The Terror of "Animal Rights"

[Justin_stacy]

The Terror of "Animal Rights"

By Alex Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 6, 2004

The "animal rights" movement is celebrating its latest victory: an earlier, more painful death for future victims of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's disease.

Thanks to intimidation by animal rights terrorists, Cambridge University has dropped plans to build a laboratory that would have conducted cutting-edge brain research on primates. According to The Times of London, animal-rights groups "had threatened to target the centre with violent protests ... and Cambridge decided that it could not afford the costs or danger to staff that this would involve."

The university had good reason to be afraid. At a nearby animal-testing company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, "protestors" have for several years attempted to shut down the company by threatening employees and associates, damaging their homes, firebombing their cars, even beating them severely.

Many commentators and medical professionals in Britain have condemned the animal-rights terrorists and their violent tactics. Unfortunately, most have cast the terrorists as "extremists" who take "too far" the allegedly benevolent cause of animal rights. This is a deadly mistake. The terrorists' inhuman tactics are an embodiment of the movement's inhuman cause.

While most animal-rights activists do not inflict beatings on animal testers, they do share the terrorists' goal of ending animal research--including the vital research the Cambridge lab would have conducted.

There is no question that animal research is absolutely necessary for the development of life-saving drugs, medical procedures, and biotech treatments. According to Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray, M.D.: "Animal experimentation has been essential to the development of all cardiac surgery, transplantation surgery, joint replacements, and all vaccinations." Explains former American Medical Association president Daniel Johnson, M.D.: "Animal research--followed by human clinical study--is absolutely necessary to find the causes and cures for so many deadly threats, from AIDS to cancer."

Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited. Animal rights activists know this, but are unmoved. Chris DeRose, founder of the group Last Chance for Animals, writes: "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

The goal of the animal-rights movement is not to stop sadistic animal torturers; it is *to sacrifice and subjugate man to animals*. This goal is inherent in the very notion of "animal rights." According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the basic principle of "animal rights" is: "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment"--they "deserve consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans." This is in exact contradiction to the requirements of human survival and progress, which demand that we kill animals when they endanger us, eat them when we need food, run tests on them to fight disease. The death and destruction that would result from any serious attempt to respect "animal rights" would be catastrophic--for humans--a prospect the movement's most consistent members embrace. "We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever hope to create a just and equitable world for animals," proclaims Freeman Wicklund of Compassionate Action for Animals.

To ascribe rights to animals is to contradict the purpose and justification of rights--to protect the interests of humans. Rights are moral principles necessary for men to survive as human beings--to coexist peacefully, to produce and trade, to provide for their own lives, and to pursue their own happiness, all by the guidance of their rational minds. To attribute rights to nonrational, amoral creatures who can neither grasp nor live by them is to turn rights from a tool of human preservation to a tool of human extermination.

It should be no surprise that many in the animal-rights movement use violence to pursue their man-destroying goals. While these terrorists should be condemned and imprisoned, that is not enough. We must wage a principled, intellectual war against the very notion of "animal rights"; we must condemn it as logically false and morally repugnant.

[mirtizzle]

that is just ridiculous.

[hXc_pwnage]

If a rat could cure every disease, kill the rat. I am for animal rights, but those people went too far, I think. Burning houses...what does that accomplish? Hot damn.

[Sinister Rouge]

If a rat could cure every disease, kill the rat. I am for animal rights, but those people went too far, I think. Burning houses...what does that accomplish? Hot damn.

My take is this...animal testing for the advancement of medicine and social progress is acceptable, animal testing for capitalism (IAMS Dog Food for example) is wrong and sickening.

[hXc_pwnage]

My take is this...animal testing for the advancement of medicine and social progress is acceptable, animal testing for capitalism (IAMS Dog Food for example) is wrong and sickening.
I can agree. But if they kill animals over testing countless times for the same reason, that is wrong, too.

[Sinister Rouge]

I can agree. But if they kill animals over testing countless times for the same reason, that is wrong, too.

I agree...

[Heartcore]

No matter how many people like to think it, animals are not on the same level as human beings and do not have the same rights as humans.

[cantnokdahustle]

Animals or Stem Cell?


Stem Cell.

[Safetyin#]

Animals or substance(s) from Babies?

Animals.

[hXc_pwnage]

Animals or substance(s) from Babies?

Animals.
LIVE animals or substances from DEAD/NOT LIVING babies...

I choose number two.

[cantnokdahustle]

Animals or substance(s) from Babies?

Animals.


NO ONE (rationally) is advocating that we take skin samples from living babies.

[Sinister Rouge]

LIVE animals or substances from DEAD/NOT LIVING babies...

I choose number two.

no. 2 also....

[Safetyin#]

or substances from DEAD/NOT LIVING babies...
.

That were purposely put to death....now what do we call killing done on purpose? So now should we use the bodies, of those ____, for medical experiments, as a first choice, or should we use that of animals, whose sole existences is to serve us, whether it be through food, or companionship, or labor, or in this case, to prolong or better our lives....?

Now I'm not saying all medical experiments on stem cells should be stopped, but where the choice is between the two, we must make the choice that doesn’t devalue Human Life anymore then it already is in our society...

[Sinister Rouge]

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021231-071056-3546r

disguisting and morally wrong...and he is a US Senator.

[sweetsugar]

Someone should throw a maitai cocktail bomb into the middle of all those animal rights protesters. Those are the sick people my friends.

[hXc_pwnage]

Why do you rate us so much better than animals?

We are meaner to eachother, we devalue everything more, we harm the enviroment, we use up all the resources...animals don't do this. If anything, I think animals are better.

[Heartcore]

Why do you rate us so much better than animals?

We are meaner to eachother, we devalue everything more, we harm the enviroment, we use up all the resources...animals don't do this. If anything, I think animals are better.

Animals eat each other...

[sweetsugar]

Why do you rate us so much better than animals?

We are meaner to eachother, we devalue everything more, we harm the enviroment, we use up all the resources...animals don't do this. If anything, I think animals are better.
Animals live on instinc.....they do anything and everything they have to to survive. Also, some animals kill the babies of other mothers, so that only their gene pool will survive. That's really sick shit, also, alot of animals who are mothers eat there children. Humans may be worse than animals. But we are on top of the food chain, and that is what it really comes down to these days.

[cantnokdahustle]

we are on par with every other living being on this planet.

[Safetyin#]

Why do you rate us so much better than animals?

We are meaner to eachother, we devalue everything more, we harm the enviroment, we use up all the resources...animals don't do this. If anything, I think animals are better.

Everything you said is nothing short of absurd.....

-Animals don't have the mental capacity to be "mean" (or meaner) or "nice", they are acting out of pure instinct and lack the ability to ponder what future ramifications their actions might have.....

-Their low mental capacity also means they can't place a value on anything, meaning it’s impossible for them to value something over another or "devalue" something....

-Animal(s) live a subsistence life and nothing more, their lives are based around food and finding it....humans on the other hand, have the ability to reason and "invent" which has allowed us a life no longer based on scavenging, which, yes, certain parts are going to pollute some, but the trade off here is that we’re able to live a far better and more enjoyable life....

-Resource are ment to be used hence the word you choice to use "resource" something that lies ready for use or can be drawn upon for aid. And animals don't use them because they lack the ability too....An animal can't come up with a way to heat a home, nor can it invent a way for quicker mobility or fathom a way to keep food fresh or on stock....all of which takes "resources" to accomplish.....


So basically what I got out of what you said was that you prefer stupidity over intelligence....You feel that the dumber a creature is and the less ability it has to care for itself, is superior to an intelligent being who uses its "brain" and its surroundings to better its own life...

[sweetsugar]

Everything you said is nothing short of absurd.....

-Animals don't have the mental capacity to be "mean" (or meaner) or "nice", they are acting out of pure instinct and lack the ability to ponder what future ramifications their actions might have.....

-Their low mental capacity also means they can't place a value on anything, meaning it’s impossible for them to value something over another or "devalue" something....

-Animal(s) live a subsistence life and nothing more, their lives are based around food and finding it....humans on the other hand, have the ability to reason and "invent" which has allowed us a life no longer based on scavenging, which, yes, certain parts are going to pollute some, but the trade off here is that we’re able to live a far better and more enjoyable life....

-Resource are ment to be used hence the word you choice to use "resource" something that lies ready for use or can be drawn upon for aid. And animals don't use them because they lack the ability too....An animal can't come up with a way to heat a home, nor can it invent a way for quicker mobility or fathom a way to keep food fresh or on stock....all of which takes "resources" to accomplish.....


So basically what I got out of what you said was that you prefer stupidity over intelligence....You feel that the dumber a creature is and the less ability it has to care for itself, is superior to an intelligent being who uses its "brain" and its surroundings to better its own life...
You said what I wanted to say, but I'm not that good with words. Or at least I wasn't in the mood to be. Your the man!

[hXc_pwnage]

Everything you said is nothing short of absurd.....

-Animals don't have the mental capacity to be "mean" (or meaner) or "nice", they are acting out of pure instinct and lack the ability to ponder what future ramifications their actions might have.....
Not many humans even ponder what reactions will come from their actions.

-Their low mental capacity also means they can't place a value on anything, meaning it’s impossible for them to value something over another or "devalue" something....
That means everything is equal. That is how things should be, no one is better than the other.

-Animal(s) live a subsistence life and nothing more, their lives are based around food and finding it....humans on the other hand, have the ability to reason and "invent" which has allowed us a life no longer based on scavenging, which, yes, certain parts are going to pollute some, but the trade off here is that we’re able to live a far better and more enjoyable life....
Animals need nothing more in their life. Food, love, fun...what else? They aren't lazy. They get their own food. They play. Is that so bad? Oh no, they don't sit on a computer all day...what a shame.

-Resource are ment to be used hence the word you choice to use "resource" something that lies ready for use or can be drawn upon for aid. And animals don't use them because they lack the ability too....An animal can't come up with a way to heat a home, nor can it invent a way for quicker mobility or fathom a way to keep food fresh or on stock....all of which takes "resources" to accomplish.....
They don't need any of those. They don't kill more than they need to eat. They don't need to heat a home, they don't own houses... They run everywhere, or fly, or walk. They don't care for cars.


So basically what I got out of what you said was that you prefer stupidity over intelligence....You feel that the dumber a creature is and the less ability it has to care for itself, is superior to an intelligent being who uses its "brain" and its surroundings to better its own life...
Everything you told me was things that humans don't even need. We don't need cars. We don't need houses. We don't need to kill 100 cows to feed two people. They take what they need, and they are done. They make due with what they have. They don't go out and just kill other creatures because it's fun. They live in a community helping eachother.

[hXc_pwnage]

Animals eat each other...
And humans kill eachother. But, ever hear of vegetarian animals? Not all animals are carnivores. They only kill when they need food...or if same bad shit goes down. w00t.

[hXc_pwnage]

Animals live on instinc.....they do anything and everything they have to to survive. Also, some animals kill the babies of other mothers, so that only their gene pool will survive. That's really sick shit, also, alot of animals who are mothers eat there children. Humans may be worse than animals. But we are on top of the food chain, and that is what it really comes down to these days.
Life is about surviving.

Some humans murder the babies of other people. Some mothers leave their babies in the trash.

[Safetyin#]

Not many humans even ponder what reactions will come from their actions..

I would say that most, not all, do.....but that point doesn't matter because unlike animals we still have the ability to "ponder", whether or not a few of us choose not to use it...


That means everything is equal. That is how things should be, no one is better than the other..

Thats your opinion, and i disagree, but i'll concede that if thats the kind of world you want thats fine....although i would like to add that in a world where theres no "distaste" there would also be no "love" or "emotion"....


Animals need nothing more in their life. Food, love, fun...what else? They aren't lazy. They get their own food. They play. Is that so bad? Oh no, they don't sit on a computer all day...what a shame..

