Animal Rights/Experimentation

[Matariel]

A lot of you know that I have a predilection for psychological studies and the writings and theories of Carl Jung, so I decided to take Psychology at college. Well, today I just got my college books for this semester, and I got the book for my Psychology Class. It’s called Taking Sides. Here are several excerpts:

If nothing is shown that humans always, without exception, have a higher quality of than animals, then the cost of permitting experiments on animals may have to be a preparedness to envisage similar usage on humans.

:banghead:

I can’t believe this tripe! It makes me so angry that they reduce the value of lives to their “quality of life” which is pure BS.

When a human life is of lower quality than an animal life, it will not be right to use the animal rather than the human."

I love animals, and I have 2 cats and a dog, and I disagree with expiramentation on animals unless it will surely save human lives or resonably lower human suffering, unlike the horrible pyschological experiments visited upon poor animals. We are animal’s caretakers, but human life is always more valueable than animal life! How could they reduce life value to mere “quality of life”?

In another part it was argued that the treatment of animals as lesser beings is “speciesism” which is equivalent to racism! :banghead:

And then they said if you had a choice to either save a dog or an anencephalic infant, the dog would be the odvious choice! Does anyone else find this outrageous?

 

[Newbie2]

In another part it was argued that the treatment of animals as lesser beings is “speciesism” which is equivalent to racism! :banghead:

And then they said if you had a choice to either save a dog or an anencephalic infant, the dog would be the odvious choice! Does anyone else find this outrageous?

Yep, “Specieism” is their war-cry of the PETAphiles.

As a veterinarian, I’ve dedicated my life to the care of animals, but my profession is under assault from without and within from those who refuse to recognize our God-given superiority over the creatures of the earth.

It’s interesting that these folks spout all this tripe, but I often wonder how many of them, when the rubber meets the road, would actually put this into practice, e.g. risking their own life to save a dog running around in traffic, etc.

Was it Robert Sanger who proposed that the elderly be offed when they presented no more use to society…but failed to hold that belief when it came to his own infirmed mother?

Methinks these folks need to feel important, and have appointed themselves sole guardianship of animal’s “rights”. I also know that there are many, many people who do not understand the difference between animal “rights” and animal “welfare”; sadly some in my profession.

 

[Matariel]

Yep, “Specieism” is their war-cry of the PETAphiles.

As a veterinarian, I’ve dedicated my life to the care of animals, but my profession is under assault from without and within from those who refuse to recognize our God-given superiority over the creatures of the earth.

I’ve never understood where they get this idea? And they always seem to be tree-huggers too for some reason.

It’s interesting that these folks spout all this tripe, but I often wonder how many of them, when the rubber meets the road, would actually put this into practice, e.g. risking their own life to save a dog running around in traffic, etc.

Um… probably, just about… hm… ZERO.

Was it Robert Sanger who proposed that the elderly be offed when they presented no more use to society…but failed to hold that belief when it came to his own infirmed mother?

How horrific!
I remember when I was visiting at my friend’s Episcopal parish church and they were discussing how euthanasia was the “moral” thing to do to end peoples’ suffering.

Methinks these folks need to feel important, and have appointed themselves sole guardianship of animal’s “rights”. I also know that there are many, many people who do not understand the difference between animal “rights” and animal “welfare”; sadly some in my profession.

Yeah, it is important to look out and care for our furry friends, but these people think that “quality of life” trumps everything, even a human being made in the Image of God.

 

[narrowpath]

And then they said if you had a choice to either save a dog or an anencephalic infant, the dog would be the odvious choice! Does anyone else find this outrageous?

I wonder if they’d still keep to that if the baby was theirs…:banghead: