From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:54:33 GMT


Greg Popken writes:
gp> Careful Russell This sound like a threat.  

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

From article <1992Nov8.215831.12198@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> Russell do you only read selected sentences?  In the same 
gp> paragraph you quoted me from I asked, " Why should a citizen of 
gp> this country by frightened to speak his mind (as long as it is 
gp> not slander)...".  Of course I don't believe people should be 
gp> allowed to spread libelous rumors.  I make ever effort to be 
gp> certain the information I use in these postings is factual.  Yet 
gp> you fail to address the issue I'm raising.  That is that the 
gp> strong arm tactics used by many animal rights groups are meant to 
gp> intimidate people into compliance with their ideas.  Do you agree 
gp> with tactics involving harrassment and threats of physical harm 
gp> to researcher or their families?  

Of course not.  If you have any evidence to support the notion 
that a particular organisation uses such tactics, you should hand 
the evidence over to the appropriate authorities.  To infer, without 
proof, that an organization like PETA is likely to engage in such 
activities doesn't seem reasonable to me.

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.  

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

gp> Of course.  But you are avoiding my question.  Please answer yes 
gp> or no.  Are animal rights activist justified or should they be 
gp> allowed to threaten peoples lives or threaten property damage?  

Not in my opinion.  

re: 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.  

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

gp> Give me a break Russell!  Are you saying that ancient Roman 
gp> society did not give different castes varying degrees of 
gp> rights.  

Rights based on caste privileges?  Thanks for illustrating my
point.

Question: Should rights be accorded on the basis of
an individual's thinking/feeling abilities?  Or, should they
be accorded on the basis of their membership in a political
or genetic class?

gp> The concept of rights not the term started the first time 
gp> someone said "that's not fair".  

Not in the modern sense.  

To this day, there exist political factions in Europe who still
complain that principles assuring various personal freedoms have 
violated the "rights" of various royal families and/or the 
papacy.  Would you say that their notion of "fairness" is 
harmonious with the modern concept of rights?  

gp> Or perhaps you want to argue whether or not a rat has a concept 
gp> of fairness.  

If I were to torture a man, would the badness of my action depend
on his ability to feel pain.  Or, would it depend on his ability
to conceptualize pain in various ways?

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!) 

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

gp> What in the hell does this have to do with anything?  

You've asked me whether rats have a concept of "fairness", 
presumably implying that the inability to categorize experience 
in a certain way would disqualify an individual for rightful 
consideration.  If that's the case, I can't help wondering if your 
notion would imply that humans with sub-normal intelligence, or 
humans from vastly different cultures, would still be entitled to 
rightful treatment.   

gp> ...  Unless this has anything to do with animals (which I don't 
gp> believe it does) take it to alt.talk. first amendment or 
gp> something.  

Humans are animals, Greg.  And human rights are a subset of animal
rights.   

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

gp> Your a wonder Russell.  "you're willing to disregard the 
gp> suffering" "allegedly intended to" that's great.  Those 
gp> socialites are members of our society and as the law stands they 
gp> are permitted to what they wish with their money as long as they 
gp> do not infringe on the rights of other members of the society.

Would you be in favor of changing the law, in such a way that minks
and foxes would enjoy a greater claim on their own skins than the
socialite might be able to acquire by means of economic power?

> ...
gp> I would be greatly concerned for the animals allegedly abused in 
gp> someone elses lab for two reasons.  First I do not like to see an 
gp> animal in pain if it can be avoided .  

This takes me back to my previous question:  Do Miami socialites 
need fur coats to stay warm?  or to enhance their sense of personal
beauty?  or to improve their standing in various social circles?
In short, would you be willing to admit that the pain suffered
by caged mink and trapped foxes could be easily avoided?  

gp> I think that that is unjustifiable and quite simply inhumane.  I 
gp> have no respect for people that consciously inflict unnecessary 
gp> pain on animals.  My other concern is that it refects poorly on 
gp> the entire scientific community.  

I realize that you're personally opposed to animal suffering, but
it seems to me that you've arranged things in your mind in such a
way that you're willing to overlook suffering whenever and whereever
it occurs. 

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

gp> First of all I never said fur was justifiable.  I said that 
gp> people have a right to do as they please within the extent of the 
gp> law.  Do you disagree?  

Let's distinguish between personal rights and property rights.  In our
society, humans have the right to appropriate the bodies of non-human
animals... just as surely as roman citizens often had the right to 
appropriate the bodies of human animals.   Is this a personal right
or a property right?

gp> Secondly noone is permitted to do research 
gp> because they have a personal need.  Most research projects are 
gp> funded through review processes.  Money for funding is given 
gp> based on the scientific importance of the project, its 
gp> feasability and its originality in approach.  Not because someone 
gp> wants to do this experiment or that one.  

You're describing "most research projects".  In regards to the review
process, would you be in favor of legislation that would extend the 
involvement of private individuals who do not have a vested interest 
in animal experimentation?

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