We already agreed that they can't "love"....so that leaves food, and food is not a given, I know your only concept of food is a kitchen, but that food has to come from somewhere and if your animal and there is no food around you either starve or eat your young (if your a carnivore)...so it is not this "happy go lucky" life you think it is....they are at the constant will of the environment and are in no way in control of their survival....sounds like such a great life...

oh ya and i'm sorry your life revolves around a computer, i feel bad for ya :wink3: ...


They don't need any of those. They don't kill more than they need to eat. They don't need to heat a home, they don't own houses... They run everywhere, or fly, or walk. They don't care for cars..

Animals eat more all the time, what do you make this up as you go? Small animals (especially the animals you are against testing on) will over populate any area and destroy it of food and “life” and when this runs out they will destroy themselves...this is a cycle of the rodent life......not to mention that a carnivore will take down any animal and eat what it wants right there and leave the rest to rot, humans on the other hand have the ability to store food and reuse it...purposely wasting less....

And its fine that they don't have home, but that means they are again at the will of the environment....humans on the other hand have used their "intelligence" to allow us to live comfortable at any condition..


Everything you told me was things that humans don't even need. We don't need cars. We don't need houses. We don't need to kill 100 cows to feed two people. They take what they need, and they are done. They make due with what they have. They don't go out and just kill other creatures because it's fun. They live in a community helping eachother.

Your playing games right? "they live in a community helping each other," you have to be, no one is this stupid....this is like arguing abortion with a planned parenthood representative, reality doesn't matter and all that is spewed is bullshit rhetoric...

[UndefinedBoy]

Your playing games right? "they live in a community helping each other," you have to be, no one is this stupid....this is like arguing abortion with a planned parenthood representative, reality doesn't matter and all that is spewed is bullshit rhetoric...

Sucks you don't agree with him...but he makes some great points. You seem content thinking this world is here only for humans and that we can use it all up and destroy it all because we can. I suppose you'll be proven correct when we've finally destroyed this entire planet.

[hXc_pwnage]

I would say that most, not all, do.....but that point doesn't matter because unlike animals we still have the ability to "ponder", whether or not a few of us choose not to use it...
What does it matter? I really see no reason in worrying how things will end up in the future. Live life right now, not in the past or future.



Thats your opinion, and i disagree, but i'll concede that if thats the kind of world you want thats fine....although i would like to add that in a world where theres no "distaste" there would also be no "love" or "emotion"....
Who says there would be no love? If we are all equal, it will cause less hatred, less killings, etc.




We already agreed that they can't "love"....so that leaves food, and food is not a given, I know your only concept of food is a kitchen, but that food has to come from somewhere and if your animal and there is no food around you either starve or eat your young (if your a carnivore)...so it is not this "happy go lucky" life you think it is....they are at the constant will of the environment and are in no way in control of their survival....sounds like such a great life...

oh ya and i'm sorry your life revolves around a computer, i feel bad for ya :wink3: ...
When did I say that they can't love. Of course they can. People starve all the time. It isn't like animals are the only ones who starve. I never said they had a great life, and humans don't either. You think humans aren't in someway at the will of the enviroment? We have to protect ourselves against natural disasters, which means spending more and more money. We plan our days around weather a lot of the time. Food depends on the seasons and how well the weather is during a period of time.



Animals eat more all the time, what do you make this up as you go? Small animals (especially the animals you are against testing on) will over populate any area and destroy it of food and “life” and when this runs out they will destroy themselves...this is a cycle of the rodent life......not to mention that a carnivore will take down any animal and eat what it wants right there and leave the rest to rot, humans on the other hand have the ability to store food and reuse it...purposely wasting less....
Humans don't destroy land!? HAH! We tear down trees more and more every day. The house you live in is there because people tore down trees. The buildings you go into are there because people tore down trees. We destroy land too, and we also destroy ourselves. What they leave to rot is either bones or the extra food which can be eaten by other animals that pass by or decomposers. We still waste massive amounts of food. People don't save all their food. Think about going to a restraunt...not everyone eats all of their food. They then don't want the box because it is too much of a hassle to carry home, so they restraunt throws it in the trash. Think about everyone that does that in a day, in a week, in a month, in a year, etc. Plus, all the food prepared at home or the food that spoils.


