Read the articles and commentary below about animal rights extremists and the recent car firebombings. What rights, if any, do animals have? Why or why not? Is the type of violence discussed in these articles ever justified as a means to stop animal research?
Animal Research Activists Firebomb Car
Press Release from UCLA Newsroom
More on the UCLA Firebombing
From the LA Times
Commentary on Animal Rights Extremists
From Adventures in Ethics and Science Blog
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
What exactly do the animal rights extremist think they are accomplishing by violence? Is their violence successful in stopping the research being done with the use of animals? I would say not! The research is still going on and although they may be successful in maybe causing someone to stop working at the specific research firm they are employed by, this group is not accomplishing anything else but that. Research with the use of animals is still ongoing and I am totally opposed to the use of violence to accomplish something of this nature. This is not Auschwitz or the slavery days of the past when we had to resort to violence just to preserve the rights of the human being. I agree that animals should be treated with dignity and respect if they are to be used for research, any other treatment is inhumane. However, just like you can't change the beliefs of the extremists doing the bombing, you can't change the minds of the scientists conducting the research for what they believe to be for the 'greater good of mankind'. PETA and PCRM are mis-using funds when they take money raised to support their cause and use it to legally defend those that use violence to get their point across. This is just another form of terrorism and is completely irresponsible on PETA and PCRM's part. This type of behavior can be likened to defending terrorist acts against the US, so how is the violence of the animal extremists any different? Violence is violence no matter which way you slice it and non-profits or even for-profit organizations should be in support of any violence for peaceful outcome. What other options would these individuals have scientific researchers use to get the job done? How would they feel if we had human trials? Would that make them feel better since now we are not using animals for the research, but actual humans? Without the use of animals we would not have been able to do successfully do a heart transplant, which was successfully done on an animal before it was successfully done on a human. If we take on the distorted belief of Jerry Vlasak in which he believes that, "force is a poor second choice, but if that's the only thing that will work...there's certainly moral justification for that", then we as a society will not be able to move forward with scientific breakthroughs because we will all be in fear that some extreme organization will come after us because we are using plants or dirt for science and that's just ridiculous. (L.A. Times, Tim Rutten and scienceblog.com, Janet Stemwedel, 2009)
I feel that some people put the rights of animals before the rights of their fellow human being. Don’t get me wrong I care about the welfare of all animals but at a point does it becomes too much. In the articles the so-call anti- animal activists firebomb a car, that’s taking it too far for me. When a groups protesting can/could potently hurt or in worst cases kill another human being that when you are no longer a group of people caring about an issue you are now terrorists. I believe that as long as the research that is done on these animals are beneficial to the human race it okay. When I say beneficial I mean that can help in finding cures for disease and other things dealing with helping the human race maintain a healthy life. I don’t believe in using animals for entertainment I just feel that that is curl and people who use animals for that propose should be convicted for animal abuse. The activists where wrong in their actions, perhaps right with their concerns. Due to their actions I think they should be arrested and convicted, put the life’s of other in danger.
Animals have the same basic rights that any human being has. However, these rights only go to a certain extent. For example, would we prosecute a lion for killing a gazelle? Are we going to force beavers to pay property tax every time they build a new damn? The extent of animals’ rights should go back to what was said in the Bible, just plain and simple “treat others the way you would like to be treated.”
The use of animals for testing is I agree to a certain extent inhumane but, testing products on animals that do not in any way hurt the animal or kill them I believe should be allowed. As long as it is a reasonable experimentation and there is no harm. If there is no purpose behind the experimentation then I believe it shouldn’t be done.
The recent acts of the extremists to stop animal testing (the car bombing of the UCLA researchers car) are in fact not helping the situation any better. Either way it is a degradation of the quality of life in which no one is winning because it’s either save the supposed endangered animal or take a life. The movement towards better rights for animals has been put on hold because not only did it make tighter security available to the researchers but it didn’t get any point across. The bombings didn’t help make the researchers see the light they didn’t reconsider any of their research and decide to stop it instead they just shrugged it off and carried on. The bombings were described (in the comments I read) as “an unnecessary temper tantrum and an irrational intrusion into civil society.” Meaning that people thought that the bombings were indeed outrageous and an ill attempt to discontinue animal research.
The unidentified UCLA professor and neuroscientist was persecuted for using primates in his study of psychiatric disorders. In this specific type of scenario I believe that scientifically primates are pretty close to us on the evolutionary chart. So therefore the experimentation of psychiatric disorders on a primate wouldn’t be any different than experimentation on you and me. With this, I rule there is no harm no foul situation. This is a reasonable study to do compare to the testing of make-up on animals I think is very unnecessary. If women want free make-up then the scientist should bring them in to test it on them and have them sign liability papers if anything goes wrong. Everyone will be happy; I think that there should be more alternatives to studies that just using animal because they are most compatible with us.
With all of this said and done yes I believe animals deserve better rights when it comes to certain situations if the animal is any way, shape, or form hurt by an experiment then it should be stopped. If the experiment isn’t harming the animal in any way then the experiment should be allowed. As far as the acts of extremists go I believe they all need to be locked up and have psychiatric evaluations because there logic is just a little off.
Animal rights sometimes referred to as animal liberation, imply that the same consideration entitled to human beings are also relevant to the most basic welfare of animals. However, animals are not legal persons and members of the moral community. I do not believe animals are capable of entering into a social agreement or able to make moral choices. Consequently animals cannot be look upon as possessors of rights. I do not believe that there is anything essentially unethical in using animals for medical research and testing, for food and domestic pets; given that there is no unnecessary suffering.
Medical research has saved the lives of millions of people. Even animals have benefited from the research. I believe animals are necessary for scientific research, medicine development and safety testing. Animals are vital for the understanding of the human body, in health and in the state disease; to help develop new and improved medical treatments. There have been many noteworthy discoveries using animals for study from bees, cats, dogs and even armadillos. The more I learned about animal medical research, the more I began to understand that animal research isn’t a barbaric ritual that mad scientist perform just to see what may happen if… I have come to understand that today’s animal medical research is treated compassionately. The laws that have been set in place assure that animals are cared for and are not unnecessarily harmed. While I feel that animal research is a necessary form of research, I do not believe that animals should be needlessly disregarded just in the name of science, and those that do so are wrongly justified.
I do not agree that violence is the way to voice your contrary opinion. Violence, scare tactics, and vandalism cannot possibly send a possitive message. In fact these types of potesting often have the opposite affect on the fight for animal rights.
I believe all animals have the right to respect. No matter what we do, research on animals wont go away but at least treat the animals with respect. Just because they are not "capable of entering into a social agreement or able to make moral choices" doesnt mean they aren't entitled to respect. I do see why the majority of animal research is performed but as long as its reasonable research and there is actually a purpose behind it as opposed to doing something just to see what will happen just for fun.
I dont believe that the violence discussed in these articles is ever justified as a means to stop animal research. Youre fighting violence with violence? That makes no sense and its totally contradicting what you say you believe in. They could start an organization to try to get their point accross, but car bombing the researchers vehicle is going to get you no where.
I don’t know really what they are going to solve by going to the extreme of these aggressive attacks. I find no justification in bombing vehicles, vandalizing or making threatening phone calls. What if an innocent by stander was killed in this malicious attack by bombing a vehicle? They are proving that they are no better than the people they are proclaiming are inhumane; they are the ones who are committing a crime.
I believe animals should have the same rights to an extent as humans. Don’t get me wrong, I love my animals and I treat my dogs like they are apart of the family, but they are still my dogs. Animal research has been going on for years and I think there has been some control in how extreme they are using the animals in testing. With the testing that is going on in the UCLA testing lab the research under went extreme review by an independent committee of well informed scientist, veterinarians and members of the general public to ensure scientific necessity and humane treatment. In this case or with any other testing I feel as long as the research is managed and no unnecessary suffering is being done, we need to stop and think about us as human beings. We still have to think about the good that is coming out of all the research. I feel that if they can make a break through and find a cure for cancer and give a child an opportunity to live a life time or find the control for Alzheimer or psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, as well as drug addiction and other disorders. This research could give human beings there life back and give them the quality of life they deserve. We all have the right to fight in what we believe in, but I don’t feel it is right for them to support a position that is supporting violence.
I think it is pretty easy to agree that arson is never a proper option when attempting to protest. As it stands nobody was hurt in the preceding incident, but how long until somebody is? If we live in a society where fire bombings are an acceptable form of protest than how long until the acts are directed towards the researchers themselves as opposed to just their property? I think it is easy say that peaceful protest and the seeking of legislation against animal cruelty would be the most effective and morally justified if one was seeking to end animal research.
I also think that a key phrase is animal cruelty as opposed to animal research. I believe I’d be hard pressed at best to find anybody in favor of animal cruelty…except those who enjoyed the “crushing videos” we spoke about in class, but even those people could benefit quite a bit from the psychiatric research the UCLA researcher was doing. I do believe that animals are sentient beings and as such deserve opportunities to live with dignity and be treated with respect. I don’t think they should be subject to tests that will yield no greater good. If an animal was able to enter a social contract, who’s to say they would not undergo some testing that will result in health benefits and longer lives for their species? The prevailing scientific thought I would surmise is that some animals are capable of higher level functions such as tool use, social structures etc., but I feel it would be a far stretch to assume that my dog is any more interested in why I’m not throwing his toy than the testing his kind went through years ago to make sure my shampoo is safe. I feel this is where a distinction must be drawn as animals are capable of some higher level thinking, but as far as we know not about the greater issues affecting society as a whole.
I think the foremost consideration is that the animals not undergo any excessive harm and that the research being done will in fact lead to a very clear and helpful result.
What the animal activists did, I believe, was not right and not justified. However, the animal activists knew that they had to do more than protest with their banners and signs outside to try and get their point across. They had to take action. Like I said earlier however, the action taken was too extreme. This type of violence is not justified. I believe that animals have many rights that are the same as human beings. Like humans, animals should have the right to life and liberty. Many of these tests done on animals lead to death. Most people in the world would agree that testing on humans leading to death would be wrong so why is it different for animals? As far as I am concerned, anything living has some sort of rights. One can clearly see that the liberty right is not being enforced to protect these animals. I can only assume that these animals do not want to be tested on by these professionals. This is a clear violation of their right of liberty, I believe. One can only assume, just like humans, animals do not like being taken advantage of.
From my perspective, I do believe that animals have all the rights that human can have. Animals can live their lives without the interfering from human. The reason is because animals are also species that live on Earth. Human are superior than animals, but it does not mean that we have the right to exploit animals for our own benefits. Animals have been helpmates for human for many years. They are not just a vulnerable species that we can exploit. Instead, they are our friends on Earth that we should live in peace with. However, humans take advantage of them mercilessly by eating them, using them for entertainment, making them work. Even crueler, we now use animals in many ruthless experimentations for our own profits. I think that we should protect each other instead of taking profit from the less intelligent species. In addition, animals have the same right to live on the Earth as humans have. For example, if there are species that are superior to humans, and they need to use humans as experimental animals, would we allow it to happen? I do believe that all of us would fight for our rights of living as a species on the Earth. Animals that humans use in the experiments cannot fight back, but it does not mean we have the right to kill them. We should respect their lives as our own. Many critics argue that animals are less intelligent and do not have the “soul” as human do. Therefore, human can do whatever we want on animals. However, if we use intelligence as an excuse to justify our behaviors, it is not good excuse. There are many babies with anencephalic and elders with mental disability. Their intelligence is much lesser than animals, so why don’t we use these people in the experiments? In addition, it makes more sense to test drugs on humans instead of animals because animals’ anatomies are not exactly like humans’ anatomies. Animals’ bodies react to drugs differently than humans, and animals are not comparable to humans. Any animals’ biology has a lot of differences from a human organism. Why do we keep doing such tests on animals? The reason that most people would agree that this use of exploitation of humans is morally reprehensible is based on a fundamental respect for life and its inherent value. There is not a strong enough ethical ground to ignore this respect for life when it comes to animals, since these non-human species also possess life, which it can be argued has its own inherent value. I am not saying that we as humans cannot do anything to animals. My point is that we should respect the rights of animals. We can eat animals because it is necessary for our survival, but using animals in experiments will never be justified. I think that the type of violence discussed in the articles will never be justified either. We are living in a modern society, and our country has rules. Even though the intention of these people is to protect the rights of animals, but they violate the rights of humans. By doing such actions, they directly harm the physical and emotional well being of the researchers in UCLA. Therefore, their actions will never be justified. Their primary argument is that it is wrong to prioritize human rights over animal rights, and that ethical standards should be applies to all species. However, these actions show a disrespect for human rights and are just as unethical (if not more so) as the treatment that they oppose.
Animal research has been part of science and medical treatment for years. At first there weren’t any protocols, regulations or guidelines as to how the animals should be treated before, during and after such research are being conducted. But now things are different, there are regulating bodies and watch groups to oversee and protect and make sure the animals are treated humanely; and also to ensure there’s no irrelevant research being preformed on animals. Presently animals are used to find cures, vaccines, antibiotics, and life sustaining treatments, they are also used to prefect surgical procedures and test new medical devices in fact animal research has resulted in medical advances for both humans and animals.
I think animals have rights; they have the right to be treated humanely, and only be used in research that’s truly needed nevertheless, there are animals rights groups like people for Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) that believe animals should not be used for treatment, pets or food because it is immoral and we as humans would not treat other humans in such a manner, according to PETA animals are equal to humans and we should treat them as equals. On the other hand the researchers believe animal research is beneficial to both humans and animals as long as the guidelines and regulations that are in place to ensure the animals are being treated humanely and the research is relevant then it’s okay. However, Philosopher Jeremy Benthan claims if animals can feel pain and suffering, then it is immoral and unacceptable use them in research, conversely, Descartes a Philosopher believed animals operate on instinct but do not have the ability to feel pain and suffering as we see there are several reasons why animals should or should not be a part of research. In my opinion I think animal research should only be conducted on animals when its justified and animals have the right to be treated humanely.
Anytime some one intentionally tries to harm another animal or human or bring destruction to public property, they need to be arrested and charged accordingly. PETA may claim they’re a peaceful organization but when as an organization you take part in or support such un-American act son domestic soil then that is considered an act of terrorism, domestic terrorism which was never acceptable before 911; it absolutely is not acceptable now and could never be justified in my eyes.
Animals become important when they become part of a family. The problem is why shouldn’t all other animals get treated the same way. Human beings are superior to animals and what rights they do have we give to them. Animals are pets and they are part of our diet. Animal cruelty has become a big thing, but there are incidences that we allow it, when it comes to our food we kill innocent animals to feed ourselves. The animals that are being tested on are also helping us come up with cures and other things. Animals should have rights but we have used them to find cures and products that work on humans so is that wrong if in turn they are helping us in the end should it be ok.
I understand that animal cruelty is unfair but I do not think the aggressive attacks are going to help the situation. Give some facts; make a case on why animal cruelty should not be allowed. To get your voice heard I do think some extremes should be taken but not when it harms another life. To destroy a life or building you are breaking the rules and that should not go unpunished. Car bombings will not stop animal research from happening if it is working why would they stop. Stricter laws need to be enforced where both sides win where animals can still be a resource as long and that animal cruelty is not abused.
