From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:00:39 GMT

In article <BxJ3yx.6yG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>

[deleted text ] GregPopken:
Do you believe the strong arm actics of these AR activists are
justifiable?

Russell:>
>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.

'm sure the authorities can gather information better than I can.
But it is obvious to me that PETA condones these activities.  Their
actions(paying the legal fees of a man convicted for breaking into and
destroying a lab, acting as a go-between for the ALF etc...) speak
clearly.
>
>re: 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.

What 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?

I will say this again Russell. Please pay attention!  Rights are human.
 They are something that should be bestowed on all HUMANS.
>
>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?

A man? No. This is politics.talk. ANIMALS. isn't it?
>
>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. 

No, I disqualify ann "individuals " consideration of rights based on
species.               
>
>
>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. 

Just some of you, Russell. (I'm sorry I just couldn't pass that one up.)
I had to check my Zoology text but it seems you are right on this one.
But, I couldn't find anthing saying that animals are human.

>And human rights are a subset of animal rights.   

that's a big leap, even for you Russell. Who made this rule?.
>
>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?  

Sure. In addition the "pain and sufferring inflicted on animals" in
research can be easily avoided.  But, what are the concequences of these
actions?
>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. 

THIS IS ABSURD!
>
>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?

Russell, we are running in circles.  I am not discussing human rights.
Please stop making analogies to rights of humans in the same situation.
>
>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?

Presently all agencies that receive ferderal funding must comply with very
tight standards regarding animal care and use in experimentation.  
I have no problem expanding these regulations to include all agencies
doing biomedical research.
I don't know who you are refering to when you say "have a vested interest
in animal research."  I don't know of anyone doing primary research that
is in it for the money , if that's what you are suggesting. 

                                               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.                                *******************************