From: andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Summary: Lack of common ground
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:17:07 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.


     I've just read this board for the first time today. Much is quite
     humorous. Hunters and vivisectionists never seem to realize the irony
     of their use of Nazi arguments.
      
      Arguments presented from either side can be successful
      only if those involved agree on some common axioms and definitions.
      Another option would be to create two separate boards, one for
      hunters and vivisectionists to glory in their abuse of power against
      those with no voice, and another for we animal rights' folks to
      map out strategy.

      Some of the basics I'd suggest follow. You're welcome to quibble
      semantics or provide others, though it seems specious to me to
      quibble on semantics when every year SIX BILLION animals are being 
      killed and abused in this country alone every year in a holocaust that
      makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a picnic.

      Morality: I'd tend to avoid this term, since it can imply to some
      code of behavior based on a culture or religion. Everyone's sure
      that their's is the best and can't be improved on, but that's false.

      Ethics: A much better term, one which you can define. I define
      my own ethical behavior as avoiding causing harm to others. Before
      you hunters jump up and down screaming, let me note that, even if
      it is not possible to totally avoid causing harm to others, that
      inability to achieve perfection neither precludes improvement or
      legitimizes failure. No doubt some of you will demand that "others"
      be limited to humans, but why?  

      Rights: We need to distinguish between legal rights and ethical
      rights. Animal rights folks sometimes try to effect increased
      legal rights for animals as a means to insure their ethical rights.
      When we say "Animals have rights," we mean ethical rights.
       
    Some of the things I've found most humorous:
     
     * The assertion that those with the ability to make moral distinctions
	have carte blanche to those who do not. I assume this means I
	can torture and kill babies. Human babies, that is. Non-human babies
	are already being tortured and killed. 

     * The assertion that others do not have the right to "make our 
	lifestyle choices for us." If your "lifestyle choices" involve
	causing harm to others, then you can be interfered with. That's
        one purpose of laws. And by your own reasoning, if you have the
	right to interfere in others' lives by causing them harm, surely
	others have the right to interfere in your life. You have the 
	right to extend your fist, as Jefferson said, but your right ends
	at your neighbor's nose.

     * The assertion that animal rights activists are demanding that
	"all animals are entitled to all rights held by humans." That's
	false. Animal rights activists don't want to give cows the right
	to vote. We want to give them the right to have respected their 
	basic need to be free from pain and to live their lives. 
 
     * The suggestion that animal torture is legitimized because it is
	medically useful. The same argument could be used to legitimize
	the human experiments of the Nazis, Japanese and the United States.

     * The implication that animal rights activists are politically right
	wing. What, do you think if you insult us we'll go away? 
	Progressives have been fighting for the respect of the needs
	of various disenfranchised groups for centuries. We've been
	successful with people of color, workers and women (editorial in 1848
	after suffragists' Seneca Falls Conference: "They'll be wanting
	to give the vote to cows next"). We're still working, obviously. 
	We're working on ending homophobia. And we're working against 
	animal abuse. And at some point we'll be successful. The question
	is, when that time comes, which side do you want to say you were on?
	 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals