If they had a child that was going to die, but could be saved by testing out a new drug on an animal, would they agree animal testing is a good thing?
2007-02-09 13:08:29 · 19 answers · asked by im_no_fruity_pie 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I worked with an animal rights activist that flat out told me she would rather her kids die than her dogs (coincidentally, 3 out of 4 of the adults in her household were scamming welfare). I wanted to barf on her. Most of them aren't this crazy though.
Really your question is impossible to answer. So many of their beliefs contradict each other than you really can't tell what they would do.
2007-02-09 13:23:36 · answer #1 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Animal rights activists are extremists, and do not represent other people who would like to see animals get a better deal. The subject of testing drugs on animals is a separate issue, as it is well known that when drugs have been tested on animals, they have to be retested on humans, as animal testing does not relate to how the drug will affect a human being. Things deemed safe by animal testing can have fatal effects on human beings, as all animals are different in important ways. There are also our human principles at stake. Some people answering this question suggested forcibly using animal rights activists to test drugs on, that would be a violation of human rights, but apart from that how would you find them? convictions for being an animal rights activist are very thin on the ground. Another point you should consider is that the testing process takes years, any child or adult dieing of anything that could be treated by an as yet untested drug, would die long before the testing process were over, this process is made longer by the testing drugs on animals hurdle that it has to pass. Many drugs rejected by this process may well be suitable for humans, due to physiological differences between humans and other animals.
2007-02-09 19:39:01 · answer #2 · answered by funnelweb 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
do no longer exchange right into a enthusiast, and please analyze the two facets of each thing. I actual have worked in farms, in analyze labs, volunteered at a zoo and rescue org for great cats, and now i'm a vet.... I actual have experienced extremely some those first hand.... and that i've got seen extremely some harm finished via extremist animal rights activists and intensely some animals unnecesarily killed. From small farmers that took stable care of their animals pushed to financial disaster and their animals bought to slaughter or production facility farming the place their lives weren't as stable and turning out to be yet another huge form and toddler making machines, to animals in analyze labs decrease than controled circumstances and with as little discomfort as achieveable released and starving to death and wild animals ingesting them and getting ill, cats that have been despatched to shelters and euthanized simply by fact a stable hearted guy or woman believed each and each of the propaganda against declawing and she or he developed an immune illness that a cat scratch would kill her, a cougar that spent 2 years in deplorable circumstances till she died of a enormous untreated an infection simply by fact the community rescue couldnt take her simply by fact animal rights activists destroyed her enclosures and that they spent all their money in an exceedingly high priced fence and protection get right of entry to to guard the cats they already had................ In different words, please analyze and don't exchange right into a blind extremist follower. Volunteer at a preserve, be a foster parent, or learn animal regulation or exchange into an officer for the SPCA, no longer many officers spend their time with animal cruelty circumstances, volunteer at an animal well being middle... yet do no longer exchange into an extremist! violence will take you nowhere
2016-09-28 21:47:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A distinction should be made between those who are Animal Rights Activists and those who are supporters of animal welfare. Animal welfare people accept the responsibility to care for animals. This is a reality that any civilized person understands. A civil rights activists begins with a false premises, that is, that non-human animals are equal to homo sapiens in terms of rights.
Clearly, each animal species (including homo sapiens) should be respected, for what they are. In the simplest of concepts, you don’t expect a Cheetah to fly after its prey and you don’t expect an Eagle to run after its prey, such acts are not of their genetic nature.
So to with canines, to touch another being on the head and vocalize at it increasing volume is an act of a primate communicating. To do the same with a canine is do something interpreted as aggression by the canine. Canines are not the same as primates.
Rights as defined by homo sapiens for homo sapiens is an act which fits within the cultural needs of homo sapiens. They apply to no other species. To try to apply them to another species is to “not” respect that other species. Animal rightists do not accept this difference and at the very least place animals on a par with homo sapiens and at the very worse place animals above homo sapiens. None of this reflects reality.
Animals rightists have gone so far off from what is reality that in organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) they have become self proclaimed domestic terrorist organizations that have admitted to hundreds of terrorist acts and are on the FBI’s domestic terrorist list. PETA is nearly as bad in that they target children and feed them lies about animals to frighten the children and they also kill many animals in the name of “Animal Rights.”
These people deserve no respect and what they do deserves no respect.
2007-02-10 06:57:01 · answer #4 · answered by Randy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably not!! The animal rights activists are just one step on from the people who think it is right that we should risk our children with dogs in the family home.
Are animals as important as human beings?...This is the question!!!....For me?...No!!!
For too many people the answer is yes. I like animals and would never be cruel to one...but humans are way more important!!!
2007-02-09 13:21:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, in any case I do not have a problem with animal testing.
Take a look for example at the problems with the guys who took part in the trials that went wrong the other year. do we really want to do away with animal testing a ruin human lives instead?
As much as this will anger people, animals are a lesser species, they do not have human feeling and emotion, and in short , they do not care!!!
2007-02-09 22:22:34 · answer #6 · answered by mrssandii1982 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
i don't believe in unnecessary suffering to animals and would never hurt one or stand by and let some thug hurt one but sometimes it is necessary to test drugs on animals so that we know they are safe to use on us. this may not be the best possible way to do this but its the best way we know at the minute
2007-02-09 18:59:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Animal rights activists should all be sent on a boat to die as they have no respect for human life, so don't deserve any back.
2007-02-10 04:38:16 · answer #8 · answered by Lord Robbie 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I wouldn't as animal testing is flawed-drugs have to be tested again on humans anyway so it's pointless.
2007-02-09 16:14:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The big mama of AR is getting treatment for a terminal D and was asked about that and she said she does not mind now she sees the benefits. Hypocrisy
2007-02-09 15:10:37 · answer #10 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