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

Jim Wellehan James.F.X.Wellehan at
Fri Jun 25 19:19:42 EST 1993

In article <20fjoj$9tt at>
mhollowa at (Michael Holloway) writes:

> 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 
> animals.
> 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
> supporting.

I'm not supporting anyone.  I just fail to see why, because they have a
different moral viewpoint, they are liars.  This is similar to the
abortion debate.  Although I haven't really got a fully-formed opinion
as of yet, I agree that animal experiments are necessary for the
advancement of science and should be done, although there have been
abuses.  I also agree with the animal rights groups in having a
somewhat non-anthrocentric viewpoint.  I just disagree with their
conclusions from this viewpoint.

In article <9306252103.AA15133 at>
SCHLOSSER at writes:

> if you are at all interested in the further advancement of
> human health science and understanding what are the *real* risks
> to people from environmental factors (synthetic or natural).

This is fairly anthrocentric.  Human health science is a tiny little
niche in the grand scheme of things.  My comment would be that perhaps
the animals to whom the intended benefit lies should be included
amongst the test animals for the experiments.  This strikes me as a
stronger crime deterrent than prison, and a societal benefit, as
opposed to a societal drain.

How's that for a bizarre twist to the conversation? ;-)


More information about the Bioforum mailing list