Rat Lab

[Old Timer]

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?

Our rights, while enshrined in the Constitution are philosophically based on the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In fact the Constitution is silent on the rights on individuals and the Bill of Rights is also silent. The right to Life is in the Declaration of Independence.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Our rights, while enshrined in the Constitution are philosophically based on the Declaration of Independence:


In fact the Constitution is silent on the rights on individuals and the Bill of Rights is also silent. The right to Life is in the Declaration of Independence.

Sorry. I am by NO means a history buff. It's really boring to me.
You could probably convince me that the Ten Commandments say "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The source of my post was wrong; although, I will admit that I will not look it up to verify the accuracy/inaccuracy, because that's how much I hate history .

 

[Knickerbocker]

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]

Let's clarify. As for the good/evil bit, my point is that it is relative to the definitions set by a particular society. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. I don't know where you get the idea that I thought that he was trying to be evil.

If everyone holds a certain value of good, then that is good. Same for evil. For example, it is evil for terrorists to attack us, but it is good for us to bomb them, even if we take out a neighborhood of innocent people. The opposite is true in the society in which the terrorists live.

You say that you are religious and that you believe in absolutes. Well, read Genesis, Chapter 34 and tell me how it is good for Jacob and his sons to kill all of the men in a city (after circumcising them) and then take all possession and women as their own? God promoted a lot of pillaging and murder for the good guys for some reason.

 

[evilolive]

I think we're losing focus: animals. Why is it wrong to kill animals in experimentation?

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.

True. But animals are not humans.

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.

Interesting thought, but it's the possibility to save man using whatever resources are necessary that takes precedence. Helping out the minority (that isn't even human) before the majority in our nation doesn't seem to be the best nor rational step. It's not a solution to our societal problems because it doesn't affect any egalitarian issues at the core. I don't find animal treatment to be the key to solving the cruelties of humanity. Perhaps the correlation is backwards - maybe society needs to get better before viewpoints about animals are changed, but for that to happen, we need "progress."

 

[Old Timer]

So first lets do one thing. We will agree to disagree with the source of our rights. I believe human rights come from God and should not be taken by man or as JFK put in his inaugural address comparing the US to the Soviet Union:
"We believe the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." You believe these rights come from man. We will not convince each other.

Next I never said that you said that Hitler thought he was evil. I believe what Hitler did was evil. I believe what Stalin did was evil. You can believe what you want. If you are wearing a blue shirt and man comes up to you and says the shirt is pink, he may believe it, the the shirt remains blue. No matter what Hitler believed, what he did was evil.

I categorically reject your argument that majority rules over right and wrong. The majority of Germans believed in Hitler and that did not make it right. Greeks used to expose deformed or ugly infants to the elements, that too was wrong.

Now is every behavior absolute. No! Are there times when telling a lie is OK? The answer is yes. I am speaking about the general idea of morality, of good and evil. Modern secular American culture is totally into moral relativism. I am not.

Now for a bible lesson. It is easy to take a story out of any religious tradition and present said story as evidence of God being evil, cruel, primitive or whatever. First you must take the entire Torah in totality. Note the tradition gives you the story as it understood it. It does not make heroes of the characters. Also, God is not in this story. Jacob did not kill anyone, his sons did. This is an action of human beings. You also fail to point out that this is in retribution for the rape of their sister. (Not justification in my opinion) What you really fail to point out is what is the result of their action. Jacob gathers all of his children together on his death bed (Genesis 49, 5-7) and there he admonishes the killers as evil and cruel and basically disowns them because what they did was wrong! What the Torah is trying to teach is the same lesson I am, there is an absolute right and wrong. And more to the point of the original discussion they are also admonished for being cruel to animals (which is forbidden in Judaism.)

The Torah does not attempt to portray humanity as Ozzy and Harriett. It's a pretty decent reflection of the evil humanity is capable of engaging in. It provides lessons on how to overcome this proclivity to evil.

The rules of the Torah are simple and straightforward. The difficult part is applying these rules to everyday life. This has occupied Jews for over 5000 years.

 

[evilolive]

Next I never said that you said that Hitler thought he was evil. I believe what Hitler did was evil. I believe what Stalin did was evil. You can believe what you want. If you are wearing a blue shirt and man comes up to you and says the shirt is pink, he may believe it, the the shirt remains blue. No matter what Hitler believed, what he did was evil.

I categorically reject your argument that majority rules over right and wrong. The majority of Germans believed in Hitler and that did not make it right. Greeks used to expose deformed or ugly infants to the elements, that too was wrong.

