Animals Animal Rights

[Miss_apollo7]

You don`t sound too convinced, Miss_apollo7. Many more medical breakthroughs could occurr at a faster rate if we experimented on humans. Often, products, which have been tested on animals have been detrimental to the health of humans.

True, but if we could get human volunteers - I agree....in fact I volunteered to become a "guinea pig" a couple of years back when they wanted to research the affect of muscle tissue after some extensive exercise without the take of medicine (compared to people who took medicine in this experiment) - gosh! That was a painful experience: They had to cut a piece of my muscle to see the development!! I am sure they couldn't do the same research if it was done on mice.....

But I don't see any problems with medical testing on animals IF it could save human lives...

How do you know they have not suffered? Have you found the farm and slaughterhouse where your supermarket meat comes from. Have you gone to see the conditions? Have you read any books on factory farming and slaughtering practices.

I can never be 100% sure, and I don't personally visit farms on a daily basis to see where my meat comes from. I only trust the labels the chicken had....and trust the strict law which the Danish government has imposed, which is the welfare of the animals comes first.
My cousin is a vet, employed by a government control body, and his only "mission" the past 5 years is to see to it that the cows/pigs etc...are having a "good" life before they get slaughtered.

I might have eaten unhappy chickens, or cows, but........ I just follow "my set of rules," which are highlighted in blue below....

Nope, I haven't read any books about this matter specifically, but articles about it in the media etc, and from the Danish brochures of what is is equivalent to RSPCA.

Good to hear, and we agree again. But, if you look into factory farming and slaughtering, you are sure to see that animal welfare is not much given thought to in those places. Buying those products is being complicit in activities that do not care much for animal welfare in those places.

Well, I try to buy meat from places which believe in welfare of the animals. I love meat too much that I couldn't give it up.....
E.g. regarding milk, in Denmark the milk and dairy products are produced by a monopoly compay called "Arla," which is a co-operative dairy which prints on the cartons where the milk came from, and from which farm (and even time the cow "contributed" with the milk) in Denmark...meaning I could visit the farm if I really wanted to..

Why do you think they are treated properly? Haven`t you researched or come across the abuses that go on in those industries?

You have very strong opinion on this matter, more than me.

Have I researched the subject? No, but I read the papers and support (donate) to the Danish RSPCA and WSPA in Denmark every month....Apart from this, I just try to be conscious of where the meat comes from....although, as you have said, 100% sure I can never be, but being conscious of it I think is a good thing.

One of my best friends is a journalist and does documentaries, and once he did a documentary about welfare of animals in China, which was shown on TV...and I helped proofread his script because I am very interested in this subject in Denmark. (However, I am not as active as you apparently).
It was about the welfare of chickens, cats, dogs, rabbits and other animals, which suffered and of course apalled a lot of viewers in Denmark.

How am I conscious? my set of rules:
Never buy cosmetics which have been tested on animals.
Never hunt for fun. I only shoot at shooting ranges.
Never wear fur...
Never buy skin from threatened beings, (e.g. python skin belts, shoes)

But this apparently, I know, is not enough for you...I can do much more, but I think we have different opinions on this matter...I love meat tooo much to give it up entirely....I just focus on the welfare as much as I can.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Fair enough answer Miss_Apollo7.

I do know that animal welfare laws in Europe protecting farm animals are much stricter there than in the U.S. That however, is in part due to the very strong direct actions and lobbying by Animal Rightists. Europe has been a hot bed for AR and it was mostly because of European activists that direct action for animals spread to the U.S.

You guys are on the cutting edge of AR. Germany even recently added animals into their constitution. While that action is nowhere near protecting them from total exploitation, just getting into a country`s constitution is a watershed and will be the basis for further codification of more rights in the future. For the first time a country is saying in their constitution that rights do exist for animals -- that they do matter so much that they need to be mentioned in an institution created by man for protecting man. The animals have their foot in the door.

 

[No-name]

You don`t sound too convinced, Miss_apollo7. Many more medical breakthroughs could occurr at a faster rate if we experimented on humans. Often, products, which have been tested on animals have been detrimental to the health of humans.

Being forced to suffer, is wrong, and being in a state of suffering and misery is not pleasant. Do you think it is right to force others to undergo something you would not want to be forced to undergo? I don`t.

It is a risk. If testing were done on humans, it might result in more medical break throughs, but it would also result in all the side effects from unknown actions and interactions, over or under doses, and other flaws in the intended medication or procedure- occuring on a human subject. Human subject testing is usually done after the animal testing has ruled out most, but not all of the nastiness unintentially caused by the medical break through- and then with careful study to determine if any other nastiness shows up.

