Quote:
Originally Posted by
PleasantDream 
Interesting story. Seeing as a pig has a similar degree of sentience/intelligence to a three year old child, let's assume that instead of pigs being killed for valves, human babies were somehow being used. Would you still be equally as comfortable in knowing that a child has died for the purpose of keeping you alive? I am interested to know whether your beliefs implicitly place a higher value on human life.
Unless one is actively involved in animal rights advocacy, or more specifically, one is successful in getting a significant number of people to reduce or completely eliminate their purchase and consumption of animal products, I can't see the argument that that person being alive is somehow benefiting the animals or the planet. One less human (and potentially less future humans through lack of procreation) benefits the animal kingdom/planet far more than one vegetarian or vegan human being.
+1
I don't really see any way how, in the context of animal rights ethics, to justify specifically killing the pig in order to use that sentient individual in an instrumental manner in order to help another individual. That goes against all notions of inherent value or rights, at least as I've understood them.
It also presupposes and reinforces the view that animals are property. Confining a pig and then killing the pig for the purpose of medicine necessarily requires treating the pig as common property of the scientific community, or of people in general. It is framing pigs as a medical resource for humans.
This single case is really important ethically because it has drastic implications for the moral status of animals as a whole. If you see pigs as these individuals who are always potentially resources for harvesting organs, what is your attitude towards them; what is your ethical relationship with them? How would you evaluate someone's relationship with you, if you knew that this someone would put you under the knife and harvest your organs without your consent, if they thought it necessary?
Moreover, a case such as this isn't just deriving benefits from immoral societal practices -- such as taking medication is -- but specifically wanting such a practice to exist. It would be not just like taking animal-tested medication, but more like specifically asking for the medical community to conduct vivisection.
Many AW/AR advocates would see this case as very peripheral relative to the most immediate animal issues, such as factory farming, rodeos, circuses, etc. I, on the other hand, see this case as very important because it determines the very basic ethical principles we want to promote.
