Animal Experiment
extr...@hotmail.com
three-fourths for medical purposes and the rest to test various
products. An estimated eight million are used in painful experiments.
Reports show that at least 10 percent of these animals do not receive
painkillers. ...the threat restrictions on the use of animals would
pose to scientific progress.
Those who argue that painful experimentation on animals should be
halted, or at least curtailed, maintain that pain is an intrinsic
evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply
not morally permissible. Pointing to the words of the nineteenth-
century utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, animal welfare advocates claim
that the morally relevant question about animals is not "Can they
reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" And, animals do in
fact suffer, and do in fact feel pain. The researcher who forces rats
to choose between electric shocks and starvation to see if they
develop ulcers does so because he or she knows that rats have nervous
systems much like humans and feel the pain of shocks in a similar way.
Pain is an intrinsic evil whether it is experienced by a child, an
adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being,
it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal.
Moreover, it is argued, the lives of all creatures, great and small,
have value and are worthy of respect. This right to be treated with
respect does not depend on an ability to reason. An insane person has
a right to be treated with respect, yet he or she may not be able to
act rationally. Nor does a right to be treated with respect rest on
being a member of a certain species. Restricting respect for life to a
certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or
sexism. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does
not count as much as respect for his or her own race, those who
support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for
other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or
her own species. "Speciesism" is as arbitrarily unjust as racism or
sexism. The right to be treated with respect rests, rather, on a
creature's being a "subject of a life," with certain experiences,
preferences, and interests. Animals, like humans, are subjects of a
life. Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected,
which includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved
pain.
Finally, animal welfare activists defend their position by countering
the claim that halting painful animal experiments would put an end to
scientific progress, with harmful consequences to society. Much animal
experimentation, they say, is performed out of mere curiosity and has
little or no scientific merit. Animals are starved, shocked, burned,
and poisoned as scientists look for something that just might yield
some human benefit. In one case, baby mice had their legs chopped off
so that experimenters could observe whether they'd learn to groom
themselves with their stumps. In another, polar bears were submerged
in a tank of crude oil and salt water to see if they'd live. And, for
those experiments which do have merit, there exist many non-animal
alternatives. It is only out of sheer habit or ease that scientists
continue to inflict pain on animals when, in fact, alternatives exist.
And, where alternatives don't exist, the moral task of science is to
discover them.
Those who argue for the continuation of painful experimentation on
animals state that society has an obligation to act in ways that will
minimize harm and maximize benefits. Halting or curtailing painful
experimentation on animals would have harmful consequences to society.
Indeed, pain is an evil to be minimized, and scientists do work to
minimize pain when possible. Contrary to sensationalistic reports of
animal rights activists, scientists are not a society of crazed,
cruel, curiosity seekers. But there are instances when the use of
alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that
promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives.
Animal research has been the basis for new vaccines, new cancer
therapies, artificial limbs and organs, new surgical techniques, and
the development of hundreds of useful products and materials. These
benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in suffering that relatively
few animals have had to endure. Society has an obligation to maximize
the opportunities to produce such beneficial consequences, even at the
cost of inflicting some pain on animals.
Furthermore, many argue, while the lives of animals may be deserving
of some respect, the value we place on their lives does not count as
much as the value we place on human lives. Human beings are creatures
that have capacities and sensibilities that are much more highly
developed than that of animals. Because humans are more highly
developed, their welfare always counts for more than that of animals.
If we had to choose between saving a drowning baby and saving a
drowning rat, we would surely save the baby. Moreover, if we move to
consider animals as our moral equals, where do we draw the line?
Technically, any living thing that is not a plant is an animal. Are
oysters, viruses, and bacteria also to be the objects of our moral
concern? While we may have a duty to not cause animals needless
suffering, when we are faced with a choice between the welfare of
humans and the welfare of animals, it is with humans that our moral
obligation lies.
Others argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to
human beings. Morality is a creation of social processes in which
animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply
only to those who are part of the moral community created by these
social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community,
we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations
to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and
prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn,
may require the painful experimentation on animals.
Mice or men? Where do our moral obligations lie? The debate over
painful experimentation on animals enjoins us to consider the
wrongfulness of inflicting pain and the duty to respect the lives of
all creatures, while also considering our obligations to promote human
welfare and prevent human suffering, animals aside.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html
http://www.usyd.edu.au/ethics/animal/AElinks.html
Giga
<extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c4b7186-73e1-43ec...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> About 20 million animals are experimented on and killed annually,
> three-fourths for medical purposes and the rest to test various
> products. An estimated eight million are used in painful experiments.
> Reports show that at least 10 percent of these animals do not receive
> painkillers. ...the threat restrictions on the use of animals would
> pose to scientific progress.
>
> Those who argue that painful experimentation on animals should be
> halted, or at least curtailed, maintain that pain is an intrinsic
> evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply
> not morally permissible.
So we shouldn't allow the vet to clip the cats claws or give the dog an
injection?
Pointing to the words of the nineteenth-
> century utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, animal welfare advocates claim
> that the morally relevant question about animals is not "Can they
> reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" And, animals do in
> fact suffer, and do in fact feel pain.
Are animals self-aware in the way humans are? Maybe apes, dogs, dolphins
some birds shows signs of self-awareness (self-recognition in a mirror) but
fruit-flies and mice? If they are not aware of themselves then can the
*experience* their own pain? Or is it just a signal.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Those who argue that painful experimentation on animals should be
> halted, or at least curtailed, maintain that pain is an intrinsic
> evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply
> not morally permissible.
What a remarkably silly claim. I'm glad that our family physician
didn't believe this when it was time to give my son vaccinations.
(To be clear, this naive principle is *not* the justification of any
supporter of animal rights I've encountered.)
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"With [President Bush] endorsing [Intelligent Design], at the very
least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for
lack of a better phrase." -- Gary L. Bauer, in search of a thesaurus
The BORG
Animals are life and they feel pain and suffer. And they
are innocent helpless victims of the cruelty and bullying
methods of humans.
What humans should do is
1) Many humans commit suicide. Offer experiments on them
as an alternative to suicide. They are as good as dead
anyway.
2) There are millions and millions of abortions per annum.
Build test tube factories where the aborted foetus can be
reared and perform experiments on them. They are as good as
dead anyway.
The results from experiments on other humans, would be far
more beneficial anyway than any results obtained from
experiments on completely different species.
The BORG
<extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c4b7186-73e1-43ec...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
The BORG
animals then they must accept, that to other "aliens" who
may be far in advance of humans and far more intelligent
than humans, that they may view humans as "animals" and
perform experiments on them.
Thus you can see with the many stories of alien abductions
and alien experiments, that these aliens can get results
from experimenting on those who they consider animals - the
humans - as humans can gain results from their experiments
on who they consider animals.
As humans do this themselves to their animals, thus aliens
can do these experiments on humans with no conscience
whatsoever.
Do unto others and you get as good as you deserve and all
the rest of it, being a strange kind of justice where
experiments on humans are considered perfectly acceptable in
the alien and space community by aliens much in advance and
more intelligent than humans. Many consider that humans are
merely "animals" anyway and with the cruelty and atrocities
and suffering and pain the human animals cause to their
animals, it is a strange justice and almost good that aliens
perform experiments on the human animals and cause humans
pain and suffering which is their due and their just desert
for the pain and suffering that they cause to others.
So alien abductions and experiments on humans, although not
encouraged by the Governing Bodies of Space, are not
prevented either.
It is a question of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
as being a fair system. If humans do it to their animals,
then they MUST by Universal Justice expect that this would
be done to them.
And so it goes on up and up the scale of aliens, until you
reach right at the top, where the existence there is so
perfect anyway that there is no requirement FOR animal
experiments.
The BORG
The BORG
animals who will then be used for experiments by aliens who
view humans as very inferior and as animals.
Any people who are kind and good to their animals, and who
treat them well and ensure that they do not suffer, are
never touched by aliens who wish to perform experiments.
This is one the Universal Rules of Fair Justice.
As soon as a species is known NOT be kind and caring toward
their animals, and to use them for experiments, the
whereabouts of this species is made known, and they become
fodder or feeding ground for aliens who wish to perform
experiments.
Alien experiments are not like the very low level
experiments that humans perform on their animals and can be
somewhat horrific if any memory of them was retained by the
humans concerned. But aliens know how to wipe memories, and
so the kind of experiments they conduct are not known to
humans. But remember that the aliens view humans as animals
and are not concerned as to the horrible pain and suffering
they cause them, the same as humans are not concerned as to
the horrible pain and suffering they cause to their animals.
Fair is fair after all.
The BORG
The BORG
experiments can recall no specific details, only the feeling
that something absolutely horrible occurred.
Some have flashbacks, or strange moments of recall of these
experiments.
But no specific details can be remembered by any humans as
their memories are wiped after the experiments completed.
And they are placed back on Earth in order to continue their
lives.
Governing bodies and Justices of Space turn a blind eye to
these alien experiments on animals such as humans.
As it is known that they are only conducted on species such
as humans, who do this kind of thing themselves.
Good caring peoples, who treat their animals kindly and
well, are never used for experiments.
The BORG
The BORG
psychological than physical, which is why there is not a
great deal of evidence that they occur.
Sometimes a human may be abducted by aliens for experiments
and simply disappear, never to return. There are a huge
number of humans that simply disappear.
Other times a human may wake and merely think that he/she
had a restless night or disturbing dreams that they cannot
remember.
Some recollect more than others, but most recall the
horrific nature of these mental and psychological
experiments.
But humans do not have any defense against these aliens, nor
can they prevent these experiments from occurring. They are
hapless and helpless victims, as indeed their own animals
are hapless and helpless victims.
Difference is that justice decrees that humans deserve it,
whereas the animals that humans experiment on do not.
The BORG
The BORG Queen
people of Earth are made to suffer by humans.
Not only with animal experiments, but also pet keeping,
sport , farming also cause suffering of some kind to them.
The very ones to complain about animal experiments are the
ones who castrate and imprison the animals they have as
pets, cage birds and cause suffering to them of a different
kind.
One of the biggest jokes about humans is why are they called
humans?
They are a remarkably inhuman species.
The BORG
<extr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c4b7186-73e1-43ec...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
The BORG
Either in reincarnation or some kind of Universal Justice.
That those who CAUSE this kind of suffering to these
innocent, sinless, blameless animals and creatures by way of
experiments, pet-keeping, farming or sport will RECEIVE the
suffering themselves in the future.
When you look around at those humans who have lost legs or
who are blind or who have various illnesses or diseases and
who do suffer in the world today - you do wonder what they
did in the past, in prior lives or in prior existence of
some kind to deserve or warrant this.
A kind of cause/effect - some kind of balance that the
suffering you cause is thus the suffering you receive.
The BORG
"The BORG Queen" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message news:...