The fact that detrimental effects show up at this stage, or sometimes after the drug or procedure is in production and being used in the field on a much larger sample- is that we are human, and as close as animal testing is, we are a unique species. Animal testing risks animal lives. (It is a value judgement.)

"Do I think it is right to force other to undergo something I would not want to be forced to undergo?"

Yes. It would depend on who the other was, and what the level of "force" was. Humans often are "forced" to undergo things I would not want to go through- whether by circumstance, or by their committment to the military...for a myriad of other reasons. Animals could be an acceptable alternative to the risk human lives. I'm certain the metaphorical canary sent into the coal mines as a carbon monoxide detector did not appreciate the use of its more sensitive systems and life as a warning device, but I am certain that in the absence of better technology that the coal minors appreciated the little bird's risk.

 

[Reiku]

I should point out that "voluntary" testing of prisoners and mental patients often turns out to be anything but--as there is little oversight of the people in charge--such that opening the door to "voluntary" testing of prisoners also garutees a certain number will be forced to do so...

...I should point this out, but I've been up all night, and am tired--so I won't.

Oh, wait...

 

[No-name]

There are plenty of concievable reasaons which would make people desperate enough to take such a risk. And it certainly would risk becoming just another way of exploiting human suffering. I'm uncertain I would like my safety and the future of medicine dependent upon the altruism of criminals.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

@Miss Apollo - I think your views are sensible and commendable.

@SFV, Mycernius, Sabro etc, on the subject of human testing v animal testing. I've mentioned elsewhere that I take a utilitarian view on big issues - I choose the course that will lead to best outcome, even if it means doing some 'wrong' things along the way. So although I think testing drugs on animals is wrong, I might concede that it is sometimes necessary, although I don't have enough information to make a definitive decision - I don't know how many lives are actually saved because of animal experiments, and I don't know exactly how much suffering is involved. My decision would have to be based on those things, and it's a minefield with no easy answers available.

As for human testing, my main concern is just how possible it would be for it to be voluntary. If someone is desperate, they are probably in no state of mind to make a truly voluntary decision. As for criminals, there are a few problems. As Reiku says, can we be sure there would be no corruption? Also, taking on Mycernius' point about Charles Manson, if a prisoner is psychotic, would he be allowed to volunteer? Don't certain mental illnesses mean that that individual is considered incapable of making certain decisions for themselves? Would that apply in this case?

On balance, I think carefully managed, truly voluntary human testing is preferable because a) it is voluntary and b) the results are bound to be more reliable BUT I am skeptical about whether it can be achieved. I just try to live my own life as much as possible in accordance with my feelings and principles - so I don't eat meat or wear fur, I avoid leather, I buy cruelty-free cosmetics and I take drugs only when absolutely necessary. But I also understand that most people don't view animals the same way as I do.

 

[Reiku]

Hai, that seems to be a rercuring problem doesn't it?

We have something good we could do, but just aren't mature enough as a species to do it.

Ah well, we'll get there someday--maybe.

Meanwhile I'll continue to wallow cheerfully in my numerous vices. :evil:

 

[No-name]

Someday maybe the technology will be here and vivisection will be unnecessary.

 

[Reiku]

Well, they can do some of that with MRI and CAT scans...

...that's more an issue of cost rather than ability--actually that's true of many technological advances: We know enough to do it, or at least we know the direction we have to go, but there isn't enough money to follow through. That or nobody's willing to spend the money on it.

I still can't decide whether money was a good idea or not.

 

[GoldCoinLover]

Then we should exterminate all carnivorous species on this planet ! :sorry:



Yes, I never thought you'd see a lion, or even a little pussy cat, as murderers because they only eat meat.



I already. Do you prefer to see a mouse die for the sake of research, or your cat catching it, playing with it, then opening its belly until the entrails come out, then leave the dying mouse on your doorstep as the cat is not hungry anyway. That's animal cruelty. But this is also nature. Animals (and humans) cannot control their instincts (humans sometimes can, but using a lot of efforts).



Haha. I know children who also behave like that.



So you are saying that hunting is the ideal way of obtaining meat since animals are kept in the best ideal conditions (free in nature) when we kill them, right ?

::::sigh::::, this thread reminds me of a vegan friend on this forum. I totally disagree with him, unfortunately, but he's naitve japanese and very nice.

