Definition Of Pondlife...

Spot on Derek.

Dom, all you're really pointing out is that it's a lot more complex having morals as opposed to having none.
 
I really do give up this time, Tom! :lol:

I really don't know why I debate these type of points with you as they invariably end up following a similar pattern : you disagree, come up with a load of absurd notions to make the subject matter seem a whole lot more complicated than it actually is and sign off with an implication that I have no morals.

As always Tom, you're right - I'm a bloodthirsty, bat-eating, sadistic goth. Happy now?! ;) :lol:
 
It doesn't concern me in the least whether or not these protestors avail of animal-tested drugs. They can refuse live-saving blood transfusions like some hard-core Mormons for all I care.
What does annoy me greatly though, is that these "animal lovers" take it upon themselves to deny the rest of us the benefits of drugs developed through what they consider unethical research. That's a downright fascist mentality.
 
I see that pigs are going to be genetically-modified so that their genes don't reject human tissue when any of their organs are implanted into ailing humans. Looks like within our lifetime (well, certainly within the lifetimes of younger forumites, if not mine), modified pigs will be able to be used to redress the huge lack of human organs available for donation: hearts, kidneys, and livers in particular.

This will mean that the modified pigs will live well, until their organs are needed by mortally-ill humans. Will, say, the parents of a soon-to-die teenager decline the use of a pig's kidneys to save their child's life, on the grounds that it isn't fair to the pig to cut its life short?

Moralizing is dangerous stuff (as Honest Tom will no doubt agree): it's like Maurice's words on Catholicism - you can't pick 'n' mix to suit yourself. You're either for it, or not. But you can't be a bit in favour of using animals in medicine for one reason, but not in favour for another. Animals have undoubtedly helped to determine which ingredients cause irritation to the skin, the ghastly Draze test showed what damaged eyes, and so on. But by now, most scientists have a darn good idea of what damages what (hence the dozens of warnings about possible side effects to every drug, medicine, and treatment available), and there are plenty of drugs in use where animals (although used in experimentations) failed, because of their different genetic make-up to humans, to highlight some of the potential problems. Thalidomide was certainly one instance, and it continues to be causing fetal deformities in countries where it's part of the medical war on dreadful diseases like leprosy, so although doctors are well aware of the appalling consequences its use has on babies, they are playing at best-odds when treating a leprotic mother.
 
Dom, what was ludicrous about me asking if you would accept treatment that was based on the research of Mengel? You replied by sticking up a few laughing smileys in your posts and coming on all patronising but you and I both know that your argument was dead in the water there and then.

Kri, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your "your either for it or your not" scenario. Are you saying e.g. that you can't be against fox hunting because you eat meat?
 
HT: You cannot, in my opinion, be pro using animals in experiments for SOME things, but anti them for others. I used Maurice's analogy to his religion, since in a past discussion he said you can't pick the bits out of Catholicism that you liked, and discard the ones you don't. You're either a fully-practising Catholic, or you aren't a Catholic.

In the same way, you are either in agreement with the use of animals for experiments, or you are not. You can't pick out the bits you like, and discard the ones you don't. (Of course, I suppose there's the 'undecided' sector, like there are agnostics, and demi-vegetarians, but I wasn't talking about fence-sitters in this context.)

I'm not sure I can put it more simply than that.

As for the 'morals' of the issue, I think that goes well beyond simplistic notions of 'right' and 'wrong'. If I believe there is a God, and that God gave mankind dominion over all the earth and the animals thereon, then I won't have a religious dilemma about utilizing God's gifts in the way I think fit. We (as mankind) farm them, eat them and their dairy products, use them for pulling carts and ploughs, for their hides and horns, experimentation, and for sporting purposes. I don't know any part of the Bible, Torah, or Koran which proscribes the use of animals by humans (apart from pork and shellfish for Jews and pork for Muslims), and believers could well argue that, while it mightn't have been foreseen some two millennia ago, the right to utilize creatures in any way was given the okay by the Almighty.

If I don't believe in God, and don't have a religious compass, it comes down to issues of personal choice and belief. Well, those, and what one's government allows.

If I believe there is nothing wrong with using animals for meat, labour, or sport, why would I draw the line at them being used in ways which should enhance the health of mankind?

If I believe it's inherently wrong to exploit animals in any way, I'm a dead cert to abhor their use in experimentation and the development of medicines, the farming of their organs, or the use of their skin for burns sufferers, etc., etc.

Thousands of people look at the labels of toiletries, household products, clothing, etc., to ensure that no animal by-products are contained in their manufacture, and accordingly have a perfect right not to use pharmaceuticals which have been made on the foundation of animal experimentation. There are plenty of websites available (and good old-fashioned books) to steer those so minded away from such manufacturers, and onto 'animal-free' ones. Likewise, such people also have the right to refuse treatments which would include the use of animal products such as skin or transplanted parts. It's their call.

What I wouldn't understand was someone proclaiming their rare steak to be delicious, and then saying it was 'cruel' to breed guinea pigs for lab work. From a purely personal point of view, I'd have to say that I couldn't see one form of use from the other, since the end result is dead animals. (Although I believe some chimps and orang-utans are FINALLY donated to zoos for rehabilitation, if someone cavils.)

I eat animal products, I use leather, and I enjoy animals both as sporting creatures and have enjoyed them very much as companions. I cannot turn round and put on a moralizing stance about their use in labs, then. I would only hope that whatever work is done is actually ESSENTIAL, of clear-cut benefit, takes as little time as possible, that the animal is treated well, and that if at all possible does not have to die. Unfortunately, just like the dodginess that is the pet trade, I'm unlikely to ever know, since the more threatened labs are, the more they're likely to be heavily guarded and kept secret.
 
Kri, I still don't see what you mean, at least in the context of this argument. Dom states that those who oppose the use of animals in medical research (I think the claim that that's all they were used for is ludicrous) would be hypocrites to then make use of medicines that had their roots in research using animals. I'm saying that's not the case. Who's to say the medicines wouldn't have been discovered anyway? The protesters are of the view that it is wrong to use animals for any kind of research. That is what they are trying to stop. The animals that have already been sacrificed are beyond their help. However, IMO, it would be criminal to ignore (assuming that was possible) findings based on experiments carried out on them. Ditto for Mengel's work.

I don't think there's a vegetarian alive that, faced with starving themselves to death, wouldn't eat meat in order to stay alive. Does that mean that outwith that scenario all their efforts are worthless and hypocritical? When Dom launched a tirade against Micky Quinn regaining his licence I didn't say "Shut up ya hypocritical bint. Would it be OK if he had sent those horses to the meat man or let a pack of hounds rip them apart". On the contrary, I thought what she said had merit. You're average anti animal rights argument usually degenerates into some crap along the lines of you can't wash your hands because you're commiting mass murder. The simple fact is, if the two extremes are the only possible stances then you'd either have to commit suicide or take a totally nihilistic approach to life.

I also disagree with Mo's assertion that "You're either a fully practicing Catholic or you aren't a Catholic". That implies that you can't be a Catholic without agreeing totally with the papal view. If that was the case change would be impossible. New popes introduce new rules. e.g. I always thought it was nothing short of inhuman that they wouldn't allow suicides to be buried on "concecrated" ground. It smacked of the Catholic church setting itself up as judge and jury. Obviously somewhere along the line a pope agreed with my view. Before he became pope I'm quite sure his view was at odds with the papal one. Does that mean he wasn't a Catholic until he bacame pope?
 
HT, sorry, dearie, but I've lost the will to go any further with this. I honestly can't keep finding new ways to say the same old thing over and over in an effort to make it any clearer!










Not that that is usually a bar to my endless twitterings... ;)
 
I've made my personal pozzie clear, HT. Naturally, we all have different views dependant on our religious beliefs, personal sensibilities, and/or medical circumstances. That goes for this subject and other contentious ones - there's usually little point in attempting to discuss them, in spite of the fact that we do, because they end up in a polemic like the one you've just put up. If you want to make up slogans, make them up in your own name, please, and don't attach them to mine.
 
Derek - I was referring to a specific set of particularly dangerous drugs for which many pretty awful side-effects exist (mostly short-term, thankfully) and are known about but are still used because they save lives. There's a difference between not knowing what side effects there are and not disclosing the side effects.
 
Gareth.
Agree with you there.

But i would say,that given all the testing on Animals and Humans,followed by thousands of deaths,after the fact (so to speak). The Drug companies and the Drug licencers are playing fast and loose with our lives.
 
Back
Top