Animals have the same basic rights that we have as human beings. I agree animals are not equal to human beings and that they do not have certain rights that we have (e.g., freedom of speech, the right to vote, ECT). But that does not mean that they deserve abuse, neglect, and other horrible treatment simply because cognitively they are not our equal. Human beings seem to ignore the simple fact that we are not the only ones who have a right to be here. Animals have every right to be here; in fact many of them were here even before we were. One of the things that I just do not understand is how it is okay for human beings to mistreatment animals. Take a dog for instance, how is it ethical for this animal to undergo abuse like being chained up with out water or shelter from the sun for days on end? Yet, if a human being were to put another human being in situation like that, it would be identified as sick, wrong and someone would be going to jail. Its not just house pets, take farm animals as another example, how is it ethical for these animals to be fed ground up parts from others like them? It obviously would not be ethical to force a human to eat something like that, yet its okay for them. To add to that, wild animals are also having their basic rights violated as well. They are losing their homes at an astounding rate; some are being hunted to the point of extinction and much more. Anyone ever here the motto “Do onto others as you want done on to yourself?” “Others”, not just people, but other living things; no one ever thinks about how it would feel to have some of the things we put the animals through happened to us. As I stated in the beginning, animals should have their basic rights respected, but I do agree that they should not be given the constitutional rights we have. I do agree that animal testing is okay, but only if there is no severe and permanent harm done. Lastly, I do not agree with the violence displayed in the firebombing. Acting violently is never the way to go because in doing something like that you are no better than the people committing the horrible act. Violence does not solve anything and only makes things worse. The most powerful thing we can do is use our voices to get the message across.
I believe that an animal’s life should be treated with respect and dignity. Even though an animal might not be able to communicate the same way human beings communicate they are a part of our society and should be treated with respect and dignity and deemed the right to have their life valued. I would not go as far to say that an animal’s life is equal to that of a human being. Human beings have the ability to communicate, express desires and wants, and therefore verbalizing their claims to be treated fairly and with respect. Animals have yet to verbalize these same aspects to human beings. Thus we have the birth and formation of PETA. The goal of this organization is to press for more laws protecting animals and promoting animal rights. It is there hope to establish the natural rights of all animals. PETA and other animal rights groups believe medical tests on animals violate what should be the right of animals to live a life free of suffering.
I understand the point PETA is trying to make and believe they have accomplished a good many goals by establishing laws to protect animals amidst medical research and testing. However without the ability to perform medical research on animals where would the medical advancements and medical discoveries be today. Would researchers have made so many advances if they were performing test on human subjects? Just as there is an order of survival amongst animals themselves, the stronger animals survive by killing and preying on the weaker animals. There is an order of survival amongst animals and humans. It is not that we are purposely killing off animals, but animals are being sacrificed to a certain extent to fortify the human race by developing safe medical drugs and treatments. Animals are sacrificing their lives and well beings for the sake of human kind. Because of these sacrifices which yes we as humans are taking without their verbal consent but we do not speak the animal language no one does not even PETA, it is only right and necessary for rules and regulations to be established to show humanity and respect and treat these animals with dignity while they are being used for medical research. This is not only humane of us to do, but this is the right of all animals that should be protected and enforced. It is morally and ethically correct for us to show are thanks and gratitude to the animals we use in research facilities to ensure and support human survival and progress.
I believe that there is no type of violence that is ever justified as a means to stop animal research. According to Marta Holmberg, PETA’s senior street coordinator, “PETA fights against all forms of cruelty to animals and supports the rights of all animals to a free and natural life. We believe that animals have the right not to be used by humans for food, to make clothing, for all forms of testing, and for entertainment.” If this is the official stance for PETA, then are they valuing animal life above human life? How can they justify violence as a means to get their point across? Animal right activists are fire bombing researcher’s cars and residences. They are also making threatening phone calls and emails. These violent acts can kill, maim or injure the researcher who is a human being. Is his life not worth valuing at least a little? PETA is supporting the antics of animal rights activist by posting their bail and bond money and hiring the lawyers to defend them in court. This makes no sense to me and cannot be justified at all. I believe that rules and regulations need to be in place to establish guidelines so that animals are being treated humanely and with dignity and respect especially when they are being used in medical research to aid in the advancement of finding cures for diseases. I do not support the means and lengths which animal rights activist use to get their point across. They are just as guilty as someone who is cruel to animals.