I don't think the idea of good and evil from historical times is the same as it is now; there are similarities at the basis of it all, but I don't think that they are ever truly defined (just my opinion) as most of it was defined by societal tradition. At the same time though in the present, it's our interpretation of societal norms that gives us a basis (or in your case, the Bible) for understanding good and evil. It's only because we've had different examples where we were able to understand the distinction. If every being was cruel, there would be no such thing as cruelty like, oh say, mother nature who is blind to such definitions - there cannot be light without darkness. That is, by default, moral relativism is it not? It's all basis of perception.

 

[Old Timer]

Evilolive:

I can only answer you from a Jewish perspective as that is what I know the best. It is wrong to be cruel to animals. According to Jewish tradition all humanity is obligated to observe the laws of Noah. There are seven laws and one of them involves not being cruel to animals.

1. Do not deny God
2. Do not curse God
3. Do not Murder
4. No adultery, incest or bestiality
5. Do not steal
6. Do not be cruel to animals
7. Set up courts of law

You would have to determine if the individual experiment was actually cruel to animals and would humanity benefit from the experiment. Animals are to be protected, but they have no rights per se. If you can save human life then animals may be sacrificed.

I personally see no need for pharmacy students to perform experiments on animals to see the first hand effects of drugs on a living being.

 

[Old Timer]

I don't think the idea of good and evil from historical times is the same as it is now; there are similarities at the basis of it all, but I don't think that they are ever truly defined (just my opinion) as most of it was defined by societal tradition. At the same time though in the present, it's our interpretation of societal norms that gives us a basis (or in your case, the Bible) for understanding good and evil. It's only because we've had different examples where we were able to understand the distinction. If every being was cruel, there would be no such thing as cruelty like, oh say, mother nature who is blind to such definitions - there cannot be light without darkness. That is, by default, moral relativism is it not? It's all basis of perception.

I love this kind of discussion.

First, the idea of good and evil is as old as humanity. If there is no God, meaning there is no transcendent source of morality, then it is personal or societal preference.

Second, nature is amoral. The hurricane does not pick which city it is going to devastate. A lion is amoral. It kills to eat.

Third the world was created with duality and humans were given free will. If we did not have free will we would be lima beans. You could argue (accepting God for arguments sake) that since people have a proclivity to do evil, God should not have created them. I can accept that argument. Because there is duality, does not mean it's all relative.

Ultimately, for the believer in God, the moral laws are laws because God said so. If Evilolive says torturing animals is good and Old Timer says torturing animals is evil. How do we decide? By majority rule? By physical or military force? If God says torturing animals is wrong, it's wrong. If the source or morality is transcendent, though evil may triumph from time to time, it is still evil.

What you say is 100% true, if there was no evil and all was good, life would be meaningless.

Up until Judaism, what you say is true. Whatever your society decided was OK was OK. For better or worse, Judaism changed that and it can't be changed back. Judaism said, it was wrong to expose babies to kill them because they were deformed or ugly. Judaism said it was wrong to torture animals. Judaism said it was wrong to oppress the stranger and the list goes on...

How are you going to teach your children right from wrong if there really is no right and wrong?

And I return to Hitler because it's such a fat target. For the believer, despite the fact the Nazi dominated society approved of Hitler's action, his actions were morally wrong. It is wrong to burn people alive, it is wrong to perform medical experiments on human beings. It is wrong to gas people and burn their bodies. It can never be right to commit murder. Murder and killing are different by the way. Like squares and rectangles. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. The commandment says Thou shalt not commit murder.

Can you can justify the killing of 12 million people by the Nazi's, 20 million by Stalin and 50-75 million by Mao on moral grounds? Can anyone say this was good and not evil? Only without God.

 

[cream]

The number one sign of a sociopath/psychotic/serial killer/weirdo is cruelty towards animals. Anyone who argues that unwanted and unnecessary animal suffering is acceptable has mental issues according to research and statistics. Just remember that we are animals. I am working on my insensitivity and disrespect towards animals by not buying products made from the tortue of animals.

 

[Old Timer]

Just remember that we are animals.

So now let me ask you a question. If a stranger and your dog were drowning and you could only save one, which one would you save? Why?

 

[PharmDstudent]

So now let me ask you a question. If a stranger and your dog were drowning and you could only save one, which one would you save? Why?

Give us a better prompt. We all know that dogs can swim .

 

[Old Timer]

Give us a better prompt. We all know that dogs can swim .