He is way out there. He made a song that was in english and translated it into japanese:
07:03 pm - Meat Is Murder

Heifer whines could be human cries?@?????̖‚????͐l?Ԃ̋?????
Closer comes the screaming knife?@???؂萺?ŋ??ԏ???
This beautiful creature must die?@?????????????????ȂȂ???΂Ȃ?Ȃ?
This beautiful creature must die?@?D???????????????ȂȂ???΂Ȃ?Ȃ?
A death for no reason?@???R???Ȃ??E????Ă???
And death for no reason is murder?@?????痝?R?̂Ȃ??E???͎E?l?Ɠ??ł???

And the flesh you so fancifully fry?@?N????z?̒??ŏĂ??Ă?????̂?
Is not succulent, tasty or kind?@???`?????Ղ?ł??A???????????A?D???????Ȃ?
It?fs death for no reason?@???R?̂Ȃ??E???ꂽ???̂ł???
And death for no reason is murder?@???R?̂Ȃ??E???͎E?l?Ɠ????ł???

And the calf that you carve with a smile?@?N?????΂݂Ȃ???q???͐؂蕪????s?ׂ?
Is murder?@?E?l?Ɠ????ł???
And the turkey you festively slice?@?N?????Ղ?C???Ŏ??ʒ??𒅂?s?ׂ?
Is murder?@?E?l?Ɠ????ł???
Do you know how animals die??@???????ǂ?????ĎE????Ă??邩?m???Ă?H

Kitchen aromas aren?ft very homely?@?䏊?̏L???͉ƒ?I?ł͂Ȃ?
It?fs not comforting, cheery or kind?@???S?n?ǂ????A???邭???A?D???????Ȃ?
It?fs sizzling blood and the unholy stench?@䥂???悤?Ȍ??ƕs???R?ȏL???Ŗ????Ă???
Of murder?@?E?l???s??ꂽ??̂?

It?fs not natural, normal or kind?@???R?ł??A???ʂł??A?D???????Ȃ?
The flesh you so fancifully fry?@?N????z?̒??Œɂ߂Ă?????̂?
The meat in your mouth?@?N?̌??̒??ɂ??????
As you savour the flavour?@?N??????t???????̂?
Of murder?@?E?l???s??ꂽ??ɂ?

No, no, no, it?fs murder?@?Ⴄ?A?Ⴄ?A?Ⴄ?A???H?͎E?l?Ɠ???
No, no, no, it?fs murder?@?Ⴄ?A?Ⴄ?A?Ⴄ?A???H?͎E?l?Ɠ???
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry??@????E?E?E?Ȃ?œ????B?̋??т𕷂??l?͂??Ȃ??́H


What's interesting is he can write almost perfect english, but reading sites like CNN is a different story.

Since he had to translate this song from english TO japanese, I was wondering how fluent the translation is? ?Ⴄ is interesting, as it means literally in japanesese as "Wrong, wrong, wrong" than in english "No, no, no"

 

[Reiku]

::::sigh::::, this thread reminds me of a vegan friend on this forum. I totally disagree with him, unfortunately, but he's naitve japanese and very nice.
He is way out there. He made a song that was in english and translated it into japanese:
07:03 pm - Meat Is Murder
Heifer whines could be human cries　雌牛の鳴き声は人間の泣き声
Closer comes the screaming knife　金切り声で叫ぶ小刀
This beautiful creature must die　美しい生き物が死ななければならない
This beautiful creature must die　優しい生き物が死ななければならない
A death for no reason　理由もなく殺されている
And death for no reason is murder　だから理由のない殺しは殺人と同である
And the flesh you so fancifully fry　君が空想の中で焼いている肉体は
Is not succulent, tasty or kind　肉汁たっぷりでも、おいしくも、優しくもない
It’s death for no reason　理由のなく殺された死体である
And death for no reason is murder　理由のない殺しは殺人と同じである
And the calf that you carve with a smile　君が微笑みながら子牛は切り分ける行為は
Is murder　殺人と同じである
And the turkey you festively slice　君がお祭り気分で七面鳥を着る行為は
Is murder　殺人と同じである
Do you know how animals die?　動物がどうやって殺されているか知ってる？
Kitchen aromas aren’t very homely　台所の臭いは家庭的ではない
It’s not comforting, cheery or kind　居心地良くも、明るくも、優しくもない
It’s sizzling blood and the unholy stench　茹だるような血と不自然な臭いで満ちている
Of murder　殺人が行われた後のね
It’s not natural, normal or kind　自然でも、普通でも、優しくもない
The flesh you so fancifully fry　君が空想の中で痛めている肉体は
The meat in your mouth　君の口の中にある肉は
As you savour the flavour　君が味を付けたものだ
Of murder　殺人が行われた後にね
No, no, no, it’s murder　違う、違う、違う、肉食は殺人と同じ
No, no, no, it’s murder　違う、違う、違う、肉食は殺人と同じ
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry?　あれ・・・なんで動物達の叫びを聞く人はいないの？
What's interesting is he can write almost perfect english, but reading sites like CNN is a different story.
Since he had to translate this song from english TO japanese, I was wondering how fluent the translation is? 違う is interesting, as it means literally in japanesese as "Wrong, wrong, wrong" than in english "No, no, no"