And its fine that they don't have home, but that means they are again at the will of the environment....humans on the other hand have used their "intelligence" to allow us to live comfortable at any condition..
They can find homes easily. Caves...easy to find at many habitats of certain animals. Trees...those may be hard to find after people tear down so many...but they can be found. Water...that's everywhere.



Your playing games right? "they live in a community helping each other," you have to be, no one is this stupid....this is like arguing abortion with a planned parenthood representative, reality doesn't matter and all that is spewed is bullshit rhetoric...
Of course not every animal lives together. Why do you think animals hunt in packs a lot of the time? So they can make life easier. They help eachother out with food. Sure, a lot of the time it is not like that, but it isn't that way with humans either.

[Safetyin#]

What does it matter? I really see no reason in worrying how things will end up in the future. Live life right now, not in the past or future..

although I doubt you truly believe that...I will say that if you care nothing about the "future" I personally can't understand why you are so hung up on "environmental" regulation? Continued destruction of trees, as you said, wouldn't effect you, now you kids it might, but in all reality not yourself...so I ask why do you care? And using up all the "resources," again as you said, also wouldn't matter, why do you care if we don't have any left because you don't care about the future? Remember live in the now!

Who says there would be no love? ....

for there to be "love" there has to be some reason or something to base this love on....why do you love something but not another?

Therefore, (using less strong words), you have to have something to dislike, if your going to have something to like....


When did I say that they can't love. Of course they can. ..

you agreed that animals have no concept of value or valuing.....inturn "love" is a value of extreme affection.....so if they can't place a value on something they inturn can't love something....


It isn't like animals are the only ones who starve. I never said they had a great life, and humans don't either. You think humans aren't in someway at the will of the enviroment? We have to protect ourselves against natural disasters, which means spending more and more money. We plan our days around weather a lot of the time. Food depends on the seasons and how well the weather is during a period of time..

Humans have used "intelligence" to be less at the will of the environment....we have developed ways to turn gas into heat allowing us to live through the coldest of winters, without dying or postponing life…and people are not dependent on local growing season for food, most, if not all, the food you eat comes from other parts of the country or world and "commerce" my friend is a human invention which in this case is a "human" way of dealing with nature instead of starving....

Humans don't destroy land!? HAH! ..

point being? I never said "humans haven't destroyed environment before"....you on the other hand implied that "animals" don't and this made them superior in some way, which is just wrong and naïve… ah ha!

[hXc_pwnage]

although I doubt you truly believe that...I will say that if you care nothing about the "future" I personally can't understand why you are so hung up on "environmental" regulation? Continued destruction of trees, as you said, wouldn't effect you, now you kids it might, but in all reality not yourself...so I ask why do you care? And using up all the "resources," again as you said, also wouldn't matter, why do you care if we don't have any left because you don't care about the future? Remember live in the now!
So I guess that came out wrong, oh well.


for there to be "love" there has to be some reason or something to base this love on....why do you love something but not another?
So humans love everyone? You love terrorists?


Therefore, (using less strong words), you have to have something to dislike, if your going to have something to like....
If you like something, that is a form of love.


you agreed that animals have no concept of value or valuing.....inturn "love" is a value of extreme affection.....so if they can't place a value on something they inturn can't love something....
I see value as saying if one thing is better than another. That doesn't affect if you love someone or not.


Humans have used "intelligence" to be less at the will of the environment....we have developed ways to turn gas into heat allowing us to live through the coldest of winters, without dying or postponing life…and people are not dependent on local growing season for food, most, if not all, the food you eat comes from other parts of the country or world and "commerce" my friend is a human invention which in this case is a "human" way of dealing with nature instead of starving....
In other areas, people are still dependent on growing seasons. Unless, of course, I missed it when they invented how to create food out of nothing. Some animals have learned how to hibernate during winter seasons. Others have their fur coat to keep them warm.


point being? I never said "humans haven't destroyed environment before"....you on the other hand implied that "animals" don't and this made them superior in some way, which is just wrong and naïve… ah ha!
You keep pointing out that animals do, making it seem like only they do it, not humans. I never said they didn't. I replied to your comment on saying they did. I never once said, "Animals don't destroy land."

[UndefinedBoy]

although I doubt you truly believe that...I will say that if you care nothing about the "future" I personally can't understand why you are so hung up on "environmental" regulation? Continued destruction of trees, as you said, wouldn't effect you, now you kids it might, but in all reality not yourself...so I ask why do you care? And using up all the "resources," again as you said, also wouldn't matter, why do you care if we don't have any left because you don't care about the future? Remember live in the now!



for there to be "love" there has to be some reason or something to base this love on....why do you love something but not another?

Therefore, (using less strong words), you have to have something to dislike, if your going to have something to like....




you agreed that animals have no concept of value or valuing.....inturn "love" is a value of extreme affection.....so if they can't place a value on something they inturn can't love something....




Humans have used "intelligence" to be less at the will of the environment....we have developed ways to turn gas into heat allowing us to live through the coldest of winters, without dying or postponing life…and people are not dependent on local growing season for food, most, if not all, the food you eat comes from other parts of the country or world and "commerce" my friend is a human invention which in this case is a "human" way of dealing with nature instead of starving....



point being? I never said "humans haven't destroyed environment before"....you on the other hand implied that "animals" don't and this made them superior in some way, which is just wrong and naïve… ah ha!

Don't act like animals are so inferior now...I'm sure a bear could kick your ass. :lol2:

[Safetyin#]

So I guess that came out wrong, oh well..
i'm glad you see that... :wink3:

So humans love everyone? You love terrorists?.

you missed the point.....for there to be "love" there has to be something to "distaste"...with the terrorist example you could say, I love those that cherish life, but hate those that don't (i.e. terrorists)...see there is a reason for the "love" and a counter reasons for the "hate"....In the "world" your promoting you would have to "love" each equally...


In other areas, people are still dependent on growing seasons. Unless, of course, I missed it when they invented how to create food out of nothing.

Again the point was we are not dependent on the "growing season" for food....Can you not get "fresh" fruit in the winter?


. I never said they didn't. I replied to your comment on saying they did. I never once said, "Animals don't destroy land."

yes you did...and what i said was in reply to your comments....

. we harm the enviroment, we use up all the resources...animals don't do this. If anything, I think animals are better.."

[hXc_pwnage]

That is referring to polution.

I'll be more specific next time.

[cal1082]

Don't act like animals are so inferior now...I'm sure a bear could kick your ass. :lol2:

No because a bear does not know how to use a gun :lol2:

[open mind]

this may end up not having to do with much of anything anyones talking about but the animal rights movements out there are fucked up,and support terrorists and shit.
generally they have no real firm grasp on facts and are big on bullshit.

[UndefinedBoy]

No because a bear does not know how to use a gun :lol2:

Now that's not a fair fight!

But hey...we COULD test my hypothesis... :wink3:

[Safetyin#]

Now that's not a fair fight!
:
how would you want the world run, based on brains or muscles...

[UndefinedBoy]

how would you want the world run, based on brains or muscles...

Way to ruin a light-hearted joke...

I bet the bear would've laughed.

[Justin_stacy]

I bet the bear would've laughed.

maybe, but a sense of humor is probably above them...

[UndefinedBoy]

maybe, but a sense of humor is probably above them...

Go on everyone...ruin every joke...

Thinking realistically just isn't that much fun, guys.

[sweetsugar]

Life is about surviving.

Some humans murder the babies of other people. Some mothers leave their babies in the trash.
I'm starting to question your intelligence.
Your opinios are warped and twisted just like those sick animal rights people.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm starting to question your intelligence.
Your opinios are warped and twisted just like those sick animal rights people.
Alright...but how so?

It's true, and everyone knows it.