Pick your non-swimming pet of choice. Or rescue from a burning building. As smart as you are, you know where this is leading. The value of human life vs the value of animal life.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Pick your non-swimming pet of choice. Or rescue from a burning building. As smart as you are, you know where this is leading. The value of human life vs the value of animal life.

The perfect choice would probably be a cat, because cats hate water and are poor swimmers, minus the Turkish Vans who supposedly can "swim".

Anyway,
I would try to save the stranger. That's a difficult choice, but I "value" what humans can offer to the world more than what a single pet could ever contribute. It's sort of a "cut your loses" decision. I would hope after that experience, the stranger would be kinder to cats, but maybe that's just my idealism leeching out into this post.

I will never say that animals are more "valuable" than people, but their lives have "value" regardless. I've seen animals die. It's traumatic. I just took in a mouse who was almost killed by my cat.
I think the mouse traveled into the house, (which has numerous portals probably due to flood water and its age- it was built in the 1880's), because it had gotten really cold recently. The mouse is taking up residence is my recently deceased pet mouse's cage. It's a long story, but I had a Tom and Jerry situation for a while.
I'll let the mouse go when it stays warmer outside. Although, they only live for ~5 months in the wild, because they have too many predators. If I keep the mouse, which I won't because it's feral and intended to live freely without captivity, it could live a year and half just like my deceased pet mouse.

So... it is not wrong to "value" one life more than the other, but disregarding life for personal gain/profit is wrong (in my opinion).
It is life; "God" created it, and it should be protected, because it has "value".

PS- I gotta go to work. If the wireless internet connection is working, I'll try to get back to this thread later.

 

[PharmDstudent]

^^
I mean personal gain/profit, by means of EXPLOITATION, is wrong.

 

[evilolive]

^^
I mean personal gain/profit, by means of EXPLOITATION, is wrong.

Why? By its value in experimentation, it already has lead to the salvation of millions of lives. I think that is worth the comprimise; much of what we understand by advancing genetics, pharmacology, and therapeutics cannot be done without living organisms. Most, if not all of drug development also cannot be done without animal experimentation. This is a capitalistic principle, if not a humanitarian one which ironically serves the population symbiotically. What you ask is for human lives to give up their lives so that animals can live. This is unacceptable.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Why? By its value in experimentation, it already has lead to the salvation of millions of lives. I think that is worth the comprimise; much of what we understand by advancing genetics, pharmacology, and therapeutics cannot be done without living organisms. Most, if not all of drug development also cannot be done without animal experimentation. This is a capitalistic principle, if not a humanitarian one which ironically serves the population symbiotically. What you ask is for human lives to give up their lives so that animals can live. This is unacceptable.

You like to put words into people's mouths. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

 

[evilolive]

You like to put words into people's mouths. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

Yes, well it is the logical implication given what you write, is it not? Please clarify what you want to say.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Yes, well it is the logical implication given what you write, is it not?

How can you imply that from my post?

If you read further back in this thread, you will see that I responded to SDN1977 and said something to the effect that animal testing is a necessary evil.

The whole problem with the rat lab is that we're doing tests on animals that have been done numerous, probably hundreds, times before. We are not saving lives by doing tests that have already been done before. There is nothing altruistic about this rat lab. It's strictly for educational purposes, but we could be educated in other ways, e.g. video, textbooks, models, etc.

I am not taking a "research" class. I am taking a pharmacology lab. If I wanted to discover something new and worthwhile, I would be doing "research".
Also, I would not be working for a drug company who is just trying to compete with other drug companies for money. They exploit animals for money. We, as students, will be exploiting animals for "educational" purposes. The lab animals are a "means" to an end. "This is unacceptable".

 

[evilolive]

I misunderstood your position, my apologies. I agree with your point on live physiology testing for educational purposes.

 

[Old Timer]

So the three of us are in agreement in regards to using animals in a pharmacology lab. When I had to inject a mouse with Propoxyphene and place it on a hot plate to see how long it would stay on as compared to a mouse without a narcotic on board, let's just say it was a tad unpleasant.

I don't know if it is wise to abandon all live animal experimentation as some if it is useful. What I do know is, the gratuitous suffering we subject some animals to is cruel and against all of the beliefs I hold dear.

I'm also glad to hear you would save a stranger over your pet. I just want you to know that there is a speaker who asks high school kids this question and over the last 15 years the results have been pretty consistent. 1/3 would save the stranger, 1/3 would save the pet and 1/3 are not sure. That means 2/3 of high school kids would not save a human being over a pet, very interesting..... Because they love their pet and they don't love the stranger......

