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
Due Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
In this case, I do not believe that animals have many rights. Just because they are being used for medical research, does not mean that they are being abused. I believe that the animals being used for research have the right to be fed, bathed when necessary, and to be euthanized if/when they begin to suffer. Without animals to do research on, we wouldn't have the opportunity to make great advancements in the medical community. It is much better to test on animals than it is to test on human beings. I don't think that PETA or any other animal right activist groups bullying should shut down something that could potentially save a lot of peoples lives. New medications and treatment options are needed in the medical community and animals are much better test subjects than humans are. People may not like it but it is completely necessary.
Chelsea Holgate
I believe that animals do have rights. I think that animal testing is necessary, and as long as the animals are treated humanely should be an option for medical studies. There should be rules that are enforced to treat the animals in a respectful and humane way, and if the animals are harmed for any reason they should be kept in a pain free state if possible, or euthanized. I believe that animals should not be harmed in testing, but I do realize that accidents can happen and testing is unpredictable. I do not think that the violence discussed in the articles is justifiable. Harming another person because you disagree with what they do for a living is uncalled for. Peaceful protests may take longer, but violent protests send the wrong message to the people you are trying to reach.
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.
think the question "do animals have rights" is quite provacative! I say this because it implies that animals do not have rights at all. I think animals do have rights just as we humans do. I would go as far as saying that the rights of animals and the rights of humans are mutually inclusive, that is if you believe in one, you must believe in the other. I remember a former blog post for this class where a speaker of a video posted said something along the lines of just because animals lack the intellectual tool that we humans enjoy, it does not follow that they have no rights. They have the rights to live and they have the rights not to be used for drug testing and experiments. On the flip side of the coin, some drugs and experiments require to be tested and since humans cannot be used, I think it's reasonable to use animals inasmuch as the drug and the experiment being tested is not harmful to them. Experiments, and clincal testing are fundemantal pillars of Science and for science to advance, they must be done so one way or another. I think we must find a way to reconcile the two ideas and create guidlines that clearly state where the line must be drawn. Coming to the point of violence being used as means to achieve "good" ends, I think it is not justified. Especially in this case where cars have been bombed. These types of matters can be resolved without resorting to violence and to claim that you are trying to achieve a noble cause by using violence is contradictory. Noble causes are achieved through noble methods.
Think about the Tuskegee experiments. One cannot seriously equate the atrocities of infecting healthy human beings with syphilis AFTER A CURE WAS DISCOVERED to using animals for testing medications and treatments that have a goal of curing diseases. Animals DO have rights, but they do not supersede the rights of humans. Testing on animals is unfortunate but I believe it is a necessary evil in order for us to continue forward on our quest to cure illnesses. Therefore, the rights of animals is overruled by the greater good of finding treatments for schizophrenia, drug addiction, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease and cancer in humans. This was stated in one of the articles, almost verbatim to what I said: “there is no moral equivalence between the lives of humans and those of animals.” This is absolutely true. However, there will always be people that feel otherwise and this is going to happen as long as animal testing continues. But to me, this behaviors of animal rights extremists, or any extremists for that matter, are as ridiculous as headlines that read, “Pro-lifer shoots man in church,” or “Pro-life extremist snipes abortion doctor in home.” You CAN'T call yourself pro-life and shoot someone because their beliefs don’t mesh with yours, not any more than you can be a supporter of animal rights and then attack someone or set their car on fire. Humans are animals was well, we only distance ourselves from being animals because we have developed cognitive reasoning. But when we look at the length of time that humans have been on this Earth in comparison to the time frame of technological advancement, we are just barely out of the caves. So of course, as long as we have lower levels of moral/ethical development, we will continue to act like animals. There were two blips from the articles that I think hit the nail on the head, to me at least. “A tantrum masquerading as a movement,” is what I believe to be a perfect characterization of extremist behavior in general; it is a usage of emotional reasoning coupled with lower levels of moral development. I see it as grossly childish behavior in adults that pass off their temper tantrum as a movement due to their ability to use larger words than children.
