VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What to say about this article [<a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sophie_petitzeman/2006/08/confessions_of_a_vegetarian_vi.html%5D?" target="_blank">http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...rian_vi.html]?</a> A vegetarian vivisectionist! I've discussed at length on many previous posts the ethics of vegetarianism and veganism in relation to animal rights, and in some regards her reasoning makes logical sense, that killing animals for medical research is slightly more ethical than killing them for food. I personally find this cold calculation hard to swallow, (no pun intended), but I can, however, understand the logic that, after dissecting and experimenting on animals all day, she suddenly lost all desire to eat them. In fact, it makes me wonder how any vivisectionist can not be a vegetarian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
demangledlink: <a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sophie_petitzeman/2006/08/confessions_of_a_vegetarian_vi.html" target="_blank">http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...tarian_vi.html</a><br><br><br><br>
I would agree with the author of that piece. Yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sophie_petitzeman/2006/08/confessions_of_a_vegetarian_vi.html" target="_blank">http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...tarian_vi.html</a><br><br><br><br>
Yes, I would agree with the author of that op ed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks for correcting the URL :) Anyone else agree with the article? At least if animals are killed for meat they usually get to live in the open air for a while, whereas animals used in experiments are often tortured over prolonged periods of time. Does the end always justify the means? I'm confused on this one, although my instinct is to say we should try to managed without animal experiments, even if it means a delay in finding cures for some diseases, or not finding them at all. We will all die of something, someday, and most illnesses are to some degree preventable. It just pains me that some animals are being tortured so that some unconscious, smoking, junk-food eating humans can be kept alive when their bodies finally pack up on them. I know this is discounting the millions of healthy and kind people who have benefitted from animals experiments unwittingly, but there you go, if I think about it, it just feels wrong.<br><br><br><br>
By the way, there are some interesting comments under the orgional piece if you scroll down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
She's a manipulating hypocrite,and she's probably "vegetarian" for "health reasons" or "environmental reasons" or just to have the sufaced veneer of an "animal lover" while she vivisects.<br><br><br><br>
There is no "ethical reason" for vivisection--it is done for "research grant money" and titles like "Professor" and "Scientist".<br><br><br><br>
But the Guardian newspaper are equally manipulating hypocrites,pretending to be objective,while they do a promotional advertisement of the "virtuous" character of a vivisector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Vegania</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
She's a manipulating hypocrite,and she's probably "vegetarian" for "health reasons" or "environmental reasons" or just to have the sufaced veneer of an "animal lover" while she vivisects.<br><br><br><br>
There is no "ethical reason" for vivisection--it is done for "research grant money" and titles like "Professor" and "Scientist".<br><br><br><br>
But the Guardian newspaper are equally manipulating hypocrites,pretending to be objective,while they do a promotional advertisement of the "virtuous" character of a vivisector.</div>
</div>
<br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,134 Posts
Heh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
I agree with that. two seperate issues. I've seen vivsection work as more functional then eating meat (Unless of course you are feeding an omnivore or carnivorious animal) . Eating meat is for culture and pleasure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Vegania</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
She's a manipulating hypocrite,and she's probably "vegetarian" for "health reasons" or "environmental reasons" or just to have the sufaced veneer of an "animal lover" while she vivisects.<br></div>
</div>
<br>
i would agree with the above. if she actually cared even somewhat about animals and the animal cruelty, she would stop vivisecting.<br><br>
if she can slice an animal apart <b>with her own bare hands</b>, then she obviously doesn't care for it.<br><br><br><br>
and she's definately a hypocrite. she's saying that she'd doesn't want to consume a dead animal, but she finds no ethical issue with murdering one herself. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/whack.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":whack:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
How does vivisection "work"? What does this "work" mean? Curing and helping, is this what you mean? But vivisection is the opposite of "curing and helping",its active premise involves injuring,(artificially) diseasing,poisoning and all other such "niceties."<br><br><br><br>
I would say also though that the practical philosophy of vivisection is to do with the furfillment of an anthpropocentric collective societal perspective; with vivisection as the religious ritual of this misothery culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
It's also been shown recently that only around 25% of the experiments carried out on non human animals are directly applicable to human medicine anyway due to the different physiology etc of the different species. In one study a drug designed for people who had had a stroke worked perfectly on rats but caused fatalities when used in humans. Imagine how many animals died to find that out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
I’m surprised, even impressed, that she made the leap at all. I don’t know any vivisector’s (sp?) that are capable of viewing animals with value.<br><br><br><br>
Born veggie, I doubt that most factory farmed animals see the light of day.<br><br><br><br>
Honeyfugle, I agree that a person cutting an animal apart can’t really care about that animal. Well, sort of. I have never worked with live animals but I have sliced up dead cats. I spent two semesters doing so and by the end of the year I developed an unfamiliar detachment. It was like being reprogrammed. I had to nip that in the bud.<br><br><br><br>
Vegania, “How does vivisection "work"? What does this "work" mean?”<br><br>
It depends. Regardless of whatever research, the outcome for the animals is devastating tho the outcome for humans varies. For example, there is talk about intravenous vitamin C and cancer (and a bit of research backing it up). Can vitamin C act as a pro-oxidant on cancer cells? If a scientist wants to find out, s/he will induce cancer in a number of animals and investigate with varying levels of C. Why can’t we just do this with humans who already have cancer instead of animals? I imagine fear of side affects. There have been a number of cases with alternative med docs who have used hydrogen peroxide (similar idea) on cancer patients and the patients died from the method, not the cancer…doc was sued etc…all bad news.<br><br><br><br>
Humans don’t want to be the guinea pigs, but they/we want the benefits of the research both directly and indirectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>gaya</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Honeyfugle, I agree that a person cutting an animal apart cant really care about that animal.</div>
</div>
<br>
