Animal labs in medical schools

[typeB-md]

That being said, out situation is unique in that we put the animals we consume as food through much more suffering than any other predator species subject their prey to. Just go to a slaughterhouse and look at the chickens that are forced into cages in which they don't even have room to turn around for the length of their lifetimes or look at how veal calves are raised by being shackled in tiny crates without being able to move a limb for months at a time until they are slaughtered. There is absolutely nothing natural about the way in which we go about killing animals for food.

The conditions in which these animals are raised are deeply disturbing on so many levels, and when you consider the sheer magnitude of the injustice (it happens a billion times every day, day in and day out) our combined greed and indifference is truly shocking in my opinion. If we sincerely had regard for the principle of life, we would be directing as much attention to what happens to these animals everyday as we do to the worst genocides in human history.

you've got to be kidding me, right?

have you ever seen a fallen gazelle after the lions destroy its hind legs and leave it bleeding to death and gasping for air? what about when a python suffocates its victims until they convulse? what about when a group of piranhas slowly kills stray cattle by chewing it into thousands of pieces?

your intolerance for another's choices is disturbing. maybe hitler had a few seeds that escaped extermination. keep up the good work!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Stanford_Playah]

you've got to be kidding me, right?

have you ever seen a fallen gazelle after the lions destroy its hind legs and leave it bleeding to death and gasping for air? what about when a python suffocates its victims until they convulse? what about when a group of piranhas slowly kills stray cattle by chewing it into thousands of pieces?

your intolerance for another's choices is disturbing. maybe hitler had a few seeds that escaped extermination. keep up the good work!

I was expecting you to say something to this effect, given your quickly acquired notoriety on these forums. It would perhaps serve your argument better to actually respond to a post if that is truly your intention by citing someone's comments and following them up with yours - and that usually is standard procedure, by the way.

The point I was making was that while suffering is inevitable for most if not all species in nature due to predator-prey relationships, the duration of the animals' suffering is not on the timeline of months and years (as it is for the animals we raise on factory farms), but rather a few seconds. Thank you for your cleverly chosen and vividly depicted examples, which further help me illustrate my point. I'll admit, my initial comments were somewhat vague and not quite as convincing without those oh-so-appropriate examples.

Now, to the question of my intolerance. I consider myself to be a very tolerant person and have nothing against people who don't live according to the beliefs that I espouse. Heck, I don't even do a very good job of living by my own beliefs. So, I'm not quite sure what led you on to believe that I'm intolerant of other people, but whatever it was I'm sure it is grounded in the same solid fundamentals that give rise to your impressive arguments and witty posts.

 

[typeB-md]

I was expecting you to say something to this effect, given your quickly acquired notoriety on these forums. It would perhaps serve your argument better to actually respond to a post if that is truly your intention by citing someone's comments and following them up with yours - and that usually is standard procedure, by the way.

The point I was making was that while suffering is inevitable for most if not all species in nature due to predator-prey relationships, the duration of the animals' suffering is not on the timeline of months and years (as it is for the animals we raise on factory farms), but rather a few seconds. Thank you for your cleverly chosen and vividly depicted examples, which further help me illustrate my point. I'll admit, my initial comments were somewhat vague and not quite as convincing without those oh-so-appropriate examples.

Now, to the question of my intolerance. I consider myself to be a very tolerant person and have nothing against people who don't live according to the beliefs that I espouse. Heck, I don't even do a very good job of living by my own beliefs. So, I'm not quite sure what led you on to believe that I'm intolerant of other people, but whatever it was I'm sure it is grounded in the same solid fundamentals that give rise to your impressive arguments and witty posts.

you are tolerant of your own ideas, i agree.

you make blanket statements without any proof. show me empirical evidence that these chickens and calfs suffer more as a result of being confined. until then, it is my opinion vs. your opinion in which case we must concede tolerance of the other's ideologies.

beef and poultry are a staple of our economy. take a look at the facts.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/News/broilercoverage.htm

Total economy retail value
poultry - 2004: $43 billion
beef - 2004: $79 billion

Total US consumption
beef - 2004: 27.6 billion lbs.

Export value
poultry - 2004: 4.8 billion pounds, valued at $1.7 billion
beef - 2003: 2.52 billion pounds, $3.144 billion
2004: 461 million pounds, $552 million


the fact is that people (not only americans) have expressed their desire for beef and poultry by making it a multi-billion dollar industry. these are individuals expressing their right to make decisions of their free-will. you are clearly not tolerant of these individuals' rights. once again, as i have always believed, tolerance is only relative to which agenda you are pushing. thanks for your support... please reference facts instead of feelings.

 

[NiteOwl]

I don't think DrCynthia is being hypocritical at all. Just because she can't bring herself to kill a dog for research doesn't mean she's against it being done as a necessary evil *in a research lab*. In fact, it sounds like I agree with her views. Let me see if I can break this down:

Animal research = necessary evil
Xenotransplantation = necessary evil
Killing dogs as a med student to study anatomy = unnecessary, and really sick
Cutting up cadavers = who gives a crap, they died of natural causes, and no one was harmed

Makes sense to me.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! This is what I have been saying or trying to say this whole time. Thanks for understanding

 

[NiteOwl]

I think that many would also add

Killing animals because they are tasty = unnecessary, and really sick

FYI: I'm not a vegetarian, but I do feel like someone is being hypocritical if they're so opposed to killing furry creatures that they are willing not to go to a certian medical school because of it, yet other activities that will result in pain and death for many intelligent animals are OK? I'm fine with drawing a line somewhere when it comes to animal rights, but this seems like a very jagged, crooked line that is being drawn.

Ah, you didn't read my above post did you? Lets put it in simple terms:
-killing animals for food (as long as its just chicken, turkey, pork, beef, or fish/seafood) is fine as long as it is done in a humane way (no painful death). Yes it is an unpleasant though, but I believe our bodies were meant to eat meat.
-Again, I would hate to kill a mouse or frog. It is almost as bad but not as bad as killing a dog. Generally I prefer to NOT KILL DOGS, MICE or FROGS etc!
-I didn't mean that it is perfectly okay to kill mice etc, especially if it is painful. I am against animal experiments that cause high levels of pain for any animal.

 

[NiteOwl]

i think the majority of schools do not use animals as teaching methods, so you should be ok there. secondly, although gross anatomy is a requirement, you don't have to cut, you can just stand back and watch. lastly, although medicine and research are deeply rooted in animal experimentation, that does not mean you have partake in this. many med students do not do research or they can do research like chart reviews or clinical stuff which does not harm anyone.

i disagree with your stance on animals in research, but thats your opinion and not relevant here. do not let the fact that you do not want to experiment on animals hold you back from med school. also, don't listen to the ppl who attack your opinions, again, although i think you are naive and wrong, you are entitled to them. these won't make you any less of a competent doctor.

best of luk.

I don't want to observe others killing an animal either. I would refuse to even watch a video of it. I just think killing or cutting open an animal is wrong, cruel and inhumane. Just because I don't want to kill an animal does not mean I an naive and wrong. I'm sorry that you and so many others cant comprehend that animals suffer pain and fear also.

 

[Mistress S]

Suffering and death are woven into the very fabric of life. Carnivorous and omnivorous animals survive through the slaughter and consumption of other animals.

As humans we have the choice to kill or not to kill. We have more power and therefore more responsibility than other animals. While killing animals may once have been a necessary evil to ensure our own survival, today the killing of animals by humans is no longer necessary for our survival, and therefore some would argue, simply evil.

One of my favorite doctor-philosopher-vegetarians, Albert Schweitzer said that the purpose of life is “to serve and to show compassion and the willingness to help others.” I believe in striving to promote the most compassionate life-affirming society we can.

I can tolerate experimentation on animals in so far as the ends justify the means of promoting the long-term health and well being of other sentient beings. If we choose to view animals not as commodities for human use, but rather potential partners in healing, they can teach us not only how better to care for ourselves, but also how better to care for animals. When experimentation on animals involves unnecessary suffering and/or duplication of suffering, or occurs without a well defined goal in the context of improving health, I cannot support it.

In her book on human cadavers, Mary Roach details some grotesque experiments conducted on animals, such as transplanting the head of one monkey to another. In my view this type of experimentation, doing something not with the goal of improving health but simply to see if it can be done, constitutes abuse of dominion. Just because humans have the power to destroy animals at will, that does not mean we should do it.

I see no inherent contradiction in objecting to unnecessarily cruel experimentation on animals while supporting the dissection of cadavers. The dissection of cadavers does not involve the suffering of a non-consenting victim.

In terms of moral consistency, I do think that someone who objects to experimentation on live dogs should also object to the horrifying practices of modern slaughterhouses that, to cite one example, sometimes include the skinning and dismemberment of live cows.

If we keep the goal of a compassionate life-affirming society in mind, maybe one day we will develop the technologies to free ourselves from experimentation on animals and render this another unnecessary evil.

Peace.

bluepanda: excellent post! I agree with you 100%, and am looking forward to having you as a classmate. I too was shocked far more by the horrifically cruel and often unnecessary animal experiments described in Stiff than by any of the subject matter related to corpses (which was all quite fascinating). You do an excellent job of pointing out the difference between supporting necessary and humanely executed animal experimentation and the sadistic wholesale consumption of animals without regard to their status as sentient beings that is perpetuated in our society today. This is a subtlety that some seem unable to grasp. It has nothing to do with intolerance, rather it is a choice we must each make in our lives--and while we can and should respectfully express our opinions and disagreements, it hardly seems productive to proclaim someone unfit to participate in a career simply because they do not support every aspect of how that career has historically been furthered. I understand the argument that some animal research has contributed greatly to advances in medicine; that does not automatically justify any use of an animal in a medical setting, and it absolutely appropriate to question it in situations (such as live dog labs) which cause needless suffering for the animal while adding nothing of substantial value to our education (as seems apparent given that the majority of schools do not have these labs, and turn out perfectly competent physicians). The issue is not one of squeamishness, but rather of compassion and necessity.


type-B: Economic patterns should not be the blueprint we use to guide us in our moral decisions, as (monetary)might does not make right. In general I would not tell anyone what to eat or how to carry out their experiments, but I will make a choice in my own life about what I eat and what kind of experimentation I participate in, and I will strive to educate where I feel an injustice is being carried out. Why is this concept so offensive to you? No one is telling you what to do or attempting to take away anyone's "rights", only expressing a viewpoint different from your own. And you aren't honestly claiming that animals raised in modern slaughterhouse conditions suffer less in general than those in the wild (are you?). I mean, eat meat all you want, but at least acknowledge where it came from and how it got to your table. Even most hard-core meat-eaters I know don't try to deny that beef cattle and their like don't lead a pleasant life; that's like the smokers who insist there's no scientific evidence linking it to cancer--ludicrous. And where has all this wonderful meat consumption gotten us, anyway? All the way to the most obese nation on the planet, with all the health problems that go along with that (and while increase in meat consumption is not the sole cause of this, it is a contributing factor). Of course we are omnivores, but our ancestors didn't eat meat everyday; and the high levels of animal fat in our national diet are anything but nutritious. From a medical as well as a moral standpoint, advocating for elimination/reduction of the amount and type of animal consumption in our society makes perfect sense.

 

[bananachip]

if you want to stop animal cruelty, you might want to start at the grocery store, where animals die for no reason.

however, humans benefit from medical research. The easiest place to stop animal death is in a research lab, but its the least productive. Billions of chickens die every year to make tasty McNuggets, but the thousands or millions of mice that die do it so humans can have better health. If you want to stop unnecessary animal death, you have to start at the table's of millions of steak eating americans such as myself...and that wont happen.

Since you're against animal research, you naturally should be against any medicine derrived from the use of animals in testing...which is basically all medicine. Otherwise you're a convenient hypocrite, using the spoils of the war but one who is against it as well. It pisses me off that soem people cop the "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to anything, from religion to stem cell research, but these same people are quick to comprimise their own beliefs to benefit from what they oppose.

