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
11 comments:
The Anti–animal research extremists are going the wrong way in bombing the researcher’s houses and cars. Violence will only promote more violence and the results are never good for no one. Going after the researchers seems more like a personal agenda than saving animals. What’s absurd to me is that these extremists are willing to take a human life to prove their point, when there are other more important issues. Some people say hunting is a sport but to me a sport is when the two teams know there playing. Shooting an animal on the back just for fun just seems deceptive to me. To me that’s animal cruelty and abuse this makes me realize that we all have a different perspective of animal abuse. Animal testing is not going to stop because it has discovered medicines and cures we would never have found. But hopefully one day it stops like all the other cruel mistakes humanity has done in the past.
I used to own dog and I kept her inside the house all the time that she practically thought she was human too. But there are other people that keep their dogs as guard dogs training them to be ferocious and some used for labor, to me that’s seems cruel. When it comes down to animal rights, I can’t see what kind of rights they should have. The only thing I think we have in common with animal is that we eat, sleep and suffer. All we can do is be more considerate of their pain and suffering. Some people say animals should have more rights but when their eating them, seems kind of contradicting to me.
The type of violence used to stop animal testing is not justified. Animal research is needed because as long as new medicines, transplants are being discovered it’s just leading to better healthcare. Medical progress is crucial and researchers are not going to stop progress because of threats and car fires.
Even though animals do not have rights… we have to understand that humans and animals cannot be compared. Human beings are conscious whereas animals are living organisms but are not conscious of their actions. I am not saying torture animals for our entertainment. We have to be responsible enough to use animal research to benefit the masses of the human race. As long as the study is aimed towards curing a disease or saving human lives, animal research is okay. However, Animal research should not be used for luxury tests used in cosmetics nowadays, performance enhancers, or Botox. The violence created by the extremist of animal rights can never be justified. Basically, their actions portray that animal lives are more valuable than human lives. They are willing to trade life for life in hopes of stopping animal research. By bombing the car of the scientist, they are threatening a human life in order to send a message. Who knows how far they will go next time. I don’t think animal researched should be stopped. There needs to be a compromise between the animal research groups and the anti animal research mediated by the government to make sure that animal research follows a strict guideline. This guideline should include what animal research should be used for or not.
Thanks to animals we have learned how to effectively treat and/or cure many different conditions. If it weren't for the Rhesus monkey we still might not understand why blood donation between humans was sometimes fatal. Because these animals have been used for testing they have also spared people groups from being experimented on without consent.
Animals are living beings and can experience pain, suffering and negative effects from stress. Because they experience these things I feel they have the right to be treated kindly and respectfully. Animals being used for testing do not have the life of an average house pet but I feel they should be able to live a comfortable life within their circumstances. I feel the animals subject to testing have the right to adequate shelter, food, water and space to move. Their housing should be clean and their grooming attended to. I feel that this shows respect to them and would be ethical treatment. Another argument for animal testing is that, according to law, no new drug can be used on humans if it has not been tested on animals first. If we did not use animal testing now or in the near future perhaps a newly developed cure for cancer could not be used on an ailing cancer patient. If in the future we develop an ethical way to test treatments and drugs without using animals of course I would opt to go with such an approach. Until then animal testing is one of the more effective ways of learning.
The animal rights activists who have been engaging in violent acts against other humans, to me, are using unethical means. It is good that a person has a right to protest regardless of whether they are protesting something I agree or disagree with. The idea of free speech is part of our rights as Americans. When protesters turn to violence though they are imposing on the free speech and personal rights of another individual. This is in no way ethical. The argument by animal rights activist and physician Jerry Vlasak "Force is a poor second choice, but if that's the only thing that will work ... there's certainly moral justification for that." I disagree with this and believe it is unethical. You are infringing on the rights of another person when protesting turns to force and violence and from a logical point of view their are other options. That is why the United States has a legal system and legal representatives. To me violence is not an option in protesting animal rights.
human use and pleasure. Animals have no legal rights, but they do deserve legal protection from abuse and neglect. I believe that cruelty and neglect of domestic animals are crimes. I feel that in many instances animals should have the same rights to dignity as humans. We have a responsibility to treat the other creatures with whom we share this planet with decency
In addition, recent studies have found a critical link between animal abuse and human violence. The individuals who are committing the crimes, are only being non-rational and violent. What does a car bombing really have to do with the rights of animals? A non material object can and most likely will be replaced but an animal's quality of life could still be limited. What have they really accomplished? While it may be true that it will get the vehicle owners notice and that individual may decide that animal research is not worth the financial costs on their part, there will be other researchers that will decide that the financial cost outweighs the value of the research being conducted.
