 04-20-2007, 05:28 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The problem with claiming that only vivisection advocates care about the "big picture" is that both pro- and anti-AR people can hold the belief that advancing medicine is extremely important but inherently valuable beings cannot be sacrificed for that goal. Where they disagree is in what beings they consider inherently valuable. So, the difference between the views is in the moral status of animals, not in how important the "big picture" is (whatever that means exactly).

I think that's true.
kpickell is offline  
#128 Old 04-20-2007, 09:15 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

This is how I know... would the scientists do these experiments on their own kids? If the answer is no, animal testing should be banned.



That is a ridiculous standard.
Tame is offline  
#129 Old 04-20-2007, 01:45 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,482
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00038.htm



It seems the the herd of pigs been used , have been on some island since 1854 So they have not been exposed to modern virus . A guy doing the research said it more than you can say about humans (referring to the viral status )



We have the big picture stuff here , the researches seem very confident in the direction they are going



So if we apply sevenseas rational here , we come back to the moral status of the pigs themselves



There have been human trails
bluegold is offline  
#130 Old 04-21-2007, 08:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post


Earlier in this thread I was going to argue that even if I don't consider animals to be property, the necessity of curing disease might justify vivisection- assuming vivisection can produce worthwhile medical information.

Can those two beliefs -- animals not being property, and valuable information justifying vivisection -- ever be compatible, though? I would argue that vivisection inherently means that animals are property,

a) in a more abstract sense of property: the vivisectors hold the animals captive, and the animals' crucial interests in life, liberty, social interaction and freedom from suffering are in the vivisectors' hands. They have absolute authority over the animals. The authority is absolute despite some welfare laws regulating the animal exploitation because that authority concerns such crucial interests. If I had kids locked up in a cellar and did experiments on them and had control over their lives, could anyone say that my relation to them shouldn't essentially be characterized as ownership?

b) in a more practical (legal) sense, if you have vivisection without animals as legal property, AR activists can legally rescue them from the vivisectors' hands. That is incompatible with the safe continuing practice of vivisection.



Quote:
If enough people decided vivisection should be banned, that ban would have to be legally enforced upon researchers who still want to perform such experiments. And they probably would ask why humans do not have a right to kill in order to preserve their lives when animal predators do that all the time.

I would tell them that if they want to model their ethics on wolves and hyenas, they should not do that in a human society

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#131 Old 04-24-2007, 01:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

That is a ridiculous standard.



I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I wouldn't subject any living creatures to something I wouldn't put my own child through.
danakscully64 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off