Once again we find that humans put their own interests first before anything else. Animal research is a disguised term that we all can buy, I mean, after all it’s for the sake of mankind, right? By experimenting on animals we might find treatments for schizophrenia, AIDS, or drug addiction, so, there is no losing in carrying on with these experiments. No matter what happens, if a deadly disease is spread across the world or if a meteor is going to impact the planet, human beings must prevail. Having written that in a sarcastic manner, in reality, animals don’t have any rights if it involves a human’s interest. They are disposable beings although we like to think that they have the same rights as us. They can’t sue the researcher that takes their blood and injects their body with disease. It’s the law of the jungle actually; the only difference is that humans are naturally cruel. We like to go to the arena and watch the bull being slaughtered by the man with the sword, go hunting just to have their lifeless remains as a price, or just kill them for fun, because in the end they are inferior to us. Although we might have some animals as pets, it is clear that we prefer specific animals over others. When it comes to experimentation on an animal we tend to feel compassion for the puppy or the kitty but not for the rat or the chimpanzee. Who’s going to stand up to defend these animals? For taking an interest in the well being of animals I fully support and applaud activists, but it’s not a good thing to be an extremist of any kind. I don’t agree with the bombing of the researcher’s vehicle, but I don’t condemn it either. Anti-animals research extremists are not justified when they cause violent acts such as this one, but I can only imagine their impotence when their voices are not being heard, when they stand outside with their banners and they are simply ignored or arrested in some cases. I believe it’s because of this that they recur to violent acts (although no one was hurt in this incident in particular), because people always pay attention to violence when it happens to them. How much is an animal’s life worth then? How about hundreds of animals? I would love for animals to have the same rights as us but it’s impossible. We are selfish beings and we can’t accept competition in this global domination.
Animals have rights and should be treated with respect because they too are living creatures that feel pain. The animals used for research should be treated in a humane and ethical manner and should be made as comfortable as possible. I understand that scientific research needs to be done and relies on animal specimens to cure human diseases.
Unfortunately experimenting on animals is inevitable. As an animal lover myself, I sympathize for the animals selected as specimens and debate between sympathy for these animals versus the greater good to save human lives. In regards to PITA/PCRM activists I completely condone freedom of speech and respect their belief system. However, I strongly disagree when the form of communication becomes violent. There is NO justifying the car bombings and with this type of behavior it will only lead to innocent victims getting hurt. The behavior of these extremists should be punished and animal research needs to continue. Although, I prefer that they use rats and other undesirable animals. I hate to think that they use dogs, although I am sure they do. As for the celebrities and animal activist they should pick a side reevaluate their beliefs without contradicting themselves. A true vegetarian, animal activist needs to take into account and make sure actions line up with their beliefs. Are they wearing leather shoes, enjoying leather goods such as wallets and designer handbags, eating the occasional steak or contributing to the cow slaughtering fast food burger joints?
Since the very beginning of time animals have played a major role in human society. Animals were hunted for food and their skin and bones were used for tools, clothing, and shelter. Later animals were domesticated and were eventually used for many other purposes. I do not believe animals have what we call rights because in the natural wild environment in which they live, they kill and eat each other all the time. So in reality we can’t really assume animals have any legal rights. Now what we can insure is legal protection from abuse and neglect. I don’t believe people should hurt animals unnecessarily just for sport animals have feelings they can feel pain so just by knowing that alone people shouldn’t just kill animals for the sake of a trophy or a stuffed bear head or something to that nature. I agree with using animals for medically necessary medical research purposes and for food consumptions. Because according to the Food Pyramid meats supply certain essential nutrients that we can’t really consume in other types of foods, which are necessary for our survival. And if humans are at the top of the food chain then I assume it is in our nature for us to hunt animals for food just as they hunt each other for food.
I don’t believe the use of violence is justified in any situation. How can the anti-animal research extremist want to protect animal rights when they don’t even know how to follow the laws of the land? To bomb a UCLA neuroscientists vehicle was very irresponsible and shows no regard for human life and if you don’t care about human life how can you care about animal life. If the extremists want anyone to take them serious they first need to lead by setting a good example and that doesn’t entail acts of violence.
Post a Comment