So, basically, i think anyone that opposes animal research is just reactive, definitely hypocritcal, and usually a little too optimistic about what we can or can't do in a laboratory. Unless you of course you decide that you cannot prescribe nor take any medicine that involves animal cruelty, which then is commendable on some level.

 

[Pyroclast]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! This is what I have been saying or trying to say this whole time. Thanks for understanding

Glad I could help.

On a side note, why do you all keep responding to type B-md? He's like another Kinetic without the level-headed rationality.

 

[typeB-md]

Glad I could help.

On a side note, why do you all keep responding to type B-md? He's like another Kinetic without the level-headed rationality.

yea, all those facts i keep posting are just crazy!

and since you agree with Dr.Hypocrite why don't you justify the following statement:

Again, I would hate to kill a mouse or frog. It is almost as bad but not as bad as killing a dog.

is a mouse not able to suffer and feel pain like a dog? give me one factual reason why killing a mouse is not as bad as killing a dog. i don't want your opinion, i want you to cite an article saying that a mouse feels less pain, etc.

most americans favor the beef and poultry industry as i cited. you can keep pushing your opinions on everyone, but just realize that you are being intolerant and judgmental.

 

[Law2Doc]

if you want to stop animal cruelty, you might want to start at the grocery store, where animals die for no reason.

Actually most animals are already dead by the time they show up to the grocery store (except perhaps lobsters, but they are ideally sold still alive) . And I prefer to believe the urban legend that it isn't actually chicken in the McNuggets ... But I otherwise agree with your post wholeheartedly.

 

[typeB-md]

You do an excellent job of pointing out the difference between supporting necessary and humanely executed animal experimentation and the sadistic wholesale consumption of animals without regard to their status as sentient beings that is perpetuated in our society today.

tell me why you feel that executing animals for experimentation is, as you say, necessary? you say this very declaratory. and just to clarify, why is killing a mouse under any circumstances less abhorrent than killing a dog? i know you didn't say this, but you seem to "100%" agree with the person who did.

Why is this concept so offensive to you? No one is telling you what to do or attempting to take away anyone's "rights", only expressing a viewpoint different from your own. And you aren't honestly claiming that animals raised in modern slaughterhouse conditions suffer less in general than those in the wild (are you?). I mean, eat meat all you want, but at least acknowledge where it came from and how it got to your table.

it is offensive to me because people who preach tolerance are trying to regulate others' morals and are egotistically judging them.

animals in slaughter houses suffer just like animals in nature do. i have seen no empirical evidence to suggest that small quarters is more torture than being eaten alive. i tend to believe they may suffer more, but i cannot prove it and therefore i must keep an open mind.

and i do not eat very much meat. i try and balance my diet. my point, however, is that people use their own opinions as facts for debate. and as i posted the article, is the vegan mother who starved their child any better than the farmer who keeps chickens locked up?

for all the crap i get, it seems that i am the only one here who has any type of fact to back up any single claim. you guys should give it a try sometime.

 

[pillowhead]

animals in slaughter houses suffer just like animals in nature do. i have seen no empirical evidence to suggest that small quarters is more torture than being eaten alive. i tend to believe they may suffer more, but i cannot prove it and therefore i must keep an open mind.

what the heck kind of "empirical evidence" do you want to show that animals in most slaughterhouses are suffering? Should we give the baby cattle who are purposefully kept horribly anemic for their short, sad lives a comprehensive survery? Perhaps we should interview some de-beaked, de-clawed chickens living in 1 square foot cage and ask what type of lifestyle they would prefer.

I've seen no "empirical evidence" that being eaten alive is worse than living in a slaughterhouse. Certainly not from you. So what was that BS you were spouting again about how you are the only one giving concrete empirical evidence backing up your claims? The only facts I've seen from you are regarding the size of agricultural economy which is not relevant to the conversation at hand. Oh, and you posted one article about vegans who starved their children. Clearly all vegans must be ridiculous fanatics not capable of raising children. Or is there another point you were trying to make with that article? One case report is not particularly useful. Why don't you show us some "empircal evidence" about how children of vegans, vegetarians, and meat-eaters fare in life instead of showing off some useless facts?

I do eat meat although only poultry and certain types of fish, but as someone else pointed out, I definitely admit that these animals are kept under horrible conditions. The analogy of smokers puffing away while knowing or denying the side effects is a good one. By all means, go ahead and eat meat (or smoke) but come on, at least admit that it's causing suffering to animals (or cancer, emphysema, etc).

 

[typeB-md]

You act like I should be against all animal killing. So what about killing cows or chickens for meat, do I have to be against that too? I'm not agaist that.

I don't 100% like the idea of killing frogs, but that is lots better than killing a dog.

I never said that frogs were not cute. I like frogs and hate to kill one! I like mice too. I just have to draw a line for what I will and will not do

Yes, I dissected a fetal pig before in bio. But the pigs came from slaughter houses where a pregnate pig was accidently killed

I'm sorry that you and so many others cant comprehend that animals suffer pain and fear also.

i felt a duty to go through and get some quotes from the good future-doctor.

very sound and reasonable logic is used. i hear lawyers don't need to kill animals, and it seems she has an endowment for making superior arguments.

and let me save you all the energy: "typeb, no one listens to you. you are such a troll"

 

[typeB-md]

what the heck kind of "empirical evidence" do you want to show that animals in most slaughterhouses are suffering? Should we give the baby cattle who are purposefully kept horribly anemic for their short, sad lives a comprehensive survery? Perhaps we should interview some de-beaked, de-clawed chickens living in 1 square foot cage and ask what type of lifestyle they would prefer.

I've seen no "empirical evidence" that being eaten alive is worse than living in a slaughterhouse. Certainly not from you. So what was that BS you were spouting again about how you are the only one giving concrete empirical evidence backing up your claims? The only facts I've seen from you are regarding the size of agricultural economy which is not relevant to the conversation at hand. Oh, and you posted one article about vegans who starved their children. Clearly all vegans must be ridiculous fanatics not capable of raising children. Or is there another point you were trying to make with that article? One case report is not particularly useful. Why don't you show us some "empircal evidence" about how children of vegans, vegetarians, and meat-eaters fare in life instead of showing off some useless facts?

