Rat Lab

[PharmDstudent]

---

Members don't see this ad.

If you haven't already noticed, I'm an avid vegetarian, and I believe in the protection and observance of animal rights. Therefore, when I heard about this lab we have coming up next semester in which we have to sedate rats with Risperdine, I felt a little angry and upset. My professor spoke about the effects of Risperdine on the rats, and how it can disable their sympathetic nervous system, but that's not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that we are experimenting on animals for the sake of experimentation. I think that's wrong, even though we'll learn a good lesson, because they've already done the necessary testing of Risperdine in rats.

What do y'all think?

 

[CaliCPhT]

In my earlier studies, I took a Mammalian Physiology course with a lab where several experiments were done on live animals. I really did not like that lab, especially knowing that the animal was going to be euthanized at the end of the experiment. Of course the TA's leading the labs made the speech that the animals are bred for the purpose of experimentation, but that doesn't make it any easier. It's disturbing to me too...

I wonder if there is any way to simulate these experiments??? I know it's not the same as acutally doing the experiment, but something could be gained, right? I took an online course last semester that had an online lab. There was some software used that simulated various experiments.

 

[soyroger]

If you haven't already noticed, I'm an avid vegetarian, and I believe in the protection and observance of animal rights. Therefore, when I heard about this lab we have coming up next semester in which we have to sedate rats with Risperdine, I felt a little angry and upset. My professor spoke about the effects of Risperdine on the rats, and how it can disable their sympathetic nervous system, but that's not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that we are experimenting on animals for the sake of experimentation. I think that's wrong, even though we'll learn a good lesson, because they've already done the necessary testing of Risperdine in rats.

What do y'all think?

If you're learning a good lesson as you put it, then you aren't just experimenting for the sake of experimenting. I worked in a lab at UC Davis that studied traumatic brain injury and all the rats eventually died, but one of the best lessons I learned was to not be cavalier about animal experimentation. Overall it serves a very good purpose, otherwise I'm not for killing animals. Except for food of course, seeing as how I'm an omnivore.

After considering everything perhaps you can still try to opt out of the procedure by expressing your concern to the professor. They may show some sympathy since you can still be a great pharmacist without ever killing rats.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If the rats were 50 times our size and as intelligent as us, they'd do experimental tests on US. I say we get them before they evolve and get us.

 

[Old Timer]

If you haven't already noticed, I'm an avid vegetarian, and I believe in the protection and observance of animal rights.

Before I comment on the need for animal experimentation in Pharmacy School, I would like to know about the protection and observance of animal rights. Where do animals get these rights and where are they enumerated? I am asking in all seriousness and I am not trying to be smart....

 

[sdn1977]

I think its more a matter of "protection" of the animal's potential suffering.

The reality is, drugs must be tested in the most likely animal model possible & this varies with the drug. Some are best tested in monkeys, some in rats, some in dogs, some in other species.

We cannot test in Phase II or III in humans - that went out with Auschwitz, thanfully!

I appreciate your concern & worry about the animal. But, we have had major tragedies because of inadequate testing prior to use in humans (thalidomide) & it is a choice of the best of the worst possible outcomes.

Currently, there is signficant pressure to have all new drugs tested in the "end" generations - the elderly & children. This presents drug companies with huge responsibility & liability.

We definitely want to know what a drug might do before we expose an 18 month old to it, don't you think?

I understand, for you, it is a difficult concept to grasp. But, if you've ever visited an animal lab at a large research university (UCD, UCSF, UCLA & UCSD come to mind), you will see that although the drugs, devices and procedures are tested in these animals, they are treated with dignity & their suffering is kept to a minimum. My daughter worked at Scripps Institute before entering medical school and the care these animals were shown was tremendous.l

I wish there had been the testing on some of the drugs I've seen used over 30 years on animals. Much human suffering could have been prevented.

But, again - you could probably opt out due to your belief system. However how do you reconcile that with the inevitable question you get from a patient?

 

[Old Timer]

I think its more a matter of "protection" of the animal's potential suffering.

If this is the issue, as pet owner and animal lover, I am 100% in agreement that animal suffering should be limited. I just want to be clear about animal rights and where they come from.

I thought your post was clear and well reasoned, as usual.

You were aware however, no Thalidomide was ever sold in the USA, until recently. The FDA never approved Thalidomide in the USA, despite enormous pressure from the manufacturer. All U.S. birth defects were from drugs imported from Europe.

 

[Epic]

I've seen very nice expensive shoes made out of animal hide.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Before I comment on the need for animal experimentation in Pharmacy School, I would like to know about the protection and observance of animal rights. Where do animals get these rights and where are they enumerated? I am asking in all seriousness and I am not trying to be smart....

Animals were given certain rights from people many, many years ago. It probably began with the observance of endangered species. Government agencies and activist groups had to push for the protection of these animals. Unlike the extinct Dodo birds, we still have American Bald eagles, which is triumphant because they are symbolic creatures in this country. You have to get a permit from the government to endanger or threaten those species that are considered endangered (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/permits/index.html).

It is illegal to abuse animals in certain states. The use of the term "abuse" is always subjective. There is no way to define what is abusive in every case, so it is must be determined on a case by case basis. Therefore, anything could be abusive in the eyes of a judge.

Think about what just happened to Michael Vick. He was arrested for his involvement in dog fighting, which is illegal. He just took a class through PETA about the ethical treatment of animals, 😛. I think he passed his postexam. Dogs are protected from being fought in Georgia. Therefore, the dogs have the right not to be fought. They may not have the right to live after they've been trained to fight by their owners, but they still have the to right not to be fought. It's an indirect right, because they didn't create the laws themselves, but never the less, dogs are not allowed to be fought in Georgia.

This is an interesting webpage about the philosophy of animal rights.
http://www.cultureandanimals.org/animalrights.htm

There are no animal constitutions or Bill of Rights, but animals are allowed to live in certain ways through established laws.

 

[PharmDstudent]

If you're learning a good lesson as you put it, then you aren't just experimenting for the sake of experimenting. I worked in a lab at UC Davis that studied traumatic brain injury and all the rats eventually died, but one of the best lessons I learned was to not be cavalier about animal experimentation. Overall it serves a very good purpose, otherwise I'm not for killing animals. Except for food of course, seeing as how I'm an omnivore.

After considering everything perhaps you can still try to opt out of the procedure by expressing your concern to the professor. They may show some sympathy since you can still be a great pharmacist without ever killing rats.

I don't think it serves a necessary purpose. That's the problem! I understand the need to test animals in drug studies, but the Risperdine studies have already been done.

I will try to opt out of the experiment. There are other practicing vegetarians and vegans, who do so for religious reasons, so I probably won't be alone.

 

[PharmDstudent]

However how do you reconcile that with the inevitable question you get from a patient?

I know that some battles have to be lost to win wars.

 

[PharmDstudent]

I've seen very nice expensive shoes made out of animal hide.

If they're that nice, they would also make them from synthetic material.

 

[Old Timer]

PharmDstudent:

I am going to take a very unpopular stance here (what a surprise). I say this as an animal lover and pet owner. Animals have no rights. We as human beings have dominion over the animals of the earth. It is wrong to equate animals and human beings. The Declaration of Independence was pretty clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights

The rights we have as citizens of the United States are what separates from the rest of the world. Just because animals have no rights does not mean we can treat them with cruelty.

Understand from a religious point of view (especially the Jewish point of view) man is an imperfect creature and that if man were to be perfect he would be a vegetarian, but that is more about the human being than it is about the rights of animals.

The main point of my discourse is disabuse this notion of animal rights or equality of animals and humans. Where does it end? I could pose a 1000 questions about human and animal life not the 10 straw man arguments in the link you posed.

All of that being said, you should be able to opt out of the lab if your views do not permit you to perform experiments on animals. Please speak with course instructor.

 

[PharmDstudent]

The main point of my discourse is disabuse this notion of animal rights or equality of animals and humans. Where does it end? I could pose a 1000 questions about human and animal life not the 10 straw man arguments in the link you posed.

I hope that one day, maybe in the near future if all of us are lucky, you will wake up and realize that there is existence outside of philosophy classrooms.

 

[Old Timer]

I hope that one day, maybe in the near future if all of us are lucky, you will wake up and realize that there is existence outside of philosophy classrooms.

I have never been in a philosophy classroom, though this is clearly a philosophical question. The whole idea of right and wrong is philosophical. If someone or something has rights, where do these rights come from? Who gives them? Can they be taken away? What is a right? Exactly what rights do animals have?

As I said, from my religious perspective, a vegetarian is on a higher spiritual plane than a meat eater. I am truly a real word person. The question to ask is what is the source of your beliefs? If they are merely your feelings then what happens when your feelings clash with mine? Is there anything transcendent? Does life have any value? Is the value of an animal life the same as the value of human life?

As I have said before and it always gets me into trouble around here, I can only judge your actions, God judges hearts. If you do good, what do I care the reason why?

 

[Trancelucent1]

I have never been in a philosophy classroom, though this is clearly a philosophical question. The whole idea of right and wrong is philosophical. If someone or something has rights, where do these rights come from? Who gives them? Can they be taken away? What is a right? Exactly what rights do animals have?

As I said, from my religious perspective, a vegetarian is on a higher spiritual plane than a meat eater. I am truly a real word person. The question to ask is what is the source of your beliefs? If they are merely your feelings then what happens when your feelings clash with mine? Is there anything transcendent? Does life have any value? Is the value of an animal life the same as the value of human life?

As I have said before and it always gets me into trouble around here, I can only judge your actions, God judges hearts. If you do good, what do I care the reason why?

You make some very interested points Old Timer. My boyfriend is taking an upper level philosophy class and he brings these thoughts up all the time. In fact they had this very discussion in class this week, of course it was a pretty heated argument as it tends to stir up emotions. As an animal lover and pet owner I also agree with Old Timer on this one. Of course it is also just my opinion and we're all entitled to one.

 

[bananaface]

PharmDstudent:

I am going to take a very unpopular stance here (what a surprise). I say this as an animal lover and pet owner. Animals have no rights.

Tell that to the dude in TX doing time for dragging his dog behind his pickup for 2 miles.

 

[Requiem]

As I'm sure by now you're all aware, I'm an avid meat lover. Just this day in fact I've had chicken breast at lunch and a hot turkey sandwhich for supper.

What do ya'll think?

In all seriousness, if the lab offends on some personal level of belief, get a clergyperson or rabbi to sign a note to that effect and get exempted.

 

[bananaface]

Many of us consider it unethical to use information gathered by human subjects under conditions with which we do not agree. That brings us to a parallel ethical question:

If one believes that animal experimentation is unethical, is it ethical to use information gathered as a result of it?

 

[Old Timer]

Tell that to the dude in TX doing time for dragging his dog behind his pickup for 2 miles.

Please when I say animals have no rights, I am not in favor of being cruel to animals. That's not what I mean.

 

[Requiem]

Many of us consider it unethical to use information gathered by human subjects under conditions with which we do not agree.

Why is this so? Is the argument that if by using the knowledge obtained you're "benefitting" in a sense from others suffering?

Just curious. I believe the action to be what's wrong, not with the information obtained. I'd see the knowledge obtained as a positive from the darkness, not something to be done away with by association.

 

[npage148]

Vegetarians are annoying when they make an effort to tell everyone how they are better than every non-vegetarians

 

[bananaface]

Please when I say animals have no rights, I am not in favor of being cruel to animals. That's not what I mean.

I know you aren't in favor of it. The point is simply that animals do have rights in some situations.

 

[Old Timer]

I know you aren't in favor of it. The point is simply that animals do have rights in some situations.

Explain what a right is???????? The obligation is on the human being to treat the animal appropriately.

 

[bananaface]

Why is this so? Is the argument that if by using the knowledge obtained you're "benefitting" in a sense from others suffering?

Just curious. I believe the action to be what's wrong, not with the information obtained. I'd see the knowledge obtained as a positive from the darkness, not something to be done away with by association.

