I am wondering how we are to be persuaded by Melissa Etheridge and Ted Nugent, among others. I mean, I like Melissa Etheridge's music, and I admire her courage (while I could take or leave Ted Nugent), but isn't it the argument we should consider, not the person? As far as medical breakthroughs, many doctors oppose vivisection because it often leads to harmful rather than helpful treatment. Many drugs doctors prescribe only replace one ailment or condition with another, since, afterall, we are pumping our bodies full of chemicals that don't belong there. All this aside though, what should human beings accept as an appropriate form of illness? I mean, we NEED to die eventually, right? Well, what disease is acceptable then? I understand wanting to PREVENT disease by changing to a more healthy lifestyle. I even understand that it must be a desperate feeling knowing you (or a loved one) are terminally ill. What I don't understand is the shortsightedness and self-centredness of a species which demands to live forever, as it were, no matter what it might cost other species, and no matter how miserable it might make us.
What exactly gives us the authority and permission to perform these experiments, destroying the lives of other beings so that we may artificially extend our own? In many cases (not all, but many) those people who are ill are so because of their lifestyle choices. This could be prevented with some serious education and legislation (for example, sue the pants off of tobacco companies, the dairy board, the department of agriculture, and alcohol companies for lying to us and misleading us through advertizing.) Either we work at prevention or we live with the consequences. We have no legitimate claim over other life forms to use them to compensate for our own stupidity.
