From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:32:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <BxMruo.515@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> ...  The concept of rights, as we use the term, is roughly three 
>rl> hundred years old;  civilization has been around for a 
>rl> considerably longer period.  
>
>In article <1992Nov11.230039.8490@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Greg Popken:
>gp> Give me a break Russell!  Are you saying that ancient Roman 
>gp> society did not give different castes varying degrees of 
>gp> rights.  
>
>rl> Rights based on caste privileges?  Thanks for illustrating my
>rl> point.
>
>gp> What point?
>
>The romans valued the "rights" of masters to rule slaves, whereas 
>most secular post-enlightenment philosophers have valued the 
>"rights" of thinking/feeling beings to pursue their own personal 
>ends in life.  Can you see the dichotomy between the two views?  
>
>The concept of "rights" as special privileges based on power is, 
>indeed, an ancient one.  Is that the concept that you endorse?  
>Or, would you be more inclined to favor the modern concept of 
>rights, which embodies our growing respect for the thinking/feeling 
>abilities of other minds as well as the rightful claim of those minds
>on the bodies that they inhabit.
>
>rl> Question: Should rights be accorded on the basis of
>rl> an individual's thinking/feeling abilities?  Or, should they
>rl> be accorded on the basis of their membership in a political
>rl> or genetic class?
>
>gp> I will say this again Russell. Please pay attention!  Rights 
>gp> are human.  They are something that should be bestowed on all 
>gp> HUMANS.
>
>When I pointed out that the modern concept of rights is roughly 
>three hundred years old at best, you protested, and responded
>that the romans endorsed privileges based on political and 
>genetic classes.  Do you admire the roman view?  Or, would you 
>prefer the notions set forth by Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, and 
>others?  
>
>rl> If I were to torture a man, would the badness of my action depend
>rl> on his ability to feel pain.  Or, would it depend on his ability
>rl> to conceptualize pain in various ways?
>
>gp> A man? No. This is politics.talk. ANIMALS. isn't it?

gp> The 'Badness" of your actions would be an infringement on his rights.

>
>Do you agree with me that the badness of torture depends on the 
>victim's ability to feel pain, rather than her ability to develop 
>and/or communicate conceptions of pain?  If so, please explain 
>why it might be "bad" to torture a woman, but "not bad" to 
>torture a female chimpanzee.  

Again no the falt in your actions is that by tortureing a person you are
infringing on their rights.  Animals have no rights to infringe on.
BTW, when did tortureing come into this.  Are you insinuating something
about animal research?
>
>gp> No, I disqualify ann "individuals " consideration of rights based on
>gp> species.               

As we are the only species capable of moral conduct this seems
appropriate.
>
>Are your genetic arguments fundamentally different from the following:
>
> --- King Louis XIV's disqualification of a political competitor on
>     the grounds that the competitor was not-bourbon, ie not a member 
>     of the king's own family.  (family class)
>
> --- An anti-bellum slaveowner's disqualification of a revolting 
>     slave, on the grounds that the man was not a member of the white
>     race.  (racial class)
>
>Wouldn't it be more just to grant, and deny, rights on the basis of
>abilities, rather than genetic classification?  


Yes, it would.  And granting rights on the basis of ability is the best
way.  I feel rights should be granted on the reciptiants ability to
comprehend and make moral judgements based on its and others rights. AS
homo sapien is the only creature capable of this it is just as easy to
mention genetics.

RL>Humans are animals, Greg. And human rights are a subset of animal 
>rl> rights.   
>
>gp> ...
>gp> that's a big leap, even for you Russell. Who made this rule?.
>
>It's an observation... not a rule.   Are you denying that humans are
>animals?


No. but I am denying animals are human.
>
>> ...
>Do you support the ancient right of powerful men to appropriate
>the minds and bodies of less powerful individuals?  Or, would you
>prefer to support the rights of mink and foxes to keep their
>own skins?
>
No. ownership of another human being is immoral.
In answer to your second question: mink and foxs don't have rights.
I	would not support such a ban based on the animals "rights".

>gp> tight standards regarding animal care and use in experimentation.  
>
>This isn't true.  The infamous "cat shooting" experiments that I
>referenced a few days ago were not subject to an initial review.  The
>review that led to the cessation of funding came about as a consequence
>of special initiative on the part of Congressman Bob Livingston, who 
>represents the New Orleans area.

Russell this is the second time you have refered to this experiment and
again I'm asking you to e-mail me or post a reference so that I cann asses
the data.  

>
>gp> I have no problem expanding these regulations to include all agencies
>gp> doing biomedical research.
>
>Great.  Unfortunately there are quite a few lobby groups that oppose
>such regulations, notably the AMA.

 give you my word I will write a letter to the AMA regarding their stance
 on regulations of lab animal use.

                                            Greg Popken
-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals