Food for Thought
Let me start off by saying that I am against violence of any kind except in extraordinary circumstances where it is imminently necessary in order to protect life or prevent serious injury. I am also against the torture and harmful abuse of animals for medical and scientific experiments and for the development of products to feed our out-of-control consumer society. That being said, the recent firebombings of the homes of two UC Santa Cruz professors, in one case endangering the target’s children, were appalling acts, whether you are against animal testing or not, and it is my hope that those responsible are caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Last week also saw the arrest of a Boulder Creek man for gross abuse against dogs. It is right that this arrest took place and the animals taken from his possession. Apparently, the animals were kept in the most terrible conditions and were half starved. The man in question must either be psychotic or just a horrible excuse for a human being. Whatever his problem is, the law must deal with him in the same way it deals with the perpetrators of the bombings.
What I find puzzling is the difference in the media and some public reaction to the circumstances of these two incidents. On the one hand, we condemn the man who mistreated his dogs. On the other hand, we condone similar, and often worse, treatment meted out by university professors and private industry research scientists in the name of science and commerce. Why is that?
The Mercury News had an opinion column this week on how researchers who use animals for experiments should be accorded special legal protections by curtailing the First Amendment rights of animal rights activists. Why? I believe that instead, experimenters should be subject to more intense public and legal scrutiny. If the public was witness to some of these experiments in the name of corporate profits or scientific research, they would not condone it. But, like many things in our society, these acts are locked away behind closed doors and kept from the outside world—out of sight, out of mind. There is an obvious reason for that. It’s immoral, unethical and ugly beyond belief and all about money: sales revenue and grants.
Science has progressed to the point where we do not need to torture our defenseless animal cohabitants of the planet in order to come up with a better shampoo or a cure for herpes. Most of it could be done through other scientific methods of analysis. Testing products and scientific theories on animals is simply cheaper and easier in most circumstances. I just don’t understand how a normal human being could do such things, even in the name of science. A chimpanzee is our closest living relative, and all but a tiny fraction of our genetic codes are exactly the same. Yet, researchers will look defenseless baby chimps right in the eye and use them for experimental purposes without any moral compunctions whatsoever.
This activity goes on right under our noses here in Silicon Valley and the surrounding area, in universities and private industry. To fight it by firebombing the homes of scientists is just as cowardly and wrongheaded as what some experimenters do to animals. The way to fight acts of animal torture and abuse is to publicize them in such a way that people have to really see what it is and what it does, not throw Molotov cocktails at innocent children.
Of course, you could argue that a country that turns a blind eye to the illegal and immoral torture of humans by its own government would have no problem doing the same where the animal kingdom is involved. But, how many of us would actually perform any of these acts ourselves? Would you waterboard another human? Would you attempt to burn to death a child of some professor or other person you didn’t agree with? Would you willingly give chimps, our genetic cousins, a painful debilitating disease in order to compare how they react to various substances and a placebo?
Would you support an Animal Bill of Rights?
Diana
You are so right. It’s all part of the same issue and another case of out of sight, out of mind. How many people have ever particpated in the raising and slaughter of animals that they consume? If we all did that, we might have a different attitude to the way food animals are treated and consume fewer of them.
How far down the food chain does your compassion for animals go? When you see a spider in your house, do you leave it alone, “escort” it outside, or smash it?
-dc- #3
You are asking the wrong question in the context of this subject. Would you remove a spider’s legs one by one to see how few legs he could get around on? Would you hook one up to electric probes to see how many volts they could live through before they explode? Would you stop there? what about mice? Or a squirrel—-just a big mouse with a bushy tail? Or a chimp—-a bushy tail connected to an ape? Or a human, just a furless ape?
Tell us what you think. Where would you draw the line?
Jack #4: Chimps don’t have tails.
John Michael #5
Yep, you got me there, my friend. How about we change it to a monkey with a tail. Does that make any difference?
I’d say that research labs are only a tiny fraction of the problem. Millions more animals suffer in feedlots and slaughterhouses.
Jack asks of a skeptical -dc- in post #3, “where would you stop?” So Jack, here is my question to you: where would your “Animal Bill of Rights” stop?
“THE RIGHT of all animals to be free from… psychological suffering, fear and distress…”
—Will I go to jail for yelling at the neighbor’s dog (fear), using a sonic device on the mole in my garden (distress), or leaving my cat without companionship when I’m out of town for the week (abandonment neurosis)?
” THE RIGHT of all domestic and captive wild animals to appropriate veterinary care when needed…”
—Vague terms such as “appropriate” and “when needed” invite agenda-driven enforcement and abusive prosecution.