Animals have been used a tools for many years to explore methods of saving humanity and for keeping humanity healthy. Humans often reason that animals are not capable the same types of feeling that a humans has such as guilt, remorse, the ability to apologize, reason or have conversation. By this standard animals are not on an equal and morally logical level as humans. If humans are not willing to undergo the testing, how can we force animals to take our place? Initially we didn't think that animals were able to feel pain so this argument didn't exist. But, we now know that animals are able to feel pain, so this becomes a valid argument. Even though animals do feel pain in the same way as humans, have similar central nervous system pathways, and similar pain receptors, animals suffer less due to their incapability to remember and anticipate pain.
They however do, in my opinion have basic personalities and know what pain is as well as have some basic show of emotion. They do know when someone is not being nice to them and often retaliate when they have been hurt by their aggressors. In this case, I feel that animals have their basic rights of dignity violated. They should not be subjected to pain. If a human, must have a procedure that will most likely result in pain, we received anesthesia and later pain medication. Should an animal not receive that also?
While I do not agree with animal research as a whole, I do believe that it has been instrumental in bringing humans cures and knowledge that we would not have gotten otherwise. Morally I find it unsettling that we subject animals to often unnecessary research that does not lead to anywhere. I can logically understand why this process is done, but it does not make it any easier to feel good about.
Yvette Ferguson
I believe animals have a right to enjoy life as we do. What I mean by this is that they should not be disturbed unless they are being used for test subjects to better the human race. Animals were made to live outside, each one of them are given survival tactics just as we are. So I believe if we suffer, they can suffer as well if they can be put to sleep, we can as well, if we are in extreme discomfort. Now as for the justification to bomb and do any physical harm to the scientist that use animals for study purposes. These people should go to jail, they are obvisously committing a crime. We can't go around being destructive and violent because we don't agree with what a scientist or someone is doing. Scientist have gone to school and have a right to experiment freely within a civilized realm of practice as long as it hasn't harmed a human or jeopardized their life in any way. Why not improve human lives through animal expermentation? It's saving the human race which is slowly killing itself through violence,disbeliefs, and ignorance.
Although animals do not have any specified rights, I believe that we have a responsibility as the human race to not cause undue harm to animals. I think it is unethical to torture, abuse, or neglect animals in any way. When it comes to animals being used for scientific research, I don’t necessarily like it, but I do understand that without animal testing, we would not have a lot of the life saving medications that we have today. I wish there were other ways to obtain the critical information gained from animal research, but unfortunately, there are not at this point in time.
I do not think that animals should have all the same rights as humans. It would be pretty absurd if cats and dogs had the right to bear arms or to choose whether or not they were spayed or neutered. They’d shoot their owners for taking them to the vet. I do think that animals should be entitled to living a respectful existence without unwarranted pain and suffering.
As for the animal rights extremists that think it is acceptable to firebomb the cars and buildings of researchers as a means to stop animal research, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is one thing to exercise your right to free speech by peacefully protesting. It is a completely different issue when someone turns to violence to express their opinions. Violence imposes on other people’s rights to their opinions, beliefs, and overall well-being. These extremists are saying that the life of a human is less than that of any animal. It is by no means any more ethical to blow up a human than it is to blow up an animal. Violence of this nature will only lead to more violence in the long run. It is completely unacceptable to endanger someone's life or cause them harm to get a point across.
I do not believe in the pointless suffering or torture of any being. However, I feel that animal research is warranted in order to make innovative and live-saving advances in health care and sciences. I find it difficult to comment on these articles simply because I do not know the specific reasons for why these extremists attacked and on what grounds. I understand that they do not agree with animal research, but what is it that they do not agree with. My point is that if such individuals try to justify their actions in the name of suffering and violence, then they are in direct violation of this. If you want to look at these issues through this perspective then are these extremists not causing harm to animals—humans—as well? In my opinion, all credibility is lost and such extremists are cowards as they will not even come forward and state their reasons to try and justify their actions. If their beliefs are that all living things have rights that should be protected, then my rebuttal is to ask the question, “Have such individuals ever taken antibiotics to combat an illness? After all, the bacteria that such medications kill are living things. If the view is one of religion then my argument is that—from a Christian perspective—is that we are to love our neighbors, and how do such acts of terror reflect love? However, I realize that many people interpret religion so as to best serve their own needs; moreover, not everyone is Christian either. I am not making an argument about religion, that is a can of worms best left unopened. I am simply trying to understand the reasoning behind these types of actions other than “it’s wrong,” as this is not an argument and does not convince me of anything except that the perpetrators are cowardly, ignorant, and reckless. I find this position paper tough, simply because the articles do not state the motives of those involved. In closing I will say that I support animal research in the name of the advancement of health care and other sciences simply because the information gained through this research can potentially save many lives and enhance many more. I will support animal testing in the future as well. If you have a good argument, bring it.