You know, I should thank this guy...

...I'll have to sing this song the next time I'm cooking up a wokfull of curried beef.

"Savor the flavor of murder" eh? :evil:

The things is, I'm the kind of person who prefers to make his own moral judgemnents--regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

One of my old signatures from an anime site was: "If downloading anime is wrong, I'm happy to be a villain."

Likewise, if eating meat it wrong, I'm happy to be a villain. Heck, I'd kill the cow myself if I could--but as I can't afford to own cattle that's not possible.

I guess what it comes down to is that you can think what you like about people, but we are going to like what we are going to like--be it meat, drugs, violent videogames, porn, stealing, or just about anything else.

That's why I've always considered it important that governments not legislate issues of morality--because one man's depravity is another's fun, and all you really succede in doing by passing laws against this and that is label another group of people "criminals". It's better to keep that to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.

Now, stealing affects other people directly, so it makes sense to make it illegal for purely social reasons--but even many things which are currently ilegal could have their negative social impact significantly reduced or even removed by other means without criminalizing it.

In fact, under certain circumstances, even the social impact of theft isn't entirely negative.

That doesn't really answer the question of "is this moral"--but what we should really be asking ourselves is:

"Do I think this is moral?"

and

"Do I care?"

But before you decide: "I think this is wrong, therefore nobody should do it", you should ask yourself whether you approve of facism first.

Just something to think about...

 

[Dutch Baka]

Hitting pets (lightly) like dogs or cats is sometimes necessary, as it is with children, to make them understand that they have done something wrong. In fact, it's difficult to have authority and respect from some dogs without hitting them once or twice and shouting on them to scare them enough so that they understand who commands. My in-laws can't do that and their dog does mischiefs all the time. I tried my methods, and the dog not only behaves in my presence but seem to regard me as the master now (a bit embarassing as it's not my dog).
I am against testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, but probably for testing for medical research, as it can saves uncountable lives in the future.

Agree, Medical research I think is okay, with of course 1000 of conditions...
the hitting thing yeah, Correction hit..
Keeping animals in a Zoo, is only when they can not live in the Wild.
Nice thread.. as you do many times:wave:

 

[No-name]

I don't think we are at the stage where medical research involving live subjects including animals can be abandoned.

 

[大きいアメリカ人]

animals shouldnt have rights, there made to be eaten

 

[No-name]

The right to be baked, barbequed, broasted, braised, fried, grilled, or sauteed...? LOL that is not much of a right.

Has anyone had this experience: I had a strange discussion with one of the "vegetarians" on campus that was trying to tell me that fish was not meat. She also said that chicken- although it was an animal, is not as "bad" as "meat." I couldn't agree. My friend Larry who is a "real" vegetarian said that she was a little misinformed.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

animals shouldnt have rights, there made to be eaten

We are animals. Does that mean you are made to be eaten?

Ha!

 

[大きいアメリカ人]

We are animals. Does that mean you are made to be eaten?
Ha!

This site explains it all so I dont have to:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=animals

 

[No-name]

大きいアメリカ人
That page was....interesting?

By the way, what does your name mean? It looks like "big deal" or something to do with big or big hearted and merit?

 

[大きいアメリカ人]

Its suppose to mean FatAmerican but im not great at japanese and probably messed it up.

 

[No-name]

I got the big part (fat) but let me sound out the American part a little more carefully...

I guess at some level I am meant to be eaten. Either at my death or shortly thereafter whatever the carnivores don't eat, decomposer will surely get...except that if they bury me, first they embalm my sad corpse so that no self respecting worm or bacterium would want it...so I might as well be creamated, so basically all these wonderful proteins, amino acids, calories from fat, micronutrients, minerals and carbohydrates will all go to waste.