Because you guys aren't capable of that type of compartmentalized compassion, doesn't mean other people aren't. You can definetely care for something and then turn around and kill it. In your mind you have no choice, because the alternative is letting humans suffer and die needlessly. Think of any of the hypothetical lifeboat situations you can come up with and you'll prove my point. Just because you are opting not to save person X does not mean you don't care for person X. While some of you may think it's better to save the individual animal, this does not make you a better person it just means you prefer to allow humans to suffer and die rather than allowing the labratory animals to suffer and die. We all make the same choice that the vivisector does, we just choose to care about different animals (some care about the non-human animals, and some care about the human animals). It's clearly an either-or situation. It's a lifeboat hypothetical situation come to life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Humans dont want to be the guinea pigs, but they/we want the benefits of the research both directly and indirectly.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br><br><br>
Actually I would disagree with this. There are many volunteer studies done with humans and with many diseases, at the very mention of a new drug with promise, the communities within that disease are alive with talk about the stage where they can participate.<br><br><br><br>
Also, within the drug companies themselves, employees are given the opportunity to join volunteer studies of various types. They are usually paid, but it is volunteer nonetheless.<br><br><br><br>
I think the fear of repercussions on bahalf of the companies keep them from offering more volunteer studies, however I don't think that says that humans would not volunteer more on top of what is already offered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Because you guys aren't capable of that type of compartmentalized compassion, doesn't mean other people aren't. You can definetely care for something and then turn around and kill it.</div>
</div>
<br>
I agree with you kpickell. And just because someone doesn't support vivisection doesn't mean s/he is not capable of compartmentalized compassion. I think we are all capable. When I think of vivisectors and how much or little they care for animals, I also think of my own indifference to suffering world wide. Does my heart break for females who are subjected to FGM? yes, of course, but I'm not over there fighting the good fight. Would I be sad if a VB member died tomorrow? sure, but I wouldn't have a nervous break down.<br><br><br><br>
Also, I personally know dozens of people who participate in vivisection and ime, they are completely detached which is probably a needed defense mechanism.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">In your mind you have no choice, because the alternative is letting humans suffer and die needlessly. Think of any of the hypothetical lifeboat situations you can come up with and you'll prove my point. Just because you are opting not to save person X does not mean you don't care for person X.</div>
</div>
<br>
agreed<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">While some of you may think it's better to save the individual animal, this does not make you a better person it just means you prefer to allow humans to suffer and die rather than allowing the labratory animals to suffer and die. We all make the same choice that the vivisector does, we just choose to care about different animals (some care about the non-human animals, and some care about the human animals). It's clearly an either-or situation. It's a lifeboat hypothetical situation come to life.</div>
</div>
<br>
I don't think all vivisection fits into the same mold and the line between what is "needed" life-saving research and what is not is fuzzy for a variety of reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>gr8pyrz</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Actually I would disagree with this. There are many volunteer studies done with humans and with many diseases, at the very mention of a new drug with promise, the communities within that disease are alive with talk about the stage where they can participate.<br><br><br><br>
Also, within the drug companies themselves, employees are given the opportunity to join volunteer studies of various types. They are usually paid, but it is volunteer nonetheless.</div>
</div>
<br>
Clinical trials don't appear out of thin air. By the time clinical trials are instituted for any drug, procedure etc, there is already years of research behind it based on findings found via animal models.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I think the fear of repercussions on bahalf of the companies keep them from offering more volunteer studies, however I don't think that says that humans would not volunteer more on top of what is already offered.</div>
</div>
<br>
Sorry, but you are way off on this whole idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>gaya</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I don't think all vivisection fits into the same mold and the line between what is "needed" life-saving research and what is not is fuzzy for a variety of reasons.</div>
</div>
<br>
true
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Clinical trials don't appear out of thin air. By the time clinical trials are instituted for any drug, procedure etc, there is already years of research behind it based on findings found via animal models.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
We cannot control the steps to clinical trials at this point in time. All we can control is our own choice whether to volunteer for studies available.<br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Sorry, but you are way off on this whole idea.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Exactly how am I way off on this? You said humans don't <b>want</b> to be guinea pigs - which implies choice. I am posing examples where humans, when given the opportunity, are willing to volunteer to be just that !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>gr8pyrz</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
We cannot control the steps to clinical trials at this point in time. All we can control is our own choice whether to volunteer for studies available.</div>
</div>
<br>
Indeed, and human participation is an integral aspect of medical research.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Exactly how am I way off on this? You said humans don't <b>want</b> to be guinea pigs - which implies choice. I am posing examples where humans, when given the opportunity, are willing to volunteer to be just that !</div>
</div>
<br>
My point is that guinea pigs are litteraly used prior to clinical trials and the risk involved at the onset of clinical trials is minimal in comparison. Do you really think human participants would sign up if the standard outcome was internal organ damage and death? c'mon, no way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">My point is that guinea pigs are litteraly used prior to clinical trials and the risk involved at the onset of clinical trials is minimal in comparison. Do you really think human participants would sign up if the standard outcome was internal organ damage and death? c'mon, no way.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
No they wouldn't, I agree. However to me that is not even a valid point at this time. The fact is, a standard has been set. Working with what is available right now, my point was that I think more humans would sign up for investigational studies if it were allowed on an even broader scope.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top