 

[PharmDstudent]

I misunderstood your position, my apologies. I agree with your position on live physiology testing.

Did you read the pre-pharm thread about animal testing? You might have taken my sarcasm literally. I told Aznfarmerboi that the best way to understand humans is to test on them directly- which is actually true, but as you said, that is unacceptable.
He said that it was fair to say that testing on animals results in a better understanding of the body, and therefore that makes it acceptable.

I was just trying to freak him out by elaborating on his position. Sure, we will understand living mammals better if we test them to see how they work, but testing on humans would lead to the greatest understanding of the human body.

I don't think we should actually get rid of pre-clinical trials, but it's difficult for me to justify them if it takes 500-1,000 trials before a single drug is approved. To me, drug companies will find a compound and test it for the hell of it. It's like they're saying, "Hey, maybe we can market this one. Let's try it out."

Just to reemphasize, the I only comfort that I find lies within the fact that they have to test new compounds on cells first.

 

[PharmDstudent]

So the three of us are in agreement in regards to using animals in a pharmacology lab. When I had to inject a mouse with Propoxyphene and place it on a hot plate to see how long it would stay on as compared to a mouse without a narcotic on board, let's just say it was a tad unpleasant.

I don't know if it is wise to abandon all live animal experimentation as some if it is useful. What I do know is, the gratuitous suffering we subject some animals to is cruel and against all of the beliefs I hold dear.

I'm also glad to hear you would save a stranger over your pet. I just want you to know that there is a speaker who asks high school kids this question and over the last 15 years the results have been pretty consistent. 1/3 would save the stranger, 1/3 would save the pet and 1/3 are not sure. That means 2/3 of high school kids would not save a human being over a pet, very interesting..... Because they love their pet and they don't love the stranger......

It looks like the Beatles are still taking hold of the youth ...
"Love, Love, Love.
...
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need."
They obviously need the love of their pets if they can't live without them.


Since you're a follower of the Old Testament, here's a quick little story...

I broke down today and told my pharmacist about the new mouse. After going over all of the details, he's astonished to hear that I have a "pet rodent". The whole story seems unbelievable to him. He probably has to see the mouse to even believe the story.
The only reason that I tell him about my mouse is that he's getting a hamster for his daughter, so I thought he may need help from a small animal pet owner. He's already read a few things about hamsters and their habits.

So after I finish telling him the long story about why I have "Tom and Jerry" in the first place, plus the new story about the feral mouse, he says that it's a living Aesop's fable, but now the mouse owes me a favor .



If I ever find out what that favor is, I'll definitely post it and let you know!

 

[PharmDstudent]

^^
I'm not saying that Aesop's fable is in the Old Testament, but it's historically significant, like the Old Testament, none the less.

 

[Old Timer]

^^
I'm not saying that Aesop's fable is in the Old Testament, but it's historically significant, like the Old Testament, none the less.

Well they are similar in their age, the Torah is a little older. Jews don't use the word "OLD" Testament, for obvious reasons. Also if you are believer, Aesops Fables have a human source and the Torah's source is a higher authority. Also Aesop's fables were really stand up comedy routines. In fact the morals were not added until later. With the fables, the moral is an afterthought while with the Torah, the moral is the purpose of the stories.....

Also since the Torah is the founding document of Judaism and Judaism gave birth to both Christianity and Islam, I think the Torah has a wee bit more historical significance.

Someday one of you youngsters will have to explain to me why there is such hostility to religion/God on college campuses. I've pretty much come to the conclusion secularism is a religion as well. People cling to their secular beliefs without questioning them at all. While there many religious people who do the same, most people of faith struggle with their's, if they are honest.

 

[azPharmD2B]

Our rights, while enshrined in the Constitution are philosophically based on the Declaration of Independence:

False. The Declaration of Independence put in exacting detail why the States had already declared their independence from the crown. The whole life, liberty, pursuit crap was stolen from another document. The Constitution was based on the Magna Carta, common law, and input from various peoples, all of which were documented well before the Declaration of Independence.

In fact the Constitution is silent on the rights on individuals and the Bill of Rights is also silent. The right to Life is in the Declaration of Independence.

Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States? Or the Bill of Rights? It ain't called that for nothing.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Those are all specifically rights of individuals. Please note the 9th Amendment and its very careful wording.


That said, rights are not something granted by a piece of paper. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can end this ridiculous argument.

 

[Old Timer]

False. The Declaration of Independence put in exacting detail why the States had already declared their independence from the crown. The whole life, liberty, pursuit crap was stolen from another document. The Constitution was based on the Magna Carta, common law, and input from various peoples, all of which were documented well before the Declaration of Independence.

You have an interesting reading of History. There are many things in English Common Law and US law that are from the Talmud, but it does not mean there are based on or stolen from the Talmud.

Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States? Or the Bill of Rights? It ain't called that for nothing.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution which is exactly what I pointed it out to be, a blueprint for governing.

That said, rights are not something granted by a piece of paper. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can end this ridiculous argument.

First of all it's not an argument it's a discussion. If you don't like it, you are free to not read it and you are more free not to waste your time posting in a thread about a ridiculous argument.

 

[azPharmD2B]

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution which is exactly what I pointed it out to be, a blueprint for governing.

Funny, I can scroll up and read exactly what you said, quoted here again:

In fact the Constitution is silent on the rights on individuals and the Bill of Rights is also silent. The right to Life is in the Declaration of Independence.

So maybe you can clarify how I would come to the conclusion you're now claiming?

edit: and by argument, I mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

 

[PharmaSynergy]

I just took in a mouse who was almost killed by my cat. I think the mouse traveled into the house... It's a long story, but I had a Tom and Jerry situation for a while.

Your little Tom & Jerry situation reminds me of this recent news story of a genetically-modified Jerry ...

Japanese engineer 'fearless' mice

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- The age-long animosity between cat and mouse could be a thing of the past with genetically modified "fearless" mice that Japanese scientists say shed light on mammal behavior.

Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed.

"Mice are naturally terrified of cats, and usually panic or flee at the smell of one. But mice with certain nasal cells removed through genetic engineering didn't display any fear," said research team leader Ko Kobayakawa.
"The mice approached the cat, even snuggled up to it and played with it," Kobayakawa said. "The discovery that fear is genetically determined and not learned after birth is very interesting, and goes against what was previously thought."

The findings suggest that human aversion to dangerous smells like that of rotten food, for example, could also be genetically predetermined, he said.
Kobayakawa said his findings, published in the science magazine Nature last month, should help researchers shed further light on how the brain processes information about the outside world.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/japan.mouse.ap/

Or for a video: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071213-mouse-video-ap.html

 

[azPharmD2B]

"The mice approached the cat, even snuggled up to it and played with it," Kobayakawa said. "The discovery that fear is genetically determined and not learned after birth is very interesting, and goes against what was previously thought."

I wonder what engineering they did to the cat to keep it from eating the mouse.

 

[evilolive]

I wonder what engineering they did to the cat to keep it from eating the mouse.

gene knockouts most probably.

 

[PharmDstudent]

I wonder what engineering they did to the cat to keep it from eating the mouse.

My cat wasn't trying to eat the feral mouse. It was "playing" with it. Cats like movement (think of a cat playing with string or bugs), and they are excellent predators. However, they only eat mice if that's necessary.

This is my theory:
In that situation, it probably wasn't necessary for the cat to eat the genetically engineered mouse, so the mouse was able to "interact" with the cat.

 

[Old Timer]

Funny, I can scroll up and read exactly what you said, quoted here again:

So maybe you can clarify how I would come to the conclusion you're now claiming?

edit: and by argument, I mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

The Right to life does not appear in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights

1. Free exercise of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of assembly. Redress of grievances.
2. The right to bear arms
3. Soldiers may not be quartered w/o consent of the homeowner.
4. Unreasonable search and seizure.
5. Double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process (does mention life, liberty and property as examples) but is really about due process. Government cant take private property w/o compensation.
6. Rights of criminal defendants.
7. Tort law
8. Excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
9. Enumerated rights.
10. Power of the States and Federal governments.

The only time it is mentioned is in the discussion of due process.

If you read the entire post what is under discussion is the source or granter of rights and the rights of humans and animals. Without getting into how much John Locke influenced Jefferson, it is clear the Declaration of Independence was the founding document of the United States. The Constitutional Convention was not begun until after the war. The Constitution was itself a controversial document and that's why Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the Federalist under the pseudonym of Publius to convince the people of New York to ratify said document.

I really don't want to debate history with you. I much prefer philosophy.

 

[RaginCajun]

I really enjoyed reading this thread because I just started working in research and may face ratocide pretty soon.

After manning up and becoming a vegetarian for a year I am concerned about facing this. My solution is to pretend the little critters have the black plague and just ace them. But we will see....

There is an old Native American saying..All animals you cross during life will be at the gates to decide if you can enter after death.