Which of these quotes on animal rights do you support?!
1) “We cannot defend our scientific work with animals on the basis of the similarities between them and ourselves and then defend it morally on the basis of differences.” –Roger Ulrich (1991)
2) “I believe that to prevent, cripple, or needlessly complicate the research that can relieve animal and human suffering is profoundly inhuman, cruel and immoral.” –Neal Miller (1983)
3) “Please do not forget those of us who suffer from incurable diseases or disabilities who hope for a cure through research that requires the use of animals.” –Dennis Feeney (1987)
4) “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” –Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Answers:
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
I support all four of them. I support the right of someone to wish for a cure from a disease which is making them suffer or will kill them, as it must be terrifying for them to face death; just as I support the right of a theist to mumble mumbo jumbo in honour of the gods they believe in, for they do so through a lack of reason, indoctrination and again a fear of death. But It doesn't mean that they should be sated in any way which causes harm to others, be they human or non-human.
I saw a few interesting quotes myself today, although I can't vouch for their validity as I haven't seen the original sources, but for interest's sake:
"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans." Dr Richard Klausner, Director, National Cancer Institute, LA Times, May 6. 1998
"My own medical perspective is that animal cancer research should be regarded as the scientific equivalent of gossip – with about the same chance of turning out to be true, i.e. truly effective in humans. Some gossip turns out to be true, but most of it does not…and gossip can cause great anguish for those affected, in this case millions of desperate cancer patients worldwide." G. Timothy Johnson MD, Boston Globe, May 22. 1998
"God knows we’ve cured mice of all sorts of tumours. But that isn’t medical research." Thomas E Wagner, senior scientist at Ohio University’s Edison Biotechnology Institute, the Columbus Dispatch, March 20. 1998
1) I wholeheartedly agree with this.
2) This is an extreme way of putting it, but I get what that Neal Miller guy was trying to say. I disagree for basically the same reason I give below.
3) My response to that one would be "Okay. I won't forget you, but I'm also not going to forget the animals you harm, torture and kill in that research of yours. Sound fair?" - I disagree because I don't think it's necessarily fair to justify the deliberate harm on another being by the relief it might give to someone. It's sort of like a rapist - Raping someone would give them relief of their compulsive urges, but try telling that to the guy getting raped.
4) I agree with this quote.
I don't support any of those quotes, really.
Morality and ethics aside, I'm just not convinced (at least not in all cases) that animal testing actually improves products or procedures, since they will have to be tested on humans anyway.
One, two & four are good... here's another...
"Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character"... George Bernard Shaw
I understand but do not completely agree with all of them. They are opinions and sentiments of people based on their own experiences and not necessarily significant or applicable for anyone else.
1) It is obvious that though there are glaring differences between species, there are also commonalities.
2) I agree that it would be cruel and inhumane to deny someone his/her right (as we have defined rights) to be free from suffering. However, I do not subscribe to the idea of subjecting another creature to pain and suffering when it is already quite obvious that it would.
3) Yes you will not be forgotten and the research will be done. But also consider that despite all the efforts, your condition HAS NO CURE, and that instead of using other creatures for testing, the actual humans who would benefit the most be the subjects instead. Not to sound cold or cruel but really, what have you got to lose?
4) I totally disagree. The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way they treat each other. Besides, killing an animal for food, in the quickest, least painful possible manner and ensuring that it is not wasted seems to me a good way to treat food animals. In any case, it is a sad footnote that India, the country that Gandhi helped create, has one of the poorest animal welfare and environmental records in the civilized world.
These are just my opinions too. They are not scientific or moral absolutes.
Number 3, because I and millions of other people suffer with type 1, not type 2, type 1 diabetes. Insulin and it's use in the treatment of diabetes, was pioneered by doctors using monkeys. Without that research insulin would have to have been tested on people, resulting in life threatening side effects. Insulin and it's proper use, learned through the research on monkeys, has saved the lives of millions of people throughout the world. I love animals, I really do, but God gave us dominion over animals, and no animal will have died in vain if their lives make a human life viable and with less suffering and illness.
Life experience