People are offended by the idea of using data obtained by the Nazis during the Holocaust, b/c they feel that using the data would legitimize the experiments done and thereby condone the actions of the experimentors.

 

[bananaface]

Explain what a right is???????? The obligation is on the human being to treat the animal appropriately.

And, it's on people to treat each other appropriately as well. There are laws about what people can and can't do in various situations, with reference to both animals and humans. When a guy goes to jail for dragging a dog behind the car, he goes b/c he hurt the dog and society believes the dog has the right not to be hurt in that manner.

A right is something that society believes you are entitled to. The idea that animals have no rights b/c we kill them is incorrect. We often kill people too. We kill them by waging war on them, by sending them to war, by capital punishment, by not addressing their basic needs as a society, and so forth.

 

[Requiem]

People are offended by the idea of using data obtained by the Nazis during the Holocaust, b/c they feel that using the data would legitimize the experiments done and thereby condone the actions of the experimentors.

Yeah, it's something I really hadn't contemplated much in the past. I feel perhaps objectively the results are legitimate; however the experiments were not.

 

[Epic]

If they're that nice, they would also make them from synthetic material.

A nice pair of $800 leather shoes cost $39.99 synthetic! What a bargain.

 

[Epic]

Do predatory animals provide animal rights to their prey in the hierarchy of food chain? Not..

Should we ? To a degree...

But lab rats? Please...

Yes, I'm a proud memeber of PETA (people enjoying tasty animals)

 

[Old Timer]

A right is something that society believes you are entitled to. The idea that animals have no rights b/c we kill them is incorrect. We often kill people too. We kill them by waging war on them, by sending them to war, by capital punishment, by not addressing their basic needs as a society, and so forth.

If that is what you believe, we will just have to agree to disagree. I prefer clarity to agreement.

Just a few questions:

• Is all killing wrong?
• Why is killing wrong?
• Is it wrong for a lion to kill a zebra?
• Are the zebra's rights violated?
• Whose rights do we violate by not addressing their basic needs?

 

[PharmDstudent]

I just spoke with my mother about the rat lab and a few other things. It actually turned out to be a 2 & 1/2 hour conversation, but that was to be expected. We actually planned the phone call ahead of time! She is a very wise and wonderful woman. The insight that she brings to our conversations is always priceless.

Her suggestion to me was to view the rat lab as an experience in which I could see the full cycle of a drug. From the injection to the resulting sedation, I would be able to collect data and information about what happened to the rat, which I may never be able to see in a human. I would witness the full range of effects of that particular drug. It sounds simple, but at the same time, it's an extraordinary perspective.

Pharmacists dispense medications so that people can heal or maintain health. I cannot think of a single drug, besides the drugs used in euthanasia, that is dispensed to harm people, yet toxic levels of many prescription drugs can do that.

No matter how this rat lab practical works out, if I do the lab at least I'll be able to have a better understanding of exactly what I am putting in a bottle, sticking a sticker on, and selling to a customer with a smile on my face. I'll know what I'm really dealing with!

She also mentioned this novel called Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. She's going to let me borrow a copy soon, so I'll have yet another perspective to consider.

 

[Caverject]

so where does one draw the line after reading this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_as/india_elephants

 

[sdn1977]

I just spoke with my mother about the rat lab and a few other things. It actually turned out to be a 2 & 1/2 hour conversation, but that was to be expected. We actually planned the phone call ahead of time! She is a very wise and wonderful woman. The insight that she brings to our conversations is always priceless.

Her suggestion to me was to view the rat lab as an experience in which I could see the full cycle of a drug. From the injection to the resulting sedation, I would be able to collect data and information about what happened to the rat, which I may never be able to see in a human. I would witness the full range of effects of that particular drug. It sounds simple, but at the same time, it's an extraordinary perspective.

Pharmacists dispense medications so that people can heal or maintain health. I cannot think of a single drug, besides the drugs used in euthanasia, that is dispensed to harm people, yet toxic levels of many prescription drugs can do that.

No matter how this rat lab practical works out, if I do the lab at least I'll be able to have a better understanding of exactly what I am putting in a bottle, sticking a sticker on, and selling to a customer with a smile on my face. I'll know what I'm really dealing with!

She also mentioned this novel called Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. She's going to let me borrow a copy soon, so I'll have yet another perspective to consider.

PharmD - this is a good education for you in many respects. You're learning not just about pharmacy & drugs, but about the gray areas of life.

Rarely are things black & white in real life. It important to learn about the shades of gray.

However, I will offer for you to think about the many antineoplastics we use. We deliberately cause harm to the human (patient), but just this side of toxicity. The treatment of cancer is crude & in its infancy. We know these drugs will kill cancer cells, but to deliver them, we also harm the patient. Of course, causing harm is not our intent, but the diarrhea, vomiting, mouth sores, hair loss, anemias, cardiac & kidney damage are all things we trade to try to treat the cancer.

One big area of animal research lies in how to develop mechanisms to use the hosts own antibodies to deliver the drug to just the cancer cells so we don't end up harming the host.

Good luck! This is one of those situations in which its easier to have an answer at the bottom of a bottle of red wine you've shared with friends than to actually have to make the decision to participate or not on Monday morning.

 

[Knickerbocker]

Do predatory animals provide animal rights to their prey in the hierarchy of food chain? Not..

Should we ? To a degree...

But lab rats? Please...

Yes, I'm a proud memeber of PETA (people enjoying tasty animals)

Yes, I'm going to resurrect this old thread, as I just wanted to comment on this mentality.

People often cite predatory animals as a case against animal rights. So, do you want to be more like animals? Chimpanzees fling feces across the room, should we do that? The goal for us, as humans, is to be above animals and their savage behaviors.

Oh, and the PETA joke is old and worn out.

 

[Old Timer]

People often cite predatory animals as a case against animal rights.

What rights do animals have? Where do these rights come from?

So, do you want to be more like animals? Chimpanzees fling feces across the room, should we do that? The goal for us, as humans, is to be above animals and their savage behaviors.

Only people kill for sport. Why is a lion a savage for eating a zebra? Are we savages because we eat meat?

 

[Knickerbocker]

What rights do animals have? Where do these rights come from?

Obviously, it comes from us. The reason you have a right to live without me killing you and taking your stuff is set by society.

Women and people of color were once basically property in the United States. Where did the rights they have today come from? Where were their rights in the first place?

Some of us in this world want people and animals to have certain rights. No philosophy is necessary.

Only people kill for sport. Why is a lion a savage for eating a zebra? Are we savages because we eat meat?

The lion is not a savage, but people are if they act like less intelligent animals. The lion doesn't know how to grow food or about nutritional requirements. The lion is a carnivore, we are not. Our food requirements are much different.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Here's my problem:
How can you differentiate between pets and regular animals? Is the issue domestication, ownership, camaraderie, or necessity for survival?

Any animal could be considered a pet. What I think is wrong is that fact that only the animals whose fate has led them to a research lab will be affected. Cat and dog owners "experiment" on their animals when they apply flea prevention for the first time. I'm sure you've all seen the controversy with the Hartz flea medicine. The difference between this type of "experimentation" and lab experimentation is that pet owners intend specifically to help their animals. Animal testing of compounds intended for future use in humans is not tested for the animal's sake; it is tested so that it will eventually reach the market, but only 1% or less of all drugs tested will reach the market. It sure seems like a lot of animals are tested for the sake of only a few FDA-approved compounds.

The only comfort that I have with testing comes from my Biochemistry professor out of LSU. He said that testing begins with cells first. If the cells on a petri dish die from the compound that it is exposed to, they will not continue testing of that compound.

 

[Old Timer]

Obviously, it comes from us. The reason you have a right to live without me killing you and taking your stuff is set by society.

In that case, it's clearly personal preference. You prefer to treat animals one way and I prefer to treat them another way.

Women and people of color were once basically property in the United States. Where did the rights they have today come from? Where were their rights in the first place?

Their rights were denied them, but their rights existed none the less. The Civil War was not fought about preference. It was fought over slavery. The entire abolitionist movement was based on the fact that slavery was morally wrong.

Some of us in this world want people and animals to have certain rights. No philosophy is necessary.

A philosophy is necessary or you have mental chaos. Do people and animals have the same rights? Again, where do these rights come from? Is it ok to say people/society can set their own rights and others have no right to intervene? There are no absolute rights and wrongs?

 

[evilolive]

I agree with OldTimer. The key distinction is that animals cannot reason in the same capacity we can, so therefore they are not granted the status of sentience. I see no reason why they should be given rights, although I do not believe in causing them purposeless harm. As a race, our needs come first.

 

[Knickerbocker]

I agree with OldTimer. The key distinction is that animals cannot reason in the same capacity we can, so therefore they are not granted the status of sentience. I see no reason why they should be given rights, although I do not believe in causing them purposeless harm. As a race, our needs come first.

No, the key reason is that we can better kill them and force them to do what we want.

Watch the "Planet of the Apes" movies for a reversal on this. The religion and beliefs of the apes is how humans treat apes (and other animals).

 

[Knickerbocker]

Their rights were denied them, but their rights existed none the less. The Civil War was not fought about preference. It was fought over slavery. The entire abolitionist movement was based on the fact that slavery was morally wrong.

A philosophy is necessary or you have mental chaos. Do people and animals have the same rights? Again, where do these rights come from? Is it ok to say people/society can set their own rights and others have no right to intervene? There are no absolute rights and wrongs?

If their rights weren't given to them, they certainly didn't exist. If society says that you don't have rights, then you don't have rights.

Rights don't come from anywhere; they are preference.

Also, the American Civil War was about more than just slavery. Economics and a power struggle were also a factor.

 

[Old Timer]

Rights don't come from anywhere; they are preference.

As long as you understand the logical concept of your statement. I prefer hospitals, Nazi's prefer gas chambers. It's Personal Preference. There is no right and wrong in the world only personal preference. Some prefer flying airplanes into office buildings, someone else doesn't.

You prefer to treat animals one way and others prefer to eat them or torture them. Neither one is wrong under your belief system. Is it ok to steal from store, the thief may prefer that to working.

Under you philosophy, Hitler was right, Jews were sub-human because, to paraphrase:

No, the key reason is that they could better kill them and force them to do what they want.

That makes it right.

This is a philosophy you could subscribe to? Stalin was fine killing 20 million Russians and Mao was ok killing 50 million Chinese because they had the power.

In fact the Civil War was about slavery. The economics was about slave labor and nothing else.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Old Timer,
As I have stated before, the rights that animals have are indirectly given to them by people (society). Regardless of intellect, we are all animals. Taxonomically speaking, humans are considered animals.

People like to make distinctions. Some people think that animals should be entitled to life just as humans, who are animals too, have been entitled. Sure, there will always be people who are a threat to society and will die for their "crimes" in prison, but for the most part, humans have the right to live, which is stated in the Constitution. So why shouldn't animals have similar rights?

 

[Knickerbocker]

As long as you understand the logical concept of your statement. I prefer hospitals, Nazi's prefer gas chambers. It's Personal Preference. There is no right and wrong in the world only personal preference. Some prefer flying airplanes into office buildings, someone else doesn't.

Under you philosophy, Hitler was right, Jews were sub-human because, to paraphrase:

That makes it right.

This is a philosophy you could subscribe to? Stalin was fine killing 20 million Russians and Mao was ok killing 50 million Chinese because they had the power.

In fact the Civil War was about slavery. The economics was about slave labor and nothing else.

Things are often relative. Bringing down the Twin Towers was wrong to us, but it was a justified attack on an enemy to the people who did it. Whoever wins writes the history books and dictates who was good and who was bad.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's killings were fine to them, but wrong to others. In those places at those times, the people had no rights. However, much of the rest of the world felt otherwise. Enough people felt that Jews should have rights, and this led to the state of Israel.

It takes beliefs and actions for any human or animal to have rights. Nothing is inherent. From a religious standpoint, the Old Testament has guidelines for slavery! Apparently God feels that slavery is ok as long as you follow some rules.

Slavery was a major issue, but it wasn't the entirety of the war.

I should probably stop posting before you twist my words more and paraphrase to your liking. 👎

 

[evilolive]

I should probably stop posting before you twist my words more and paraphrase to your liking.

You aren't addressing Old Timer's argument though.

The relativism is the central point to the argument for both sides - the question is where the majority lies. Preference should lead you to your next question: why do animals matter? What makes them equal in status to our own? There are parts of primal instinct that we as humans can never be rid of, but as humans we have the ability to separate ourselves by choice. You argue that we can act irrationally like animals, but that doesn't represent everyone as a whole nor perpetual existance.

Taxonomically speaking, humans are considered animals.

This is a weak argument. Certain primates can even communicate with humans using primitive language. Should they be allowed to roam free and be accomodated to drive cars, own houses, and own money of their own? The question often lies in where to draw the line for socially accepted norms.

Some of us in this world want people and animals to have certain rights. No philosophy is necessary.

Telling us that animals should have rights because we control them and consume them isn't very convincing.

 

[Knickerbocker]

OldTimer brings up preference which should lead you to your next question: why do animals matter? What makes them equal in status to our own?

Going by this question, we could easily justify lowering the status of other humans. Why should women matter? Men could take away their rights because they aren't considered equal (see Sharia law for an example).

If we treated animals better, perhaps we would treat each other better? Currently, it's quite ok to bomb people of a different color in other countries with little disregard for the innocent. Perhaps if we had higher regard for all life, we would actually respect other humans.

The higher the baseline, the more likely it is for humans to have more rights. Even in this country, some people are still not given full rights that are granted to others.

 

[Knickerbocker]

You aren't addressing Old Timer's argument though.

I'm just going to walk away. If I stay, what is going to happen is that I will be told that I am wrong while the person telling me so will arbitrarily define who and what should have rights.

 

[PharmDstudent]

This is a weak argument. Certain primates can even communicate with humans using primitive language. Should they be allowed to roam free and be accomodated to drive cars, own houses, and own money of their own? The question often lies in where to draw the line for socially accepted norms.

I said nothing about communication or lifestyle. I said LIFE. If animals are sacrificied for the purpose of experimentation, then their lives have ended due to the experimentation. In my opinion, that is wrong.

I have no questions about socially accepted norms.

Have you heard about the Chimp Haven? It's heartwarming to say the least.
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.chimphaven.org/
http://www.chimphaven.org/chimps-photo.cfm
http://monkeydaynews.blogspot.com/2008/01/congress-guarantees-sanctuary-for.html

 

[PharmDstudent]

I'm just going to walk away. If I stay, what is going to happen is that I will be told that I am wrong while the person telling me so will arbitrarily define who and what should have rights.

Don't fret. This is a learning experience.

 

[Old Timer]

I'm just going to walk away. If I stay, what is going to happen is that I will be told that I am wrong while the person telling me so will arbitrarily define who and what should have rights.

I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. I just want you to understand the logical path your arguments take. I did not twist your words at all. In your system of belief, which I do not share, there is no absolute good and evil, there is only personal preference. Just because someone believes they are doing good, does not mean their actions are good. I am certain Hitler did not wake up in the morning and say "Let's see what evil I can do today." He felt he was doing good. In your system of belief (that's what a philosophy of life is or what the Germans would call a [SIZE=-1]Weltanschauung or world view) all is relative. You are defining who has rights based on who has enough power to enforce his/her will on the other person.

In my system of belief, there is an absolute good and evil. It always evil to fly a plane into an office building, set of a bomb in a pizza shop, put people into gas chambers, put people in a Gulag, perform clitoridectomy on your daughters, burn a widow in her late husbands funeral pyre and I could go on and on. Just because the majority or a society does it, does not make it right.

I don't expect you to adopt my view. I am not trying to convert you religiously or philosophically. I am the rarest of creatures on a board of mainly college students, a God believer. They are like dinosaurs around here.

I would prefer clarity to agreement. I just want you to clear about what you are espousing. If I wanted to be where everyone agreed with me, I would not be here.

When you make an argument, take it to it's logical conclusion. It's the only way to have an intellectual discussion.
[/SIZE]