Animals are or friends and shouldn't be used in medical testing or killed for food.
|
|
|||||
|
11 votes
|
|
52% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
48% | ||
Vivisection and Animal Rights
By Doris Lin
The debate about whether to conduct experiments on animals, known in the animal rights community as vivisection, is one of the most difficult to understand.
Animal rights activists are opposed to using animals for medical research because humans do not have the right to use animals.With few exceptions, we do not experiment on human subjects without their consent. Just as we do not experiment on humans who are incapable of consenting to experimentation, we should not experiment on non-human animals. Non-human animals cannot give informed consent, and the vast majority of experiments using animals are so invasive and injurious, we would never even consider allowing humans to consent to being subjects in such experiments.
Isn’t there a law to protect animals in laboratories?In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act appears to set certain minimum requirements for the humane treatment of non-human animals in laboratories and other settings, but in fact is very ineffective. For example, the AWA explicitly excludes from protection all rats and mice, which make up approximately 95% of the animals used in laboratories. The AWA also requires institutions that perform vivisection to have Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees that are supposed to oversee and approve the proposed use of animals, making sure that non-animal alternatives are considered. However, since IACUC’s include the institution’s own researchers, they tend to rubber stamp the proposals. Furthermore, the AWA does not prohibit invasive procedures or the killing of the animals when the experiments are over. The AWA tends to address more superficial concerns, such as cage size, toys, and anesthesia.
However, regardless of how large the cages are or whether the animals are anesthetized before they are cut open, vivisection is antithetical to animal rights because animals have a right to be free from experimentation, imprisonment, and killing.
How many animals are used in vivisection every year in the US?
No one knows. Because the AWA does not cover mice or rats, these animals go unreported unless the experiments lead to published research. Estimates range from 17 million to 70 million to 100 million.
Doesn’t the end justify the means?
Just as unethical experimentation on a group of humans cannot be justified by a benefit to humanity at large, the same holds true for animal experimentation. Like humans, animals are sentient beings with interests in their own lives and freedom. To treat them differently and say that experimentation on non-human animals is justified but experimentation on humans is not would bespeciesist.
Does ending vivisection mean ending medical progress?
Ending vivisection would not end medical progress, because non-animal research would continue. There are so many medical issues that go unexplored because of lack of resources, if we took all the resources that go into animal research and redirected them towards non-animal research, we would continue to make medical progress. Some examples of the types of research that would still continue include human cell and tissue cultures, epidemiological studies, and ethical human experimentation with fully informed consent.
What kinds of medical advances were made without vivisection?
The cause and cure for scurvy were discovered without using animals, with studies done on human subjects who already had scurvy. The first vaccine was invented in the 18th century without animal experimentation, when people were inoculated with cowpox in order to build up their resistance to smallpox. Penicillin was also discovered without animal research. More recently, the Heimlich maneuver was developed without vivisection and has saved countless lives. Also, studying human populations has led to many important medical discoveries, including the connection between heart disease and cholesterol, and the connection between smoking and cancer.
I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. –Mark Twain
http://animalrights.about.com/od/vivisection/a/VivisectionFAQ...
Romans 14:2-3, "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."
(1 Tim 4:1-4 KJV) "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"
Leviticus 11:1-47 ESV / 10 helpful votes
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed ...
Romans 14:2-3, "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."
(1 Tim 4:1-4 KJV) "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"
Leviticus 11:1-47 ESV / 10 helpful votes
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ...
God's original plan was for nothing to die for another to live.That is God's perfect plan. His heart is pure light, and death is darkness which is not of the true God. So, you can quote all u want to after the fall of man but it doesn't change the fact that God never wanted for anything to die. Heck, just the fact that His son Jesus gave his life for us to live is proof enough.
Far as I see it, anyone who really wants to do God's will, will try their best to keep ALL His wishes.
But, there would still be more of the species if we didn't kill them. & the species would ruin our crops, then what would we eat?
Therefore, we kill the Animals for food.
It does sound wrong, I use to think that eating meat was like a sin.
But it's how it is.. && I'm sure it's not going to be stopped.
From not only getting a supply of meat.. But also, crops.
Everyone around where I live, or where mah dad
Lives has farm animals..
It's nothing like that!
At least not here!
I'm asking everyone to watch Earthlings and really think about this. Animals feel pain (yes the same way we do), sadness, love, and a whole host of other emotions. They are not objects for our use to do whatever we want to them. When you abuse an animal, it is an affront to God. They are His creations.
Ending vivisection would not end medical progress, because non-animal research would continue. There are so many medical issues that go unexplored because of lack of resources, if we took all the resources that go into animal research and redirected them towards non-animal research, we would continue to make medical progress. Some examples of the types of research that would still continue include human cell and tissue cultures, epidemiological studies, and ethical human experimentation with fully informed consent.
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel
No, we are not meant to eat meat, it's not part of God's original plan:
Genesis 1:29-30
King James Version (KJV)
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. ~St. Francis of Assisi
Please show some legitimate proof of this ridiculous claim. I am guessing you live in a city because I live in the country and have never seen anyone feeding deer.
You conveniently left out the verses before that that talk about man's role over animals.
Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
In fact, man's dominion over animals is mentioned twice in these three verses. God gave us dominion over all of the earth including plants and animals.
If you're a vegetarian, then please tell me how many supplements you take to get your vitamin B-12 and protein that you would normally get from meat.
Protein- tofu, and other meatless alternatives.
B12- Vitamin B12 fortified soy milk, vitamin B12 fortified meat analogues, vitamin B12 supplements, Many grain products, such as breakfast cereals, pastas, crackers and breads, are fortified with B12 to name some.
Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often called "wildlife management" or "conservation" programs—that are designed to boost the numbers of "game" species (since killing individuals will prompt surviving animals to breed at an accelerated rate, resulting in more animals in the long run). These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.
Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward "reduced predator impact," which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill. The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push...
Protein- tofu, and other meatless alternatives.
B12- Vitamin B12 fortified soy milk, vitamin B12 fortified meat analogues, vitamin B12 supplements, Many grain products, such as breakfast cereals, pastas, crackers and breads, are fortified with B12 to name some.
Blood-Thirsty and Profit-Driven
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often called "wildlife management" or "conservation" programs—that are designed to boost the numbers of "game" species (since killing individuals will prompt surviving animals to breed at an accelerated rate, resulting in more animals in the long run). These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.
Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward "reduced predator impact," which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill. The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (i.e., decimating large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest in order to "produce habitat needed by ruffed grouse."
In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the number of moose for hunters by "controlling" the wolf and bear populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of miles away from their homes. Two were shot by hunters within two weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their homes. Wolves have been slaughtered in order to "let the moose population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters." In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly, and photos of suffering wolves were viewed by an outraged public.
Pain and Suffering
Many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured by hunters. Bowhunters often spend hours tracking the blood trails of animals before finding them. Many are never found by hunters.(9) Our office routinely receives reports from upset residents who spot animals wandering around with gunshot wounds or protruding arrows. In cases in which euthanasia is not feasible, weeks can elapse before victims succumb to their injuries. It is also not uncommon for us to hear of wounded animals running wildly onto highways, posing grave risks to commuters.
An estimated 20 percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters must be shot again to be killed. Ten percent manage to escape, but "starvation is a likely fate" for them, according to one veterinarian. A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go "unretrieved" every year. A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who'd been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying. A member of the Maine Bowhunters Alliance estimates that 50 percent of animals who are shot with crossbows are wounded but not killed. A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with "traditional archery equipment," 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.
Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals such as wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress from which hunted animals suffer can severely compromise their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter. Stress can also cause animals to bound onto roadways, abandon their young, or become weak and succumb to parasites and disease.
As far as programs to keep animal populations up, the key word is "conservation". Of course we conserve the population so future generations can enjoy hunting and fishing. I don't see this as a bad thing.
As far as tofu and other man made things for vitamins, I choose to go the "all natural" route. If things ever get really bad, I will know how to kill and clean my food. How easy do you think it will be to find tofu? I am not saying that things will ever get that bad, but what if they do? I would rather be prepared.
I don't have a problem with vegetarians, I just happen to disagree. To each his own. Please don't look down on me for my eating choices
Tofu IS natural, I mean., it's a plant. How can you enjoy killing?
King James Version (KJV)
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
I would say this proves that it is God's will for us to kill and eat animals.
Wildlife managers sometimes use the word "overabundant" instead of "overpopulated" to describe a population of wild animals, but what does the term mean?
Answer:
Instead of using scientific terms, wildlife management agencies will use the word “overabundant” to describe the deer population. “Overabundant” is not a scientific word and has no scientific definition. Overabundance has nothing to do with biological carrying capacity. The word is effective because it connotes overpopulation in most people’s minds, and misleads people into believing that the deer population needs to be reduced.
Deer rarely exceed their biological carrying capacity. Biological carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a species that can exist in a habitat indefinitely without threatening other species in that habitat. When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity. (Compare with "cultural carrying capacity.")
When state wildlife management agencies advocate deer hunting, they rarely use the word “overpopulated” to describe the deer because it’s usually not true. Deer, like most animals, will self-regulate. If there is not enough food available to support the population, ...
Wildlife managers sometimes use the word "overabundant" instead of "overpopulated" to describe a population of wild animals, but what does the term mean?
Answer:
Instead of using scientific terms, wildlife management agencies will use the word “overabundant” to describe the deer population. “Overabundant” is not a scientific word and has no scientific definition. Overabundance has nothing to do with biological carrying capacity. The word is effective because it connotes overpopulation in most people’s minds, and misleads people into believing that the deer population needs to be reduced.
Deer rarely exceed their biological carrying capacity. Biological carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a species that can exist in a habitat indefinitely without threatening other species in that habitat. When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity. (Compare with "cultural carrying capacity.")
When state wildlife management agencies advocate deer hunting, they rarely use the word “overpopulated” to describe the deer because it’s usually not true. Deer, like most animals, will self-regulate. If there is not enough food available to support the population, the weaker individuals will die and the does will absorb some embryos and fewer fawns will be born in the spring.
Instead, the agencies use unscientific terms like "overabundant" to scare the public and promote hunting.
By Doris Lin
http://animalrights.about.com...
"If there is not enough food available to support the population, the weaker individuals will die and the does will absorb some embryos and fewer fawns will be born in the spring."
What do you suppose deer eat? Around here they eat corn or beans or apples from farmers fields. I have seen them devastate entire apple orchards so when you talk about food available, you are talking about someone's livelyhood. If left unchecked, the deer would eat entire fields and devastate the crops and by the way, a main ingredient in tofu is soy beans, which deer love.
When state wildlife management agencies advocate deer hunting, they rarely use the word “overpopulated” to describe the deer because it’s usually not true. Deer, like most animals, will self-regulate.
Also, if HUNTERS didn't HUNT a deer's natural predator, there wouldn't be an abundance of deer.