Animal Rights Crowd

[Wendy Siegel <wenwolf@xxxxxxx>]

This email will probably be very unpopular, and I debated a long time
before sending it, but in the interest of providing an alternative
viewpoint to a topic already raised:



"....Arguments that dire human afflictions such as Alzeimer's (sic),
Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis might be defeated through
animal-based research mean nothing whatever to today's science-hating
veggie-Nazis, who are too hysterical to be logical."



Every researcher ends their animal experiment with a disclaimer that
there is no guarantee that what works on an animal will work on a human.
One example of how animal testing can HARM advances in medical research
- If we had tested aspirin on cats, we would not have it today - aspirin
kills cats. One of animal rights arguments is that there are more
accurate tests to determine what we need to know. The problem is, those
alternative tests are more expensive. The argument is really then about
money vs. lives (both animal and human).



I have often heard people on this list complain about the length of time
it takes for a new drug to be approved. Are you aware that animal
testing can actually slow down the process of approving new treatments?
The more expedient option is to go directly to human trials. QUOTE FROM
A PRIOR POST: "Pre-clinical trials test whether the drug is toxic in
humans, and can be trialled (sic) on patients who are already in a
terminal condition." If animal testing is required first, many of those
terminal patients will die before ever getting the chance at something
that could possibly help them. The human trials are the only conclusive
evidence that something will or will not work on humans. I am NOT
suggesting that we FORCE humans to try experimental drugs, only that
they can have the option to do so when there is no other hope anyway.



Keep in mind that we are not always talking about life and death issues
when we talk about animal resting. Some times it is weight: ".... one of
its most lucrative products has been a type of obese rat. The JCR -
named after the initials of its Canadian creator - quickly becomes
almost three times as fat as a normal rat, at over 1kg in weight, and
can be used to test anti-diet and obesity- related health drugs. On the
plus side - its creators say - they are very docile animals and can make
good pets." Animals are also killed for cosmetic testing.



Too hysterical to be logical? Try this on for size. Although humans
themselves are a form of animal, many of them claim it is ok to
experiment on other animal life forms. Why? The excuse is that they are
lower life forms, not as intelligent or able to think as we do. Slave
owners used that logic to keep slaves, and Hitler used the same logic
when he experimented on what he considered "lower life forms" - Jews,
and people with disabilities. After all, many of the people with
disabilities were not as intelligent, or able to think like the rest of
us. (Please note that I do not feel this way, I am merely making a
point.) I would be interested in hearing any other "logical" explanation
about why it is ok to test on some animals and not others (humans).



 The qualitative decision about what life forms are ok to torture and
which are not is inherently biased. Because humans are making the
decision, OF COURSE they will put themselves above other forms of life
who cannot speak up to defend themselves. To me, THAT is the faulty
logic. If the logic holds true that it is ok to experiment on "lower
life forms" for the benefit of the more evolved life form, then we
should all be willing to give ourselves up for experimentation should
aliens show up with a need for test subjects. That would be right in
line with the current "logic" used by animal research.  (NOTE: I am not
trying to argue the existence of aliens, I am merely debating a point of
logic.) Somehow, I doubt that many would willingly sacrifice themselves
for the betterment of the "higher" life form, yet those same people are
quick to expect that a "lower" life form be sacrificed for their
personal benefit.



Please also note that this is my opinion and that I do not agree with or
support terrorist actions to accomplish ANY means. As always, I don't
mean to offend anyone with my line of reasoning, unfortunately, I
probably did! :-)



Wendy Siegel


















----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn