Animal Rights(was Re: Need Safeguards for Gene-Tinkered Foods)

Andrew P Krivoshik apkg6986 at uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Thu Jul 8 17:16:29 EST 1993


toby at stein.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:

>In article <C9uy4M.7E4 at dartvax.dartmouth.edu> James.F.X.Wellehan at dartmouth.edu (Jim Wellehan) writes:
>>In article <21fhid$si9 at news.u.washington.edu>
>>toby at stein.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>> 
>>> If you _really_ want to be picky, you wouldn't eat any fruit that
>>> another organism needs to survive, nor would you plant fruit
>>> trees where they displace native vegetation.
>>
>>It would seem necessary to eat something in order to provide for
>>organisms dependant on it.  If I recall correctly, there are more
>>prokaryotic cells inside a human than human cells.

>By this logic, an AR fanatic wouldn't use antibiotics.  You
>won't find many that take it this far.  It is the logical conclusion,
>but logic doesn't have anything to do with the AR position.  Bacteria
>can be dismissed by them as "non-sentient" or "unable to feel
>pain".  

Since animals are sacrificed to research and develop (including toxicity and 
efficacy studies) such pharmaceuticals as antibiotics before human
trials, it seems inconsistant for an AR activist to protest the use of
animals in biomedical research yet use pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics
since they "only" harm bacteria.  

**stuff deleted**
-- 
KK  KK  RRRRRR  IIIIII  VV    VV  | Andrew Peter Krivoshik
KK KK   RR  RR    II    VV    VV  | a-krivoshik at uiuc.edu
KKKK    RRRRR     II     VV  VV   | MD-PhD student in Medicine & Biophysics
KK KK   RR  RR  IIIIII    VVVV    | University of Illinois (UIUC)



More information about the Bioforum mailing list