Animal rights (was: Re: Need Safeguards for Gene-Tinkered Foods)
mhollowa at ic.sunysb.edu
Fri Jun 25 14:30:27 EST 1993
In article <C95FHA.IvJ at dartvax.dartmouth.edu> James.F.X.Wellehan at dartmouth.edu (Jim Wellehan) writes:
>In article <20crrv$kps at max.physics.sunysb.edu>
>mhollowa at ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:
>And since when have animal rights been antithetical to science? All
>that most activists are opposed to are some methods.
A good case for my earlier point of the effects of anti-science propaganda.
It would seem that the majority of people who really
don't pay much attention to the issue, and wish it would go away, are quite
comfortable with the notion that what animal rights activists are really
talking about it just animal welfare. This is a false impression that the
animal rights organizations do everything they can to encourage. You need
to read something more on the topic if you think these people are harmless.
A similar case in point is the story of the actor Christopher Reeves
addressing an animal rights rally in DC several years ago. He too thought
that animal rights was the same thing as animal welfare so he dedicated his
support to it. In his speech, he emphasized the party line about liberating
animals from laboratories but then added that this didn't include labs
studying AIDS. He was booed off the stage.
Rights for animals means just that for these people. Automonous RIGHTS.
It's a philosophy
that they embrace with *ALL* its implications. It has nothing to do with
treating animals humanely and then going off and having a hamburger. They'll
even go so far as to tell a sick and dieing person that research that might
save them is immoral and has to be stopped because it involves the use of
If you support animal welfare, fine, so do I. Just don't give your support
to animal rights organizations without being sure of what it is that you're
More information about the Bioforum