From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:58:31 GMT

In article <BxDtx2.Lp9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>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.  
RL>
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.  

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

>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.
>

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

>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.  
>
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.  

Give me a break Russell! Are you saying that ancient Roman society did not
give different castes varying degrees of rights.The concept of rights not
the term started the first time someone said "that's not fair".  Or
perhaps you want to argue whether or not a rat has a concept of fairness.

>
>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?


What in the hell does this have to do with anything?  As long as people
are in this society they have a responsibility to respect the rights of
other members of the society.  If they infringe on the rights of other
members of the society than they themselves lose certain rights according
to the laws we have established.  Unless this has anything to do with
animals (which I don't believe it does) take it to alt.talk. first
amendment or something.
>
>
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?

Your a wonder Russell.  "you're willing to disregard the suffering"
"allegedly intended to" that's great.  Those socialites are members of our
society and as the law stands they are permitted to what they wish with
their money as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other members
of the society.  I am not willing to disregary the suffering. That is why
I do not own a fur coat.  I make every attept to treat the animals I use
as humanly as possible.  I don't get a hard on from seeing an animal or
person in pain. 
I would be greatly concerned for the animals allegedly
abused in someone elses lab for two reasons.  First I do not like to see
an animal in pain if it can be avoided . I think that that is
unjustifiable and quite simply inhumane.  I have no respect for people
that consciously inflict unnecessary pain on animals.  My other concern is
that it refects poorly on the entire scientific community.

>
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?

First of all I never said fur was justifiable.  I said that people have a
right to do as they please within the extent of the law.  Do you
disagree?  Secondly noone is permitted to do research because they have a
personal need.  Most research projects are funded through review
processes.  Money for funding is given based on the scientific importance
of the project, its feasability  and its originality in approach.  Not
because someone wants to do this experiment or that one.

RL>The ostensible purpose of the project was to study head wounds
RL>caused by gun shots.  Would you value the opinion of experts in 
RL>neurophysiology, neurosurgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesia...
RL>whether pro or con?
>
RL>In particular, I wonder if you'd value the opinion of the chairman
RL>of the department of neurosurgery at Cook County Hospital in Chicago.
RL>I'm sure you realize that Cook County treats more gun shot wounds
RL>in a day than some hospital emergency rooms are likely to see in
RL>a whole year.



Great! Please provide me with names, credencials(esp. specialties), 
affiliations that may influence their opinions (PCRM etc...)and their
recomendation concerning the experiments.  And I promise to review the
information witha n open mind.  Please include references.

Its my job to asses facts in an unbias manner.  I promise to do the same
here.

                                            Greg Popken

					    The opinions expessed here are
					    mine.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals