Posted: Sep 20, 2011 2:13 am
Witticism wrote:Federico wrote:Jeez Mr Samsa,
I'm really amazed at the amount of time you are prepared to spend fencing with a fundy over a subject he has absolutely no
intention of changing his mind about, namely "Animal Rights and their absolute equivalence to Human Rights."
Hmm, he must be the only person in this thread who has no intention of changing his mind ...
Federico wrote:And that's at the heart of any statement and/or position by people adhering to PETA and ALF, while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.
Sarbi's ...
colleagues would disagree with you given that she was responsible for lives of many Aussie Sappers and Afghanis.Federico wrote:
Indeed, according to these people no experiment should be performed with live animals (what they call vivisection ) because:
- humans could be used instead
- there is no need anymore to use vivisection since research can be done now with cell cultures, or computer simulation.
- many experiments done with live animals are duplicated work, generally useless and done to make money;
- the housing facilities for experimental animals are appalling, and the suffering they have to go through inhumane while the results obtained under these conditions are worthless.
Its not just 'these people' but many research scientists themselves that want to see an end to vivisection."Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.
Here are just a few organisations with the aim that "no experiment should be performed with live animals":
- Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site
- The Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA)
- Asterand
- Center for Alternative Technology (UK)
- Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) (UK]Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) (UK)
- International Foundation for Ethical Research
- InVitro International
- The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)
- MatTeck Corporation
- Simulab Corporation
- UC Davis Center for Animal Alternatives
Until you can cite that vivisection is not needed, all you are doing is citing opinion. I wish there was an alternative but the isn't at this time that has been scientifically proven to completely replace all vivisections. I know they are working one of many, but nothing conclusive or have completed their studies.
Some form of animal testing is required before human trials. And I'm glad they do before I'm a member of human trials.
Sadly, groups like PETA are delaying in ending the use of vivisection.
http://www.afma-curedisease.org/pdf/del ... ection.pdf
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk