Vivisection happens because of demand by non-vegans

You are right. Who is demanding the supply?

Animals are used in vivisection to find cure for diseases, etc. Most people think that it is justified to use animals for vivisection in our society. The demand is created by 99% of our population that believe this. Everyone on this thread agrees with that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm on animals.
Did you know that we have no nutritional need for animal foods. The production of meat, milk, dairy products, honey, leather, eggs all involves exploitation. The animals used for eggs and dairy products are killed when their production declines. Cows, chickens and other animals regularly get their families destroyed. Cow mothers get their babies ripped away from them within the first week of them being born. I went vegan when I realized all of this, since I didn’t want to be a part of paying for animal exploitation.

There will be vivisection of monkeys as long as our society justifies the exploitation of animals for completely frivolous reasons, such as exploiting them for the palate pleasure or convenience of animal foods, despite that we have no nutritional need for animal foods.

Animals are exploited for vivisection, because they are property under law and they are property and resources in our society. If you don't want this to happen - go vegan.

Vegan reply to Why vivisection and animal testing should be banned from medical institutions.

 This question boils down to the question whether animals have a moral value or not. I would say that almost everyone does believe that animals do have a moral value. Let me show how.

“One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.”
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/vivisection-part-one-the-necessity-of-vivisection/#.UchssJxW6nk

Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.” [Quote: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach]

Humans having a moral value, implies that we can’t use them as a resource, including we aren’t allowed to use them in vivisection.
Nonhuman animals do have a moral value, and thus we can’t use them as a resource, including we aren’t allowed to use them in vivisection.

------------------------

My reply to a person:
Please note that it is not only meat-eating that enslaves, hurts, uses and kills nonhuman animals, but ALL non-vegan choices, including the consumption of egg-, milk and other animal products. I recommend the website: www.vegankit.com for more information.
We can all learn to care more for each day, veganism is the first step; and then to educate all ones friends and the people one is meeting.

“As far as I am concerned, there is more suffering i I love this quote: “Our obligations to nonhuman animals are not a matter of charity or mercy; they are a matter of fundamental justice”

Quote: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

“As far as I am concerned, there is more suffering in a glass of milk than in a pound of steak, though I would not consume either. Vegetarianism as a moral position is no more coherent than saying that you think it morally wrong to eat meat from a spotted cow but not morally wrong to eat meat from a non-spotted cow. We do not need any animal products for health purposes, and animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. The best justification that we have for killing billions of animals every year is that they taste good. That simply cannot suffice as a moral justification.”
Quote: http://www.believermag.com/issues/201102/?read=interview_francione


-------------------------

Codie-Joy Duncan,

You wrote: “What bugs me is people who claim they are vegetarian then go and eat fish. Fish is a living animal, it has a heart so how can you eat it”

Yes, and cows are also living animals, and they get killed in the milk industry. Male calves get killed before they are 18 months old, and female cows when they are 5 years old.

“As far as saving the animals go, I couldn't become vegan. I have so many health issues as it is, I'm quite surprised ive last over 3 years as a Vegetarian. I would love to become vegan but I dont think I could do it. Plus the cost of being vegetarian is insane, I cant imagine the cost for veganism.”

You will be way healthier on a vegan diet. Milk products are causing health problems. There are so many myths produced by the milk industry. I recommend this website: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_calcium.html and www.adelicatebalance.com.au

A vegan diet is really inexpensive. Basically you can eat a starch-based, home-cooked diet, cooked from mainly starches (e.g. potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, lentils, chickpeas, etc.) with the additions of some vegetables and fruits. It is easy to get all nutrition from a vegan diet. The only supplement you may have to add is B-12: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm

“I steer clear of it. I do eat egg as I get a good protein source from it, so that would be hard to give up.”

Eggs are very bad for human health: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/march/050300pueastereggs.htm
Eggs are very bad for chickens. Male chicks in the egg industry are grounded up alive, hens are exploited and killed. Learn more in the movies here: http://www.vegankit.com/why

“ Im already ontop of the clothing and product part.”
That’s great!

“ I think my partner would hate me if I went vegan, he find it hard enough me being vegetarian “

Have you presented this argument for him?: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Follow your inner moral compass, stop exploiting the animals you love by eating animal products, go vegan. It is better for you, it is better for the environment, and most importantly, it is the only ethical thing to do.

Är det etiskt rätt att göra djurförsök på ett djur för att rädda en människa med en obotlig sjukdom?

Är det etiskt rätt att göra djurförsök på ett djur för att rädda en människa med en obotlig sjukdom? Många som arbetar med djurförsök vill inte skada och döda djur, men de rättfärdigar det med att det är nödvändigt för att vi ska kunna rädda människor från sjukdomar. Jag håller inte med om att detta gör det moraliskt rätt, även om detta skulle vara sant att det var det enda och mest effektiva sättet att rädda människor från sjukdomar, men låt oss först diskutera en mer grundläggande fråga, vilket krävs för att förstå denna moraliska problemställning mera grundligt.

Många som säger sig arbeta för djurens rättigheter är helt emot djurförsök, men konsumerar och använder sig av djur för mat, kläder och andra syften trots att detta helt och hållet fullständigt saknar all nödvändighet.

Vi anser att djurplågeri är etiskt fel eftersom att vi står för devisen att det är etiskt fel att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande och död. Vi hävdar att det är fel att vålla djur lidande och död för att det roar och underhåller oss, eller för att det är bekvämt att göra så, eller för att vi gör det av ren vana.

 

Vi har inget som helst näringsmässigt behov av att äta kött, mjölk, ägg och andra djurprodukter. Världens största hälso- och nutritionist-organisation, American Dietetic Association, vidkänner att en diet utan djurprodukter är hälsosamma och innehåller all näring, och även kan förse med hälsofördelar i att förebygga och behandla vissa sjukdomar [1].

 

Men de allra flesta i vårt samhälle utsätter dessa medvetande djur för lidande och död för att de gillar smaken av djurprodukter, eller utav bekvämlighet, vana eller tradition. Alltså, de allra flesta i vårt samhälle lever inte som de predikar. Man fördömer djurplågeri, men utsätter djur för ett liv fyllt av onödigt lidande och en brutal död utan att man har någon som helst nödvändighet för detta.

De forskare som gör djurförsök, och de individer i samhället som stödjer djurförsök, gör det ofta för att de tror att det är ett ”nödvändigt ont”. Att konsumera djurprodukter däremot vet vi fullständigt saknar all nödvändighet. Det är alltså total dubbelmoral att motsätta sig djurförsök, men att konsumera, använda och döda djur för totalt onödvändiga syften som att konsumera djurprodukter.

Låt oss nu återgå direkt till frågan om djurförsök. Är det rättfärdigt att utnyttja ett oskyldigt och försvarslöst djur för att det eventuellt kan rädda en eller flera människor? Är det rättfärdigt att utnyttja och döda en oskyldig och försvarslös människa i ett försök för att utveckla en medicin som eventuellt kan rädda en eller flera människor? De allra flesta är helt överens om att detta är moraliskt fel eftersom individer av arten människa har ett moraliskt värde och vi har ingen som helst rätt att använda en människa som en resurs utan en människas medgivande. Vi medger att vi inte har någon som helst rätt att använda en individ med ett moraliskt värde som en resurs.

Men, när vi medger att det är moraliskt fel att utsätta djur för onödigt lidande, inklusive djurplågeri, så medger vi att djuren har ett moraliskt värde. Att de har ett moraliskt värde innebär att vi inte har någon som helst rätt att utnyttja och behandla dessa individer som en resurs, trots att detta kan rädda andra individers liv. Vi kan inte både säga att djur har ett moraliskt värde, vilket vi gör när vi vidkänner att djurplågeri är etiskt fel, och att de inte har ett moraliskt värde, vilket vi hävdar när vi säger att det är etiskt rätt med djurförsök.

Den enda anledningen till att människor rättfärdigar djurförsök är speciecism, diskriminering av individer baserat på kriteriet att de är av en annan art. Det är ingen etisk skillnad mellan rasism, sexism, hetrosexism, klassisism, speciecism, och all annan sorts diskriminering. Genom historien så har vi hört personer som hävdar att personer med vit hudfärg har rätt att diskriminera individer med svart hudfärg baserat på ett fullständigt irrelevant kriterium– och förhoppningsvis fördömer vi detta! Hetrosexism hävdar att vi har rätt att diskriminera individer baserat på ett fullständigt irrelevant kriterium – och förhoppningsvis fördömer vi detta! Speciecism hävdar att vi har rätt att diskriminera individer baserat på det fullständigt irrelevanta kriteriet ’art’. Men majoriteten av människorna i denna värld deltar tragiskt nog fortfarande i denna diskriminering. Fler och fler inser dock att denna diskriminering är etiskt förkastlig, precis som rasism, sexism, hetrosexism och all annan diskriminering, och blir veganer.

Till sist, att bli vegan är det enda sättet att agera efter vår moraliska intuition – att djur har ett moraliskt värde. Det är det enda sättet att sluta delta i våldet och den brutala diskrimineringen mot oskyldiga och försvarslösa individer för en bagetellartad gastronomisk njutning, estetisk preferens, etc. Jag rekommenderar denna artikel och video från en debatt mellan Rutgers-professor i juridik Gary Francione och professor Dario Ringach om djurförsök: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/vivisection-debate-animals-in.html

Jag rekommenderar sidan https://www.facebook.com/DjurensRattigheterAvskaffaDjurslaveriet för mer läsning om djurens rättigheter och vår moraliska skyldighet gentemot djuren att vara veganer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vivisection debate - Animals in Biomedical Research: A Moral Justification?

Gary Francione's Speech in a vivisection debate:
[This is my transcript of most of the contents. The original debate is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8OMtRiD3oI]

 

Two issues, one is, is there any empirical necessity.

It is not a settled fact that we need to use animals in experiments, or that they are necessary, reliable or give us good data.

We look at particular discoveries and we say that animals led to that. When we are using animals all the time, and to develop every single drug and procedure, it is very hard to to make statements of causal attribution. It is like saying that I use the pen all the time when writing my exams, and I always get A’s.

They are all sorts of biological differences that makes extrapolation hard. These ‘scientific methods’ are anything but scientific. The data that is extracted is often unreliable.
The scientific community doesn’t grasp a very important method.

We can take lots of money and take into animal test, we can get lot of money and put into research of aids.

Or we can put the money to safe sex-education and condom distribution. We don’t want to do that, because it is politically controversial. The scientific community is not doing lots of stuff talking about the important issues. We can cut off cancers by 70% if we didn’t consume the flesh, mucus and other animal products, that clog our arteries and cause many health problems.

In Introduction of animal rights - Your child or the dog, I discuss that some false reliance of animal experiments led to the wrong conclusion. Some research on animal methods, e.g. experiments on monkeys led to the conclusion that poliovirus only affected the nervous system. Research of human cell cultures led researchers to understand that poliovirus affected non-neural tissue. They couldn’t replicate lung cancer in beagles, and as a result people continued to smoking.
Reliance on animal experiments has led us to accept wrong conclusions many times throughout the history. I spent months reading about animal research for months when researching to my book Introduction to Animal rights - Your child or the dog

I don’t think the Animal welfare act or any of these stature acts does anything to protect animals. Not worth the paper written on. Doesn’t apply to rats and mice, 90% of the experiments done upon them. I don’t think the Animal welfare laws works at all.

I want to move on to a more interesting point. That is the moral justification. Lets assume some of it is necessary. We would be lot better of if we used humans in experiments. You want reliable data, use humans. We don’t do it. If you want to talk about a really compelling use of experimental resources, use humans. No one doubts we get much better results. We don’t do it because it is morally wrong.
We are asking the question is it right to use animals to lead us to cures for illnesses of humans, when we are eating them everyday.
We all agree with the proposition is it wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. We may disagree about necessity means. I been doing this for a long time and I haven’t found anyone that disagrees. If it means anything, it means we can’t inflict any unnecessary suffering and death for pleasure, convenience, habit or tradition. But yet we are killin 56 billion animals every year, not counting fish. We don’t need to do that to be optimally healthy. I been a vegan for almost 30 years and I am not dead yet. We can discuss if animal products are detrimental to health, I think the empirical evidence is that they are. But even if you don’t accept that. It is clear they are not necessary to be optimally healthy.

Animal agriculture is an ecological and environmental desire.

Why do we think it is alright. What is our justification for killing 56 billion animals per year for food? The answer is, it tastes good. People are all upset about Michael Vick. It is a terrible guy, etc. What was he doing that is anything different from what we are doing? He like sitting around watching dogs fighting. People like sitting around barbeques roasting dead animals that have been treated every bit as badly if not worse than Michael Vicks dogs.

In a sense we are having a very bizarre discussion right now. Because most of us are willing to eat animal products for pleasure, that also are causes us health problems. So then if the question is, is it okay to use animals to find cures for the health problems, that is sort-of a no-brainer, isn’t it. That’s why, when we think about this issue, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves: How is it we can justify exploiting animals as human resources, as a general matter? Not just in the context of vivisection.

Descartés claimed that the animals were machines that God made. They had no feelings, they didn’t have any souls, etc. By and large, two reasons are given. 1 is spiritual inferiority. We have souls, they don’t have souls. The other idea, is that we are exceptional, we are intelligent. We have minds that are superior, so therefor it is alright to use them. This position can’t just be defended. Darwin said the difference between humans and other animals, there are qualitative differences, not quantitative differences. So whatever characteristic you thought was special with humans, you can find with nonhumans. There may be qualitative differences, e.g. symbolical communication. So what there are differences. What moral cash-value does that have. Obviously it has none.

 

Lets discuss the characteristic of self-awareness that is used by Peter Singer and to a lesser extent Tom Reagan. “We are self-aware and they are not self-aware”. First, I think it is wrong. They are clearly self-aware. I do think they think about the future, I do think they think about the past. I live with five rescued dogs, and it is impossible for me to explain their behaviour, except by saying they must have something equivalent to the concepts that I have, even if it is probably not the same kinds because they don’t just language in the way we do. So what. They are clearly self-aware. So what. So what if they only lived in the now. They are people who have transient global amnesia, they have no sense of the past, no sense of the future, they just have a sense of themselves right here and now. Lets assume this is the case with animals. Is this relevant? It may be relevant for some purposes. If you are going to hire a history professor, it may not be good to hire a person who have transient global amnesia. But, if the question is , I got a normal human and a human with transient global amnesia, should I use the first human or the second human as a non-consenting organ donor. In fact, I think we can even make the case that we have a greater responsibility to the vulnerable. But even if you don’t buy that. In that situation, do we treat them equally? No, we don’t make the person with transient global amnesia a history professor. But that doesn’t make it permissible to make the second person in biomedical experiments or use him as a forced organ donor.

I don’t care which characteristic that you use. There will be some human beings that don’t have that characteristic and have it to a lesser extent. So why is it alright to use them?
If animals don’t make life plans. What if there is a depressed person who doesn’t make any life plans. Is it alright to use this person in biomedical experiments?

The scenario of the human and the dog in the burning house. I discuss that at length in many instances. In Introduction of animal rights - your child or the dog - I use it as a paradigm of the book. You see the human and the non-human in the house and you can only save one. Now, I might in that situation don’t understand what harm it does to the dog. But that doesn’t mean that the harm of death is any less to the dog or that I am entitled or that I have any rights to give different weights to those respective individuals. I would say in that situation, flipping head coin would be fine. I would probably because of my own limitation, my own epistemological limitation of not understanding what death is to the dog, I might choose to save the human. So what? If I was walking by the house and saw a young person and an elderly person in a burning house, I may save the younger person who got his or her entire life in front of her, as opposed to the elderly person who looks pretty old.
I go ahead and save the younger person. Does that mean it is okay to use elderly persons in biomedical experiments, rodeos, circuses, etc. And the answer is, of course not.

Lets be honest, if your kid were in the hospital and someone elses kid were in the hospital, and there was blood left only to save one of them; and the doctor says to you who am I going to give the blood to - so what? Does that mean it is alright to use other people’s children in biomedical experiments??

My position is that the only justification we have for using animals in whatever context is speciecism, that we arbitrarily assign a value to our species, just as we arbitarily have assigned a value to white people. male people... Throughout history we have heard the same arguments heard to justify patriarchy - males have interest that weigh more than women - lets hope we don’t but that!; the interest of black people weigh more than the interest of white people -- lets hope we don’t buy that!; the interest of straight people matter more - lets hope we don’t buy that!!
Why do we buy into the idea that we have the right to assign a lower value to another species and then to use them as resources.

I am not saying that we have to give them equal treatment. I am not saying we have to give the animals the right to vote, although we would probably get better results if we did. I am not saying the right to drive cars. I am saying with the respect of being used as a resource for humans, all sentient beings are equal and we have no moral justification. The only arguments we have are power, and this speciesist idea that we have, that we matter more. We can say that our interest matter more. We can do symphonies,etc, You know what there is no one in this room that can jump over a six foot fence from a sitting position. I can’t fly without being in an airplane. We say that these characteristics matter more. Who decides that - we?? Just like white people have being saying a white skin color is important, or males have been saying ‘being male is important’, and straight people have been saying ‘being straight is important’. I suggest there is absolutely no difference. I suggest speciesism is no more morally justified than other sorts of exploitation.

Vivisection of primate and other sorts of animal abuse occur because of non-vegan choices

This happens because animals are treated as property and not as individuals in our society. For each non-vegan choice this property-status is sadly perpetuated. The most effective way to end all animal abuse is to spread a consistent vegan message. Companies will continue to exploit animals as long as their is a demand.

People doing this have been brainwashed by our culture, and their daily choices since their childhood. They have lost their understanding, compassion and love for animals. They are prisoned and are suffering because of this. They don't understand the pain they are causing. However, if we educate them and treat them with love and compassion, eventually they can wake up.

Nice quote: "Like other animals, we are not fundamentally physical beings; we are essentially consciousness. We are all expressions of the infinite creative mystery force that births and sustains the universes of manifestation, and our bodies and minds are sacred, as are the bodies and minds of all creatures.

Like us, animals have feelings and yearnings; they nest, mate, hunger, and are the conscious subjects of their lives. They make every effort, as we do, to avoid pain and death and to do what brings them happiness and fulfillment.

Prayer Circle for Wednesday
Today let us send our prayers to all animals vivisected in laboratories and classrooms.
May compassion and love reign over all the earth for all animals used in experiments. Dear primates, dogs, cats, mice; rats, pigs, lambs, rabbits, frogs, and all of you who are imprisoned in cages, tortured in useless experiments, separated from your loved ones, and suffering constant pain, fear, and loneliness, sometimes for many long years.

Dear ones, we bear witness to your suffering, we take action to permanently end it, and we continually send out an energy field of love and compassion to comfort you and to transform the hearts and souls of those who support this violent oppression.

We send our tears and our prayers on wings of love to you. Our love is all around you.
Compassion encircles the earth for each of you and for all beings.
( 7 daily prayers by Judy Carman www.peacetoallbeings.com)
www.worldpeacediet.com – our daily VegInspiration For The Day
www.circleofcompassion.org – our Prayer Circle For Animals Weekly Update
www.worldpeacemastery.com - our online self-paced WPD Facilitator Training
www.facebook.com/groups/worldpeacediet – our WPD Facebook Group"
Another helpful website: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach