From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:29:24 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your quotations seemed convincing to me.  Be that as it may, I 
rl> decided to contact PETA for confirmation.  I faxed a copy of 
rl> your article to them yesterday afternoon, but haven't received a 
rl> response from their public relations officer.  

Greg Popken writes:
gp> I'm sure you will inform me of the reply.

rl> At this point, I'm no longer expecting a reply.  I've faxed 
rl> similar documents to PETA in the past, and I've received answers 
rl> on a few occasions, but not always.  In particular, I recall a 
rl> posting from rec.pets.dogs wherein a dog breeder claimed that 
rl> PETA had been implicated in several murders.  I faxed the posting 
rl> to PETA, but didn't receive a reply.  The breeder, however, 
rl> received a letter from PETA's lawyers demanding either proof of 
rl> the claim or a retraction.  The woman never did retract her 
rl> remarks but instead argued that PETA was "suit-happy".  This 
rl> resulted in a deluge of flames from people on both sides of the
rl> animal rights issue, and she subsequently disappeared from usenet.  

From article <1992Nov7.214726.20796@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> Careful Russell This sound like a threat.  

Why?  Are you suggesting that a usenet participant ought to have 
a free license, so to speak, to spread libelous rumors?  If your 
statements are truthful and well-intentioned, as they appear to 
be, I'm sure there's no cause for alarm.  If your statements 
aren't truthful, you can set the record straight by simply 
correcting any erroneous comments.  

It's worth mentioning that PETA gave the publishers of 
_The Washingtonian_ ample opportunity to correct the errors in
Katie McCabe's famous article.  The magazine refused, the
case went to court, and the result is history.

gp> ...  Why should a citizen of this country be frightened to speak 
gp> his mind (as long as it is not slander) for fear of physical 
gp> retaliation from those that oppose his (her) views.  

Why should the officers of an organization like PETA not be 
entitled to review, and redress, the comments of a woman who had 
falsely accused them of murder?   Freedom of speech doesn't
protect libel.

rl> Please explain why humans ought to have rights.

gp> Because we (humans) choose to live in a civilized society (though 
gp> at times I'm not sure).  In order to maintain this civilized 
gp> society we have developed laws to protect its members.  The 
gp> developement of these laws necessitates the establishment of 
gp> rights.  

Not really.  The concept of rights, as we use the term, is 
roughly three hundred years old;  civilization has been around 
for a considerably longer period.  

gp> If we (humans) instead choose to live, say as cavemen or wild 
gp> animals, then I don't believe that we should have rights.  ( I'm 
gp> a big fan of Darwin!) 

Should people who are unable or unwilling to respect the rights
of other individuals be entitled to rights themselves?

rl> 2) Would you be inclined to support any use of animals that satisfies
rl>    some human need or desire, eg for fur, food, amusement, etc?

gp> As long as the need is legitamate and can not be obtained 
gp> adiquately by other means, yes.  

rl> How do we define "legitimate" needs?   Do Miami socialites really
rl> need mink coats?

gp> Of course!  It gets cold in Miami at night.  (sarcasm) Russell I 
gp> don't want to date the ethics of excess with you.  I don't 
gp> support the fur industry, financially.  But, I do support a 
gp> persons right to choose what they want to do with their money, as 
gp> long as it does not infringe on the rights of other members of 
gp> their society.  I don't know how WE would define legitamate but I 
gp> define it based on my own consciousness.  By the way do you own 
gp> any leather coats, shoes etc...  

Please explain why the "rights" of socialites to wear fur coats 
are more important to you than the suffering of mink, foxes, etc.  
More to the point, if you're willing to disregard the suffering
of trapped foxes and caged mink, why/how would you be concerned 
about the unnecessary suffering of animals in someone else's lab?  
In other words, would you be qualified to sit on a committee that
is allegedly intended to prevent abuse?

re: the LSU cat shooting experiments

gp> I'm not sure of the specifics of the research project.  Please 
gp> inform me of the aims of the research.  If it is the project 
gp> invovling cat shootings in order to allow Surgeons to practice 
gp> proceedures I support it.  You can be damn sure that I don't want 
gp> a surgeon operating on me if he or she has never had experience 
gp> operating on live tissue.  

Nope.  It had nothing to do with training physicians.  

If fur is justifiable, simply because someone desires it, would 
it be reasonable to say that any animal experiment would be acceptable, 
simply because it suits someone's personal needs or desires?

gp> And critics with credentials in what. 
gp> Einstein had great credentials but he didn't know shit about the 
gp> effects of protein kinase C activity on the NMDA Ca channel in 
gp> ogliodendrocytes.  Get my piont.  PCRM and PETA constantly produce 
gp> "expert" opinion on issues.  What they don't tell you is that the 
gp> expert is a opthalmologist or a gynecologist and the research 
gp> being discussed is afferent nerve damage or sleep disorders.  

The ostensible purpose of the project was to study head wounds
caused by gun shots.  Would you value the opinion of experts in 
neurophysiology, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesia...
whether pro or con?

In particular, I wonder if you'd value the opinion of the chairman
of the department of neurosurgery at Cook County Hospital in Chicago.
I'm sure you realize that Cook County treats more gun shot wounds
in a day than some hospital emergency rooms are likely to see in
a whole year.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals