- Multinationals -
In a Rabbit's eye!
Posted by: Luke Kuhn ( Utopian Anarchist Party, USA ) on April 13, 1998 at 11:40:46:
In Reply to: way i think that animal testing is good........ posted by hannah on April 06, 1998 at 10:14:04:
: I belive that animal testing is good for many reasons.
: 1: We have so many products that have been tested on animals could we get a long with out them?
: 2: There has many lives saved from animal testing. The information that we have gained from animal testing is so great.
: 3: If we would not test on animals there would be a overpopulation of animals. You will say that we can hunt them but if that happened wouldn't we have more deaths from shooting.
: So what do you think is animal testing still bad well if you think so I think that it is good. Think of it this way the animals are helping us to live longer.
Hannah Taylor :: By what rights do we humans TORTURE other animals who have brainand feel pain to improve our own standard of living. While there are other predators on earth, no other predator keeps its prey alive for weeks on end under continual torture with the possible exception of a few varieties of spider or wasp. Is this the company we wish to keep. Beyond the medical experiment issue,90% of vivisection is done for cosmetics testing. Do we really need cosmetics enough to burn rabbit's eyes out for them? Besides, even when disease IS the issue, would benefit to the group doing the experiments(say, the Nazi party and rich Germans or rich white AmeriKKKans) justify torturing others(say Jews or poor Blacks)to extend the lives of the experimenting class? The fact that Nazi burn experiments yielded some usefull data about burn treatment is not considered sufficient to justify performing the experiments involved, whuich involved burning concentration camp prisoners and trying various treatments-one of which
proved useful. Of course, since cold water on burns releives pain, I suspect primitive humans probably discovered it by accident and used it until some idiot suggested buttering burns instead. Furthermore, it is a very small step from torturing animals to torturing humans, and, in fact, how people treat animals is considered a reliable indicator of how they treat humans.Today, its AIDS research on monkeys, tomorrow, AIDS research on prisoners, as the monkey data has not yielded any reasonable treatment. This is just like the serial killers who pulled the wings off flies as kids. I would rather die of AIDS myself than support the useless monkey experimets or use any of the so-called treatments they have yielded. With AIDS treatments, the monkey data did not show what the treatments did to human quality of life. For instance, the monkeys did not get the "Buffalo Hump' redistribution of body fat on protease inhibitors that is enough to cause some humans to refuse the treatment if they are lucky or regret
accepting treatment if it is too late. Similarily, I would rather die of cancer than accept chemotherapy. As you see,a lot of this animal research(most of the recent work) is of the most benefit to those humans who will undergo any torture themselves to prolong life by a few months. Some experiments concerning restoring quality of life(such as spinal injury research) could instead of being done on monkeys be done on humans who ater being so injured(paralyzed, in this case) intend to end their lives unless they get their mobility back. In the above case, if the experiment orks, the subjects get their lives back. If the experiment fails, they simply stay with us a few weeks longer. In neither case do they have anything to lose. If I were to have my spine broken, I would be in this situation myself. Similarily, people line up to get INTO experimental treatments for diseases for which standard treatment fails.