Posted on 05/30/2005 7:03:30 PM PDT by SmithL
One would think that the company that paid her deserved her best effort to prevent cruelty. If the best that she can come up with is a few cuss words by technicians, they are doing pretty well.
I would love to hear her recommendation for what is to replace animal experiments. Usually that has something to do with testing medicine on humans, or not trying to make medical progress.
Fact. Primates tend to be biologically similar to humans. If you are doing genetics, you use a fruit fly because it is a great model (it has unusually large chromosomes that are visible under the microscope). If you are doing research on the eye, you use the Octopus, because it has unusually large optical structures. If you are looking at potential reaction of humans to drugs, primate testing is one step that you ethically have to consider. It is not gratuious cruelty, but it may be painful. We try to cut the pain to a minimum, but we will save human lives.
Along the way, we also develop medicines that are useful to treat primate diseases. We benefit from the primate testing, and the primates develop from human efforts to develop medicines.
Is it true that abandoned animals taken to PETA are immediately killed and not put up for adoption? If that is so, we need more feature stories on their animal genocide.
I think animals should be treated well, but we have no concern as a nation for the unborn. A child molester is something to joke about, especially when he is a celebrity.
I am SO not touching that.
I absolutely abhor PETA. That being said, abusing helpless animals who cannot complain to anyone is truly heartless and unchristian. If the allegations are true I am glad these "people" have been exposed.
Too bad PETA are such human haters. They could so easily have been sympathetic to the whole population.
Your post to me would seem indicate that you assume, for some unknown reason, that I do not object to the mistreatment of animals. For Clarity just let me say that I do object to the mistreatment of animals. Period.
Although I do not support Lisa Leitten's PETA freak position on using animals for food or testing, I do agree with documenting evidence of criminal activity at work. The perps will protest, complain and insist that employees have no right to have eyes that have seen, ears that have heard, or knowledge or evidence, of wrong doing but only what THEY say.
You can't buy my ethics off nor threaten me enough to throw them away. A wage does not make a slave.
Flame Suit On!
I could say that with a lot fewer words:
While in college, she slowly went off the deep end.
Animal cruelty is not nice, but there should be no laws against it.
We have dominion over animals and animals have no rights.
The definition of what is cruel is relative, anyway.
Anyone who abuses animals is a coward and less than human and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent under the law.
wouldn't this be covered under indutrial espionage? seems like she should go to jail.
>industrial
I absolutely abhor PETA. That being said, abusing helpless animals who cannot complain to anyone is truly heartless and unchristian. If the allegations are true I am glad these "people" have been exposed.
Too bad PETA are such human haters. They could so easily have been sympathetic to the whole population.
PETA's attempts to sway people who are strongly pro-life are laugable (and you know few if any of them oppose abortion). It's like someone with no knowledge of sports trying to talk football during the Superbowl.
At least she has a new entry for her resume: Feckless poser. :o)
One of my favorite comments on this subject:
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self hatred.
In the case "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have.
Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural." --Robert A Heinlien
I disagree. Anyone who needlessly or sadistically abuses animals should be subject to legal penalties, severe enough to prevent them doing it again. Hunting, pest control, the use of animals in medical research and so on has a "greater good" rationale; needlessly hurting or harming defenseless animals does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.