In the animal right’s extremism article, I feel that what the animal right’s extremism did was completely unethical. You can’t just blow up someone else’s car to prove a point. The animal right’s extremism group aren’t going to get any positive attention from people and that might even hinder their chances of promoting more followers. There organization will just get shut down. They could have definitely gone another way about it. Now that they have actually gone out of their way to damage someone’s property, no one is going to want to hear their message or how they feel that their actions were justified. Its acts like these that ruin it for the other people that are pro animal rights that are handling the matter in a more mature, professional way. Who knows there might be some people out there that are now completely against these kind of groups/organizations, just because what happen to UCLA.
I understand that people can be passionate about things, but to be heard and understood….I don’t think promoting violence is going to do it for anyone. There just sending the wrong kind of message to people. I do believe that animal testing should be continued and not be ended. Without animal testing we wouldn’t have effective treatments for severe conditions or cures for others. I think it’s extremely important that animal testing continues and that no interruptions are prohibited. It’s because of animal testing that our medical procedures, medicines, treatments and equipment have advance so much over time.
I do believe that animals have rights, but I also believe that there’s an extent to that. I’m in no favor to animal cruelty. I don’t think any animal should suffer for our testing anyway. With that being said, I think that any animal that is going under any physical testing that could let them feel pain should be sedated or given pain medications at least to the point where they’re not suffering considering they’re helping us so much by giving us more data.
I find it very difficult to sympathize with these groups of animal rights extremists when they use methods of violence, and intimidation. In these incidences, where bombs are being left at researchers homes, property is being destroyed, and threatening emails/phone calls being made; I think it can accurately be called terrorism targeting animal researchers. I think resorting to these extreme types of tactics really has an adverse effect. I do not think the general public will want to listen to their grudges against animal research and will write them off as crazy. Whatever the cause is that someone is trying to support, they lose all credibility when they cross over the line into violence. Another contradiction here is, their problem is with the way animals are being treated and yet they act in ways that might lead to death of another animal (the human kind). I believe animals should be respected and treated with kindness. I do believe where animals are kept as pets, used in research, raised for food, or used for work (ex: farm), they have the rights to food, water, shelter (clean & adequate), veterinary care, to be treated with dignity and to be respected. I think treating them with kindness comes inherently with the rest of these rights. I believe animals derive these rights from the same place(s) that humans do, and that is essentially that we are feeling and thinking beings. I believe animals are capable of feeling certain emotions (happy, scared, etc.), as they undoubtedly are able to feel pain. Since they are able to feel pain, animals should be anesthetized similarly to the way humans are when it comes to painful procedures. Although I am not necessarily a big fan of testing being done on animals, I see no other acceptable means to accomplish the many things such testing does. Testing on animals has had the effect(s) of finding medical vaccinations, treatments, cures, developing better drugs and offering a way to make products safer. Modern medicine and the human race certainly owe a lot to the results and achievements from animal testing research. It would be easy to argue that humans live much more healthy, longer and enhanced lives thanks to the knowledge gained through animal testing. As a result and at the least, I feel we owe these animals subjects all of the rights mentioned above and to be treated with dignity/kindness. When it comes to people opposed to animal testing and research, I can understand the point of view they are coming from. I can see how one could be against drugs and chemicals being used to test on animals. Also, I can understand how it could really upset someone seeing the new types of medical procedures and scientific methods being developed on these animals. However, when it comes to using violence as means to an end, I totally disagree. These groups have just gone too far with their belief that they will gain something through violence. The only thing I see that they have gained is condemnation from the public, which has the opposite effect of what they want.
Animal rights extremism “Car bombing”
What rights, if any, do animals have?
In this country, animals are considered property so they really have no rights. But I believe if they are going to use animals as test subjects then the most care should be given to as the animal is not tortured or forced to undergo treatments that causes their death just for testing. I understand animal testing has brought about many cures to many diseases and are used to test products to make sure they are safe for humans. However, that does not mean we as humans have the right to make our animals suffer just in the name of a cure. I completely believe in animal testing as long as it is done in a humane manner. If it was not for animal, testing there are diseases and products out on the market that could kill humans because then no one would know the side effects until it was too late. So yes animals should have some rights but they cannot be put above the rights of humans who need their service to live.
Is the type of violence discussed in these articles ever justified as a means to stop animal research?
Violence is never the answer if someone has problems with the way animals are used for testing; there are a lot of ways to voice your opinion without killing or hurting the people who do the testing. If they want to go to the government and file complaints or even file a lawsuit against the companies they believe are not following the guidelines set up by the animal protection act. No animal’s life is worth killing a human being. Stalking and harassing the workers who do the tests is not going to make testing stop. The companies will just hire new employees to complete the testing and nothing will have changed but the names of the researchers. However, if they were able to get new laws passed to protect the animals then a real change could occur.
I dont think that the Anti-animal research extremists are taking things the right way. It is wrong to to compare a human being to an animal. I do agree in Animal testing but to a certain extend where it is used to help cure diseases for human beings who are suffering but i would not agree in harming an animal for any other purposes. In the united states i believe that animal testing will never stop and i am pretty sure its been going on for years. It is something that is needed to help with the living of a human.
Post a Comment