I do eat meat although only poultry and certain types of fish, but as someone else pointed out, I definitely admit that these animals are kept under horrible conditions. The analogy of smokers puffing away while knowing or denying the side effects is a good one. By all means, go ahead and eat meat (or smoke) but come on, at least admit that it's causing suffering to animals (or cancer, emphysema, etc).

you are hillarious. you have strengthened my arguments.

there is no empirical evidence on either side, dope. for this reason, we can only advocate based on opinion; therefore, we must keep an open mind.

i cited a nutty vegan woman, yes. the point of my post was, in fact, to show that both sides have stupid inidividuals... why not go back to my original post a see it in the context i used?

and i have a case where vegan children were cited as being "smaller on average" than other children on meat diets. they specificially pointed out, as i already said, that this was not necessarily any less healthy.

why don't you learn to read instead of acting like a jackhole?

 

[pillowhead]

you are hillarious. you have strengthened my arguments.

there is no empirical evidence on either side, dope. for this reason, we can only advocate based on opinion; therefore, we must keep an open mind.

i cited a nutty vegan woman, yes. the point of my post was, in fact, to show that both sides have stupid inidividuals... why not go back to my original post a see it in the context i used?

and i have a case where vegan children were cited as being "smaller on average" than other children on meat diets. they specificially pointed out, as i already said, that this was not necessarily any less healthy.

why don't you learn to read instead of acting like a jackhole?

oooh, you called me a dope and jackhole....I'm so scared. Oh no...type B thinks I can't read.

Please, don't act like you've been all fair and unbiased. When did you ever say both sides have stupid individuals? "Keep an open mind"? Everything you've written has clearly been one-sided. All you do when someone points out animal cruelty is accuse them of being narrow-minded and intolerant. Do you truly believe you are open-minded and tolerant of others That's a good one.

 

[Stanford_Playah]

I've seen no "empirical evidence" that being eaten alive is worse than living in a slaughterhouse. Certainly not from you. So what was that BS you were spouting again about how you are the only one giving concrete empirical evidence backing up your claims? The only facts I've seen from you are regarding the size of agricultural economy which is not relevant to the conversation at hand. Oh, and you posted one article about vegans who starved their children. Clearly all vegans must be ridiculous fanatics not capable of raising children. Or is there another point you were trying to make with that article? One case report is not particularly useful. Why don't you show us some "empircal evidence" about how children of vegans, vegetarians, and meat-eaters fare in life instead of showing off some useless facts?

Type-B Med: Your "argument" based on economics is totally irrelevant and analogous to someone spewing out statistics on the great number of people killed by tribal ethnic cleansing in Africa to demonstrate that everyone who finds the situation problematic is intolerant simply because ethnic cleansing happens on a large scale for a fact and that must mean it is alright.

And what's this nonsense about one case of vegan parents killing their kids? How does that show that vegans are socially and psychologically abnormal individuals? Go ahead and completely ignore the cases of non-vegans doing the same thing every week in this country.

Your philosophy of being "open-minded" really boils down to believing anything you want and not accepting any facts presented by others because you are so blinded by your own ignorance and bias. You're content ignoring relevant, hard facts and embracing irrelevant facts so that you can stay really open-minded about never questioning your beliefs.

 

[Caesars0331]

Your philosophy of being "open-minded" really boils down to believing anything you want and not accepting any facts presented by others because you are so blinded by your own ignorance and bias. You're content ignoring relevant, hard facts and embracing irrelevant facts so that you can stay really open-minded about never questioning your beliefs.

OMFG, could you be MORE wrong? He is the ONLY one on here utilizing fact and logic. The rest of you are just spewing OPINIONS.

LOL @ all of you. I hope type-b and I become colleagues!!

 

[bluepanda]

In this thread some people are calling for facts and a way to quantify pain and suffering. Maybe everything in life does ultimately boil down to hard facts.

But could suffering be more of a subjective than a factual experience?

If someone tells you they are in pain physically or emotionally can they prove to you using scientific methods thay they are actually suffering? Can you prove to them that they are not in pain?

How about a patient seeking narcotics? Can you know with factual certainty that they are simply acting on the basis of an addiction, actually in pain, or some combination of both?

It is very difficult to quantify the suffering of others due to the complex interplay of physiological and psychological factors. That's where empathy comes in. It's not strictly scientific or factual but it is arguably one of the best tools we have to bridge the gap.

Where our ability to physcially measure and quantify suffering runs out, we can draw on our own subjective experiences of pain and suffering to imagine what its like for others to suffer and our empathy can motivate us to seek to liberate others from pain.

 

[typeB-md]

oooh, you called me a dope and jackhole....I'm so scared. Oh no...type B thinks I can't read.

Please, don't act like you've been all fair and unbiased. When did you ever say both sides have stupid individuals? "Keep an open mind"? Everything you've written has clearly been one-sided. All you do when someone points out animal cruelty is accuse them of being narrow-minded and intolerant. Do you truly believe you are open-minded and tolerant of others That's a good one.

here's what i said just before i talked about that vegan article:

there is evidence that a balanced diet is best. both vegans and non-vegans can attain all nutrients and a healthy lifestyle if a structured diet is followed. i should also point out, though, that it has in fact been shown in studies that vegans tend to be on the smaller (not necessarily less healthy) side of the growth chart.

unlike you trying to limit my personal choices, my views promote self-regulation. you have provided not once single fact for your argument, it is based on entirely your dislike of the way they animals are treated. i was trying to point out that most americans don't really have a problem with the way things are, and as a democracy we have the ability to make changes if we feel they are necessary. i know the liberal types don't really like democracy or capitalism, but this is how things work and economic numbers show just how content americans are with the beef and poultry industry.

why not worry about your own life and stop enforcing your will onto others?

 

[typeB-md]

Type-B Med: Your "argument" based on economics is totally irrelevant and analogous to someone spewing out statistics on the great number of people killed by tribal ethnic cleansing in Africa to demonstrate that everyone who finds the situation problematic is intolerant simply because ethnic cleansing happens on a large scale for a fact and that must mean it is alright.

And what's this nonsense about one case of vegan parents killing their kids? How does that show that vegans are socially and psychologically abnormal individuals? Go ahead and completely ignore the cases of non-vegans doing the same thing every week in this country.

Your philosophy of being "open-minded" really boils down to believing anything you want and not accepting any facts presented by others because you are so blinded by your own ignorance and bias. You're content ignoring relevant, hard facts and embracing irrelevant facts so that you can stay really open-minded about never questioning your beliefs.

let me post my quote again, so that you fools can stop spinning my argument. next time read what i write so you can become an informed protester. otherwise you come off looking like a tool when you are arguing things that i have already conceded.

there is evidence that a balanced diet is best. both vegans and non-vegans can attain all nutrients and a healthy lifestyle if a structured diet is followed. i should also point out, though, that it has in fact been shown in studies that vegans tend to be on the smaller (not necessarily less healthy) side of the growth chart.

my point was to show exactly what you have said. most vegans live fine lives. i was just simply pointing out that if i wanted to act like peta and start spreading propaganda, there is evidence to do so. so why don't you read my argument and see that i was in fact pointed out what you said BEFORE you spout your libelous claims.

haha, and which facts are you talking about? which facts have i ignored? go try and find the facts in this thread, preceding this post, that support any single claim made by you or your camp.

 

[typeB-md]

OMFG, could you be MORE wrong? He is the ONLY one on here utilizing fact and logic. The rest of you are just spewing OPINIONS.

LOL @ all of you. I hope type-b and I become colleagues!!

i'm glad to see someone can discriminate between fact and opinion.

"OMG, killing animals is teh not-cool!!!!"

i especially like the one girl in this thread that is saying that frogs or mice or whatever are not as important as dogs in regard to killing them. i bet that's a fact too :keke:

 

[Mistress S]

tell me why you feel that executing animals for experimentation is, as you say, necessary? you say this very declaratory. and just to clarify, why is killing a mouse under any circumstances less abhorrent than killing a dog? i know you didn't say this, but you seem to "100%" agree with the person who did.

Um, okay. First of all, what I said was "humanely executed animal research"--as in, research on animals that is humanely carried out, not "execution" as in killing something. If you re-read my post, that should be clear. Secondly, not only did I not say killing a mouse is less abhorrent than killing a dog, I also did not say I agreed 100% with the person who did--I was agreeing with bluepanda, not FutureDrCynthia, who actually said that. Maybe you should check your facts and take the time to carefully read people's posts before attacking them- sheesh.

 

[bananachip]

look, there is no such thing as "humane" experimentation. When you make an animal ill and then pump it full of drugs, there is a lot of suffering going down. I mean, have you heard the screams of a rabbit when you inject it? Pure terror.

On a farm, those chickens aren't living it up right until they are killed. They live crappy lives in cages and then are killed. So its the same thing. Killing anything is cruel, unless you're in Nam and your buddy's guts are hanging in his lap and he just not going to make it....

Anyway, so animal testing is cruel, by and large. So is animal consumption. But most people have the mindset "I dont give a f#@$" when it comes to animals because they are delicious, sometimes nutritious, and contribute to healthier humans.

Dont try to seperate dogs from mice...an animal is an animal. Even cows feel sad, like when you seperate them from their mothers...i dunno if any of you have actually seen an animal before, but they do have emotion. But what the hell, its just an animal, thats what we say.

So if you love animals, dont get animal products or use medicines derived from animal research. However, if you do do somethings and not others, thats cool too. Just trying makes a difference and your voice gets heard.

In addition, vegan girls are usually skinner = prettier = more likely to get asked on a date by me, then stood up because i have no money.

Man, i want some veal cutlets! A little olive oil, garlic, sea salt, black pepper, and wine, marinate and throw it on a the grill...yummy.

 

[zion]

I don't want to observe others killing an animal either. I would refuse to even watch a video of it. I just think killing or cutting open an animal is wrong, cruel and inhumane. Just because I don't want to kill an animal does not mean I an naive and wrong. I'm sorry that you and so many others cant comprehend that animals suffer pain and fear also.

this is a very stupid statement. the attack my lack of understanding that animals feel pain is very *****ic. the reason we experiment on animals is because they feel pain, the way HUMANS do, which is what makes them good models to study. i stand corrected than. if you cannot stand animals being used, perhaps you may not be able to hand medical school considering the medicine and science is founded on experiments on animals.

 

[zion]

Again, yes I know I will have to cut up dead people in medical school. To me that is millions of times better that cutting up a live dog! Those people donated their bodies, the dogs never have a choice. Yes, I dissected a fetal pig before in bio. But the pigs came from slaughter houses where a pregnate pig was accidently killed. I eat pork, so why would I have a huge problem with that? I found it a little sad but I still did the lab. Yes, dog labs would be different, I don't eat dog. Even if the labs were to use live pigs, I still wouldn't do it.

let me get this straight, you don't like to watch animal experimentation, even on video, but you don't mind putting an animal in your mouth. the animals that go into your pie hole live in conditions that are just as horrendous as lab conditions. please examine your own life before making stupid statements!

 

[IAmAUser]

.

 

[pillowhead]

unlike you trying to limit my personal choices, my views promote self-regulation. you have provided not once single fact for your argument, it is based on entirely your dislike of the way they animals are treated. i was trying to point out that most americans don't really have a problem with the way things are, and as a democracy we have the ability to make changes if we feel they are necessary. i know the liberal types don't really like democracy or capitalism, but this is how things work and economic numbers show just how content americans are with the beef and poultry industry.

why not worry about your own life and stop enforcing your will onto others?

how on earth am i trying to limit your personal choices? when did I ever say that you should be vegetarian or that animal reserach should be banned or that the agricultural industry should be more tightly regulated? you are ridiculous! This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, capitalism, forcing my will onto others...you are full of crap. Please, I voted liberterian in the last presidential election. Yeah, I must be sooooo liberal and anti-capitalist.

and you accuse others of not being able to read. sheesh.

This is about animal pain and suffering, pure and simple. This isn't based "entirely on my dislike about the way animals are treated." You really honestly believe that it's all just my opinion? That these animals aren't actually and objectively being mistreated? Do you think humans that have been tortured are just disliking their treatment in the same way that some people dislike the color red or blue? I understand that pain itself can be a subjective feeling, but come on, if I pulled out your body parts when you're wide awake with no anesthesia, you would be suffering. That isn't simply a subjective reaction. All normal human beings would react painfully.

 

[typeB-md]

This is actually an issue I am deeply invested in as a vegan and a medical student. For me personally, I will choose to prescribe modern medicines to my future patients, despite the fact that they have been tested animals.

(As an aside, I will quote Mark Twain on this, "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." My personal opinion is that if animal research were conducted humanely, and only when absolutely necessary, then I would be much more OK with it than I am now. However, neither of those things are true in most cases, including cases in which I have been involved in animal research myself. If you are interested, please see this article and/or this site for more about modern animal experimentation).
(As an aside to my aside , if farm animals were treated as humanely as most people think they are, I would probably still be eating meat today! Did you know that a modern factory farmed chicken spends its entire 42-day lifespan in a cage space smaller than a piece of notebook paper, has its beak seared off shortly after birth (with no anesthesia), and has been bred to grow so fat so rapidly that their legs are often unable to support their weight? I will quote the new pope on this one, "Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible... Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. . . . It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.")

Anyway, to get back to my main point, while I am troubled by the abuse of animals in many situations, including in medical research, I don't think that this makes me a hypocrite if I choose to prescribe a life-improving medication to a patient. For example, fifty years ago Nazi doctors froze prisoners to death in tanks of ice water in order to learn how to treat hypothermia. Though they failed to find a treatment, their data was eventually recovered by Allied troops. Our doctors developed information based on that data which is used today in the treatment of hypothermia. While we do not approve of the methods used to obtain the data, I don't think that it makes us hypocrites when we treat hypothermic patients.
Of course, this is not a cut and dried topic! For a more in depth discussion (by someone who disagrees with me), see the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol.14, No.1, 1997. (You can probably get to this online through your school's library, but if not you can read the abstract here.)

this is by far one of the most intelligent arguments i have ever heard from the vegan crowd. very well though out, i did some research and am now more intelligent for your post. here are some things i found:

Crippled chickens choose pain relief
-i would just like to point out that even though the crippled chickens were found to prefer foods with pain killers, they did not comment on what percentage of chickens fall under this category

Beaks found richly innervated

i would like the other dopes in this thread to take note of the quoted user and his/her great use of facts and the literature. now you see how much more effective this argument is than spouting baseless opinions. good post!

 

[pillowhead]

this is by far one of the most intelligent arguments i have ever heard from the vegan crowd. very well though out, i did some research and am now more intelligent for your post. here are some things i found:

Crippled chickens choose pain relief
-i would just like to point out that even though the crippled chickens were found to prefer foods with pain killers, they did not comment on what percentage of chickens fall under this category

Beaks found richly innervated

i would like the other dopes in this thread to take note of the quoted user and his/her great use of facts and the literature. now you see how much more effective this argument is than spouting baseless opinions. good post!

some of us actually have real lives away from our computers so that we can't spend all day looking up internet references (because if it's on the internet, it must be true) to pacify someone who likes to call people "dope" on online forums.

now with that said, I've already wasted to much time arguing with someone clearly not worth arguing worth...I should know better.

 

[typeB-md]

how on earth am i trying to limit your personal choices? when did I ever say that you should be vegetarian or that animal reserach should be banned or that the agricultural industry should be more tightly regulated? you are ridiculous! This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, capitalism, forcing my will onto others...you are full of crap. Please, I voted liberterian in the last presidential election. Yeah, I must be sooooo liberal and anti-capitalist.

and you accuse others of not being able to read. sheesh.

This is about animal pain and suffering, pure and simple. This isn't based "entirely on my dislike about the way animals are treated." You really honestly believe that it's all just my opinion? That these animals aren't actually and objectively being mistreated? Do you think humans that have been tortured are just disliking their treatment in the same way that some people dislike the color red or blue? I understand that pain itself can be a subjective feeling, but come on, if I pulled out your body parts when you're wide awake with no anesthesia, you would be suffering. That isn't simply a subjective reaction. All normal human beings would react painfully.

i thought you were on-board with the others. i apologize as you are correct and have not pushed for others to be regulated by your morals.

in response to what you have said regarding suffering, here is a good article that responds to evidence by scottish researchers that bony fishes feel "pain." it's a good read and well-written from a more or less unbiased standpoint.

EDIT: here is the link http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005601.html

 

[typeB-md]

some of us actually have real lives away from our computers so that we can't spend all day looking up internet references (because if it's on the internet, it must be true) to pacify someone who likes to call people "dope" on online forums.

now with that said, I've already wasted to much time arguing with someone clearly not worth arguing worth...I should know better.

what are you even talking about?

the links posted were to vindicate some activist claims. and these are studies published in veterinary journals that just happened to be quoted on web sites.

i know that some people don't like to take time and learn about what they spout off, but in order to have an educated stance on something, you should gain some insight into its background. "real lives away from our computers..."

you sound like a rednecks that come to clinic "hell, i aint have no time for none of that learning of the medicines, i got a job that needs workin'"

as if your other responsibilities mitigate your ignorance... and a medical student as well. kudos!

 

[Stanford_Playah]

Again, yes I know I will have to cut up dead people in medical school. To me that is millions of times better that cutting up a live dog! Those people donated their bodies, the dogs never have a choice. Yes, I dissected a fetal pig before in bio. But the pigs came from slaughter houses where a pregnate pig was accidently killed. I eat pork, so why would I have a huge problem with that? I found it a little sad but I still did the lab. Yes, dog labs would be different, I don't eat dog. Even if the labs were to use live pigs, I still wouldn't do it.

The distinctions you draw between cutting a cadaver and killing a dog make perfect sense to me, but based on the reasons you provided I think you need to think a little bit harder about why killing a pig is not as bad as killing a dog, because it sounds like you do on some level feel sympathy for animals in light of the way they're abused in many situations.

To me, it seems like you're saying that it doesn't feel wrong to kill a pregnant pig because you eat pigs, but it's not okay to kill a dog because you don't eat dogs. I understand that it is much easier to feel sympathy for animals you haven't grown up eating, but that's a very convenient and not necessarily logical reason to draw arbitrary lines in this issue, and I think that's why some people have gotten on your case. I can see why you feel the way you do and it took me some time to get over this myself, but it is inherently hypocritical and maybe you even realize this.

For those of you who are doubtful about the extent to which animals raised for food feel pain, click on the link to the video on the left-hand side and watch and listen:
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

 

[Pyroclast]

this is by far one of the most intelligent arguments i have ever heard from the vegan crowd. very well though out, i did some research and am now more intelligent for your post. here are some things i found:

Crippled chickens choose pain relief
-i would just like to point out that even though the crippled chickens were found to prefer foods with pain killers, they did not comment on what percentage of chickens fall under this category

Beaks found richly innervated

i would like the other dopes in this thread to take note of the quoted user and his/her great use of facts and the literature. now you see how much more effective this argument is than spouting baseless opinions. good post!

OK, typeB, I'll admit, I was wrong about you. I was basing my troll suspicions on your first six posts, which were primarily schoolyard taunts. But you are being respectful of others' well-reasoned, well-documented arguments. It doesn't mean I agree with you, but just because you're being obnoxious doesn't mean you're automatically wrong either.

 

[bluepanda]

The following is an excerpt from http://agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5apain.htm :

"Current intensive farming practices have led to increased occurrence of long term painful conditions which last for weeks to months beyond the expected healing time (Molony and Kent 1997). This causes a deterioration in animal welfare and also reduces production and financial gain. Lameness, a common chronic condition affecting dairy cows, chickens and sheep, is the name for a collection of diseases, which cause the clinical symptom of lameness. Lameness in dairy cattle is a major health problem not only because the animal has difficulty walking but also on the basis of problems associated with lameness such as pain, reduced food intake and loss of body condition (Hemsworth et al. 1995). Lameness causes substantial pain of long duration and increases costs to the farmer by increasing labour requirement, treatment costs, reduced milk production, reduced fertility and involuntary culling and decreased slaughter value (Alban et al. 1996). In Denmark, approximately 7% of lactating cows are affected whereas in the UK this can range between 4 and 55% (Alban et al. 1996). Cows suffering in this way enter the milking parlour later, are more restless during milking, lie down in the pasture for longer and grazed for shorter periods (Hassall et al. 1993). The welfare implications of lameness include reduced mobility and detrimental effects on physiology and behaviour including increased susceptibility to disease as well as pain and discomfort (Hassall et al.1993). Acutely affected cows are reluctant to get up or move and walk with great tenderness and pain in the digits (Yeruham et al. 1999). Chronically affected cows hobble for the rest of their lives and can appear depressed, anorexic, and suffer weight loss which all compromise the animal's welfare (Whay 1997).

Papillomatous digital dermatitis (PDD) and laminitis are both major causes of pain and lameness. These diseases cause lesions, foul in the foot, separation of the sole at the heel, leakage of exudate, necrotic dermatitis, alopecia and hypekeratosis of the tail. Claw lameness, due to infection, trauma, nutritional deficiency or metabolic disturbances, can be influenced by age, breed, terrain, climate and farm management (Yeruham et al. 1999). This condition leads to decreased milk yield, impaired reproductive output, increased number of culled cows and increased treatment costs. Treatments such as antibiotic and non-antibiotic formulations applied topically or in a footbath can lessen the effects of lameness but recurrence is high (Shearer and Fernandez 2000). Improving management of cows e.g. reduced time spent waiting at the milking parlour and improving terrain and hoof trimming procedures could alleviate some of the problem of lameness amongst cattle. Sheep also suffer from lameness mainly due to foot rot that causes chronic pain and impairment of gait reflected in increased plasma cortisol, which can be elevated for 3 months (Ley et al. 1991; 1994)

Lameness also effects broiler or meat chickens and turkeys. Meat birds are selected for rapid growth and become too heavy for their legs to carry their bodies and their skeleton becomes distorted. This increased weight places unnatural stresses on their joints and results in abnormal gait; impairs the ability to walk and the affected individuals spend less time standing (Duncan et al. 1991; McGeown et al 1999). Studies have shown that a normal chicken takes an average 11 seconds to walk a set distance whereas a lame chicken takes 34 seconds. This time can be reduced to 18 seconds if the drug carprofen, an analgesic, is administered which presumably reduces pain associated with lameness.

Lameness is particularly prevalent in broiler chickens and turkeys and it has been shown that 90% of broilers at 7 weeks of age had detectable gait abnormalities (Kestin et al. 1992). These fast growing birds have more breast muscle and shorter wider legs with immature bones. This leads to a gait which is typified by short steps, feet positioned wide apart and the feet turned out resulting in abnormally large mediolateral forces required to move the bird's centre of gravity over the stance leg (Corr 1999). Affected chickens take shorter steps, walk more slowly and have greater stresses placed upon the musculoskeletal system resulting in an inefficient walking system. Broiler chickens, as a consequence, spend much less time walking and standing (Duncan et al. 1991; McGeown et al. 1999). The possible pain resulting from skeletal disease has been investigated using analgesics with some evidence of pain associated with lameness (McGeown et al. 1999; Danbury et al. 2000).

There is no shortage of readily available facts on the suffering of animals at the hands of humans, not to mention the ecological ineffeciency and environmental destruction resulting from modern agricultural practices, as well as the unsafe working conditions for people in slaughterhouses (see "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser).

 

[NiteOwl]

The distinctions you draw between cutting a cadaver and killing a dog make perfect sense to me, but based on the reasons you provided I think you need to think a little bit harder about why killing a pig is not as bad as killing a dog, because it sounds like you do on some level feel sympathy for animals in light of the way they're abused in many situations.

To me, it seems like you're saying that it doesn't feel wrong to kill a pregnant pig because you eat pigs, but it's not okay to kill a dog because you don't eat dogs. I understand that it is much easier to feel sympathy for animals you haven't grown up eating, but that's a very convenient and not necessarily logical reason to draw arbitrary lines in this issue, and I think that's why some people have gotten on your case. I can see why you feel the way you do and it took me some time to get over this myself, but it is inherently hypocritical and maybe you even realize this.

For those of you who are doubtful about the extent to which animals raised for food feel pain, click on the link to the video on the left-hand side and watch and listen:
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

I didn't say killing a pregnant pig was okay. The fetal pigs come from pregnant pigs at a slaughter house, and often the people who slaughter them didn't know they were pregnant in the first place.
Whatever, I am tired of repeating myself over and over again.

 

[NiteOwl]

Okay, I am through with this stupid thread. I got the info I needed (the lists of schools that do and don't do live animal labs) many posts earlier. I am sick of trying to explain myself and my views. I can't exactly explain them and when I try to I end up screwing up my words and end up saying something that I didn't mean to have come out that way. Like when I said that killing frogs wasn't near as bad as killing a dog. I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I couldn't figure out a way to explain exactly my reasoning and still can't. Just deal with my statement "I disaprove of live animal labs in medical school". I can't explain my reasoning without screwing it up, I mean I know why, its just hard to put into words. I guess its more of an emotional thing about it is why I can't explain it well. Also I am tired of repeating myself, I have basically said the same damn thing through most of this thread. And instead of people reading this stuff they poke at the same questions again and again. So you all can go on and argue about crap with eachother, and especially with typeB - seeing thats just about the only thing he knows how to do. I tried to make a serious thread about a real concern that I feel very deeply about and for the most part it turns to trash. I'm not saying that not everything said here is trash, because some people here did try to be helpful. And I thank those who were helpful. So, I am leaving this thread alone now. Don't really bother with asking me more stuff about the animal topic because I won't reply. I am not even comming back to read it. I mean, you can reply to my comments if you want to, but don't expect to get anything back.

 

[typeB-md]

OK, typeB, I'll admit, I was wrong about you. I was basing my troll suspicions on your first six posts, which were primarily schoolyard taunts. But you are being respectful of others' well-reasoned, well-documented arguments. It doesn't mean I agree with you, but just because you're being obnoxious doesn't mean you're automatically wrong either.

agreed.

i only ask for basis of one's opinion. any well-reasoned and researched idea is a-ok in my book.

 

[typeB-md]

Okay, I am through with this stupid thread. I got the info I needed (the lists of schools that do and don't do live animal labs) many posts earlier. I am sick of trying to explain myself and my views. I can't exactly explain them and when I try to I end up screwing up my words and end up saying something that I didn't mean to have come out that way. Like when I said that killing frogs wasn't near as bad as killing a dog. I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I couldn't figure out a way to explain exactly my reasoning and still can't. Just deal with my statement "I disaprove of live animal labs in medical school". I can't explain my reasoning without screwing it up, I mean I know why, its just hard to put into words. I guess its more of an emotional thing about it is why I can't explain it well. Also I am tired of repeating myself, I have basically said the same damn thing through most of this thread. And instead of people reading this stuff they poke at the same questions again and again. So you all can go on and argue about crap with eachother, and especially with typeB - seeing thats just about the only thing he knows how to do. I tried to make a serious thread about a real concern that I feel very deeply about and for the most part it turns to trash. I'm not saying that not everything said here is trash, because some people here did try to be helpful. And I thank those who were helpful. So, I am leaving this thread alone now. Don't really bother with asking me more stuff about the animal topic because I won't reply. I am not even comming back to read it. I mean, you can reply to my comments if you want to, but don't expect to get anything back.

we're trying to teach you scientific reasoning. don't get mad at everyone and throw a tantrum because you were blatantly hypocritical.

it's okay if you think that killing a frog is less offensive than dogs. offensive, by the nature of the word, is subjective. Offensive - "disagreeable to the senses." But then you can't look down on others that say "i know cattle and poultry are raised poorly, but i'll eat it anyway."

this thread is an excellent example of personal and subconscious biases . it is good form, however, to take a stance that you feel you can adequately defend. otherwise it's my opinion against your opinion in which case we're both right.

i just want people to think before speaking. you are probably better off for having this thread. i think it has provoked you to think about you ideologies and now you have defense for you arguments and worked through some logical fallacies. no pain, no gain.

 

[Stanford_Playah]

we're trying to teach you scientific reasoning. don't get mad at everyone and throw a tantrum because you were blatantly hypocritical.

it's okay if you think that killing a frog is less offensive than dogs. offensive, by the nature of the word, is subjective. Offensive - "disagreeable to the senses." But then you can't look down on others that say "i know cattle and poultry are raised poorly, but i'll eat it anyway."

this thread is an excellent example of personal and subconscious biases . it is good form, however, to take a stance that you feel you can adequately defend. otherwise it's my opinion against your opinion in which case we're both right.

i just want people to think before speaking. you are probably better off for having this thread. i think it has provoked you to think about you ideologies and now you have defense for you arguments and worked through some logical fallacies. no pain, no gain.

I'm still not sure I can believe it, but I just agreed with every word you just said. I think you're a reasonable man - Senator McCain would be very proud.

 

[typeB-md]

I'm still not sure I can believe it, but I just agreed with every word you just said. I think you're a reasonable man - Senator McCain would be very proud.

he is

i know many times i am unpopular but all i ask for is substance in an argument. and if you look at the posts, the quality of argument just keeps getting better. brings a tear to my eye.