However, animals do have rights. They have the right to not starve and to live in a clean environment, both of which I am sure are met in a laboratory setting. What constitutes animal abuse? Researchers probably have to infect their test subjects with infectious diseases and then they attempt to cure the disease in that animal. If this were to be done on humans, it would be unethical unless the person had volunteered and had given informed consent. A good example would be death row inmates; if they are going to be executed and the state is feeding and housing them for years at a time, why not use them for something good before we send them out? They don’t apparently have the right to live any more, so what is the difference? Just a thought... But no one would ever give consent to be infected with a deadly disease and then allow a myriad of drugs to be tested on them and hope it works. Therefore, animal testing is absolutely necessary. It must be remembered that “animal testing” does not translate to “animal cruelty,” although in many cases the animals are subjected to things that will hurt them and kill them, this is not always the case. And there aren’t really any other options, aside from the death row inmates, but that would never pass. I believe that animals in this setting have the right to minimization of suffering. If there is nothing further to learn from the animal and it is dying and suffering, it has the right to be euthanized.
Were past the days of people hanging out in protesting on trees; we have now upgrade to the worse possible thing bombing in the name of animal cruelty; and so forth! WOW! These ecoterrorism are gaining momentum and I feel it’s only going to get worse. I feel that in this case who is to say that the animals are not important than humans. In our recent animals rights blog posting, I stated they have rights; I still stay firm on this and believe they have rights; and shouldn’t suffer and that they have feelings the only differences is that we have sound to us, to voice our opinions; who is standing in the gap for them. Right now there are minimal laws in place for the rights of animals. For example we have laws of how we handle them; for example while driving or etc. However we do not have laws for them that I am aware of those truly protected animals; do I feel they should have rights? Absolutely! For example here alone in Arizona we see on the news of several animal cruelties of people cutting dogs, and torturing and cats. I feel enough is an enough we need to take a stand for these animals. As long as we are looking at them as personal properties and things that enhance our lives then I don’t think we will move forward. So therefore to me personally the humanity rights stay the same no matter if they are animals or humans. Abuse is abuse and we should be made aware of that; to the point of bombings? No, that’s when the line is cross. I do not feel that people should be bombing nothing!!!! Period!!! It baffles me that this extremist has taken it to this level. I do not see any right in any bombings rather it is fore humans or animals.
After reading this It made me think differently. Dont get me wrong, I do have a dog and a cat and i love them dearly. But I believe that there are some cases that animals are needed in doing a research for certain disease that we dont know off. Some people they say animal should not be used to this research but most of them eat animal products so what is the difference? Activists are vegetarians so I can understand their stance with what they are fighting for but to resort in violence is not just and not right. Attacking people to prove their point doesnt do them any good at all. we live in a civilized world and barbaric action like these should be taken seriously and contemplated further.
I believe that animals rights are very limited. Because their rights are to be given an environment to live in that satisfies their needs. When it comes to animal research, they're are critical for the discoveries of new cures that could save millions. Everyones opinion is different but the animals are being taken care of and tested to save people from suffering or death.
About the bombing, I believe the extremist were unethical and wrong in everything that they did. They could have injured someone and possibly even killed an innocent person. And i think that what they did could have the reverse affect, instead of stoping animal abuse they will make real animal abusers do it more. Even though the doctors are doing their testing legally, sterilely, and for a good cause.
I feel that the extremist aren't looking at the big picture and making irrational decision that could hurt an innocent victim.
Evan McFarland
I believe that animals have the same basic rights as humans- the right of life, love, pursuit of happiness, a good home and have access to food and drink. However, not all humans have this, even though they have the right to. I feel the same goes for animals. In the case of animals, they cannot speak up and volunteer themselves for testing as humans can. If the animals are kept in clean, well kept, comfortable quarters with access for basic food and water, I think it is acceptable. Forgive me if I am being crass, but if the animals are being tested in hospitable environments, it's no different(other than what is being tested) than a human nursing home. When the environment becomes abusive, dirty, or unbearable, that is when things should be illegal. Animal testing is done because humans can say no.
Animals have rights to a certain point. Animals that are domestic and live at a person’s home like dogs, cats, birds, and even fishes don’t deserve to be mistreated by their owner. They are house pets for a reason and there have been many cases where animals have been brutally injured by the human race. I know this happens for a fact because I used to have a puppy and my father would hurt him every time he went to the restroom inside of the house. My dad wouldn’t hurt him with a little slap on the rear end, but rather hit him with a shoe, belt, or anything that was lying around the household. I’m not for this type of violence because my puppy didn’t deserve to be treated like that. Pets that live at the home are there to make a family happy and for them to be treated like another member of the family. My father had no right to hurt him I that way.
A lot of people would agree with me that animals shouldn’t be treated like this. However, the controversial issue here is when is it right to invade the privacy of animals and when is it considered unethical. One perfect scenario would be that what if there was a scientist who wanted to use animals for scientific purposes in order to find cures for diseases or any other sicknesses. I’m almost one hundred percent positive that people that don’t have any health problems would automatically say that animals shouldn’t be tested. This would occur because even though these procedures are intended for good purposes, these procedures sometimes harm the animals, and in most cases even kill them. If animals do have rights, who will defend them from these types of procedures? The answer is that no one would. Animals don’t have a say of what happens to their bodies or what they are used for. However on the other hand people that suffer from illnesses that aren’t curable would definitely want scientists to do experiments on animals so they could find the cure. Going along with procedures like this could save plenty of lives.
There have been so many different cases that have risen because of this controversial issue. For instance, in Los Angeles Anti-Animal Extremists firebombed a vehicle owned by a UCLA researcher. This was obviously absurd way in how people wanted to get heard. There are other ways these extremists could approach their beliefs on animal rights. By setting this car on fire they could have really hurt or even killed somebody.
Since, researches have been threatened via email, phone calls and vandalism. The lives of these researchers are at big risk, that’s why FBI and Police Departments have been trying to find the people responsible for the firebombing. The main reason why people are doing this to the researchers is because they want the violence upon animals to stop. Why else would they go through all the trouble? No one wants to be the bad person in a story.
Yet, even though incidents like this do occur, I don’t think researchers will stop using animals as experimental tools. Animals are the closest living organisms to the structure and function of the human body. Animal research must continue for present illnesses and future ones. It’s the only hope people have towards fighting off any type of adversity. Organizations have made a big deal about this not because of the violence that happens to these animals but to insure the safety of the researchers and anybody else.
I personally believe that animals do have rights. What I don’t believe in is hurting animals just to hurt them for no good purpose. I believe in the idea of doing research on animals because this is the only way people can be cured from diseases. Scientists can’t use treatments or medications that haven’t been tested in a controlled setting because no one knows what the outcome might be. Almost every single medication out there that exists has been tested on an animal’s first and then approved to be used. If animals weren’t used for experiments scientists wouldn’t be able to test on anything else. I think the life of the human race is more important than that of the animals. I know I might sound cruel but if we didn’t use animals for experiments then more and more people would be the ones suffering. Humans have more of an advantage over animals because humans can work, they are civil, and they are really intelligent. This earth wouldn’t be the same without the human race. Yes, it might be violent =, but it’s for a good cause. When individuals hurt animals for the wrong reasons, then that’s what I don’t agree with.
Stephanie Galaviz :D
I don't think animals have any rights in today's society. I think they should though.They may be animals but they feel like us. They feel pain and they are living breathing things like us,so what gives us more rights. As far as medical research there should be people bombing people cause there testing on animals but in the same case we shouldn't be testing on animals besides that they are finding out know that animal testing isn't giving accurate readings of what it can do to humans so it can cause more problem. Both these people are in the wrong in there own way one may end up taking a human life the other may take an animals life. We both need animals and human need rights.
Animals having rights is likely to cause an argument, and there is a strong argument against it: Rights belong to moral agents, and animals lack moral agency. Driven by instinct, they lack the higher-order thinking skills that enable people to choose between courses of action. Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the very complex, consisting of trillions of cells. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models…..these are all powerful techniques in the war against disease, but none of them fully replicate the intricacy of a living organism. Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists’ would have a lot less progress in their efforts, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which underpins all biomedical knowledge. I believe animal testing is absolutely necessary.
Post a Comment