“THE RIGHT of animals not to be used in cruel and unnecessary experiments…”
—Again, putting the force of law behind words such as “cruel” and “unnecessary” would render every experiment subject to the politics and arbitrary opinions of those with the loudest mouths. If the intent is to end all experiments, then your movement ought to have the integrity to state it.
“THE RIGHT of farmed animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs and behavioral requirements, and that facilitates their role in humane, and ecologically sustainable farming systems.”
—The “basic psychological needs” of farm animals? You’ve got to be kidding! Find me a psychologist who can list the basic needs of a child and I’ll hire a dozen who will disagree. This “needs” nonsense has helped ruin our school system—and you want to saddle ranchers and farmers with the proclamations of the same charlatans? And as for “ecologically sustainable farming systems,” that is simply the disingenuous terminology Eco-pukes employ to put honest farmers and ranchers out of business (so that their land can be returned to its natural state).
“THE RIGHT of wild animals to a natural, undisturbed habitat, ecologically sufficient for a normal existence and a self-sustaining species population.”
—This may constitute a right for animals, but for humans it is a life-sentence to wearing ankle monitors when they leave their homes, lest they disturb a habitat in the wild (or in a lot scheduled for development, or within someone’s acreage).
“THE RIGHT of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.”
—Let’s call this one the lawyer’s right-to-work clause, on the taxpayer’s dime, of course. How many millions are you willing to spend protecting the rights of the Coyote Creek river rat?
Jack, the animal rights movement is full of nut cases and if you really embrace this bullshit bill of rights then you’ve earned your place between the walnuts and cashews. The mentally-stable majority in this country would be fools to arm theses do-gooder buttinskis with statutory power and an open invitation into their homes, which is exactly where they so desperately want to be.
The alternative to testing on animals is testing on humans. Who among you will volunteer their wife, husband, parent, or child to take the place of Jack’s chimp with a tail?
Several months ago, in a moment of weakness I signed the petition to put this animal rights proposition on the ballot. I’m not yet up to speed on the details so I can’t yet state definitively which way I’ll vote, but finfan’s cogent analysis is compelling.
I love animals but I’ve learned to be very wary of my government.
Would I leave my dog locked in the backyard all day long? No.
Am I willing to tell my neighbor that he can’t? No.
Do I hunt? No.
Would I prohibit my brother-in-law from hunting? No.
Do I like a good steak? Yes I do!
Do I sometimes think about converting to vegetarianism? Yes.
Do I want my fellow citizens to have the power to FORCE me to? Of course not.
Would I boycott a drug that could save my life if I abhorred the procedures that were used in it’s development? I might.
We need to be cautious when we are thinking about making laws that restrict personal freedom. I extend the definition of “personal freedom” to include COMPANIES that are owned by people. (That’s just about all of them!)
This is an area that is not demanding a legislative approach. Animal rights activists are welcome to preach to me any time they like and to inform me about ongoing industry procedures. I’m happy to listen and consider what they say and I will react according to my own judgement.
I don’t need more laws to TELL me how to react.
John Galt is right. Animal rights people can preach all they want, but I don’t want more intrusive government regulation in this matter. I do not support the animal bill of rights.
Where would I draw the line? Oh, that’s easy. My mind was made up 40 years ago in biology class at John Muir Jr. High. The lesson of the day was how to dissect a frog. I wasn’t grossed out, but terribly saddened—I realized that these creatures’ whole lives had one purpose—to be pithed and cut open by some kids. I’ve been against animal testing ever since.
A reasonable person would have to admit that animal testing has had a positive effect on the quality of our lives. But, if I could stop that kind of research tomorrow, I would. (And yes, I know that eating meat makes me quite the hypocrite!)
If I could talk to the animals, just imagine it…
Chatting with a chimp in chimpanzee
Imagine talking to a tiger, chatting with a cheetah
What a neat achievement it would be!
If we could talk to the animals, learn all their languages
Maybe take an animal degree
I’d study elephant and eagle, buffalo and beagle
Alligator, guinea pig and flea.
I would converse in polar bear and python
And would curse in fluent kangaroo
If people ask me “Can you speak rhinocerous?”
I’d say “Of courserous! Can’t you?”
mestinon
buy yerba
buy cialis strips online
online generic cialis
order generic viagra
I see the mad spammer is back!
casino chips
internet casino gambling
casino
online prilosec generic
online generic levitra
order nexium generic
online generic cialis
cheap lovex
viagra herbal
order acyclovir
cheap aldara
albenza
aldactone
buy clarinex
buy claritin-d online
buy colchicine online
buy dovonex online
order elimite
buy elavil online
order elidel