PETA

[ladygreeneyes]

Well said!  Post flood, God actually told Noah to eat the animals.  Plus, I don't buy into all the macro-evolution, anyway.  Agree that real abuse is wrong, but can also state that I would take the loss of a loy of animals if it would mean a cancer cure.  After all, the people are far more important.

Maybe He didn't originally but after the great flood He gave us all the animals in the world to eat. Which we do and which we do not is entirly up to us He just said that we can't eat (or drink) blood. Also in the begining he gave us all of the animals and almost all of the plants (except one) to use not abuse just because He gave them to us doesn't mean it's right to abuse them but it is not wrong to eat them.


Now to continue discussing PETA, if they fund arsonists and place bombs in medical research labs then how come they arn't already shut down.

[ladygreeneyes]

Well said!  Post flood, God actually told Noah to eat the animals.  Plus, I don't buy into all the macro-evolution, anyway.  Agree that real abuse is wrong, but can also state that I would take the loss of a loy of animals if it would mean a cancer cure.  After all, the people are far more important.

Maybe He didn't originally but after the great flood He gave us all the animals in the world to eat. Which we do and which we do not is entirly up to us He just said that we can't eat (or drink) blood. Also in the begining he gave us all of the animals and almost all of the plants (except one) to use not abuse just because He gave them to us doesn't mean it's right to abuse them but it is not wrong to eat them.


Now to continue discussing PETA, if they fund arsonists and place bombs in medical research labs then how come they arn't already shut down.

[mikaboshi]

Let's not make this a debate about God please. Everyone has their own religious beliefs and we don't want to offend anyone.


I'm sorry but as advanced as our society is I find it ridiculous that we have not found any other means to test things besides doing it on animals. Some things that we do to them doesn't even make sense. Do you know that some tests include rubbing harmful substances into rabbits eyes, while they are sitting there in rows with their head through a hole so they can't even rub it out? And you know the purpose of this test? To see if they go blind. That's the whole idea behind it. I don't know how hard it is to know that if I rubbed bleach paste over your eyes, you'd go blind. Seems like common sense to me.

Other tests include force feeding dogs so until 50% of the group dies. That doesn't seem like a cure for cancer to me.

And furthermore, the majority of the results they acquire can't be accurately applied to humans. Heard of Penicillin? It almost was thrown out because it killed the mice in the lab test and was deemed harmful to humans. Now, it is one of the most widely used medicines for several illnesses that use to kill people.

I'm not saying that PETA is always right. They go too far too many times with the things they do. But I am highly against animal testing. I don't eat animal products besides fish, milk, and cheese, and I refuse to even touch real fur coats.

[Zoo Titan]

True, very true, but what else is there to test? I don't agree with breaking a cat's back to examine it, but fires and explosions are not the answer.

[mikaboshi]

No its not. and I even said in my reply:

I'm not saying that PETA is always right. They go too far too many times with the things they do.

We have ways of making cell cultures that could be used to test the substances; instead of using real rabbit eyes, couldn't we use tissue samples and examine them like that (or better yet, use human tissue samples so that it actually means something) That's just one example. The point is living animals being tortured so that we have have ways to make our eyeshadows and shampoos and perfumes is inhumane.

[orangemonkey22]

It's a definite NO! for me (hey, I kinda sound like Simon Cowell:happy: : . PETA blows things out of proportoin and does evil things, and it pains me that many Hollywood stars are supporting it.

[Zoo Titan]

Hey orange! (what can I call you anyway, orangemonkey, orange, or monkey: : )

That would be a good solution, test tissues instead of living things.

[orangemonkey22]

Hey orange! (what can I call you anyway, orangemonkey, orange, or monkey: : )

orangemonkey22, orangemonkey, OM22, and O-Monkey are OK. And hey, I just noticed that if you click on the numbers, you can see who voted for what.

[ladygreeneyes]

On that point, we agree.  For testing of cosmetics, shampoo, or whatever, there are better ways to test, and in fact a great number of companies these days do not use animals for testing.  For medical purposes, however, there are valid uses in a lot of cases, and those are instances where animal testing is needed.  If someone comes up with a better way, that's great by me, but for now that is what we have.  As for fur and leather, when the animals are raised for that purpose, as long as the killing is humane, I have no issues with it.  Fur is very, VERY warm in cold climates.

Let's not make this a debate about God please. Everyone has their own religious beliefs and we don't want to offend anyone.


I'm sorry but as advanced as our society is I find it ridiculous that we have not found any other means to test things besides doing it on animals. Some things that we do to them doesn't even make sense. Do you know that some tests include rubbing harmful substances into rabbits eyes, while they are sitting there in rows with their head through a hole so they can't even rub it out? And you know the purpose of this test? To see if they go blind. That's the whole idea behind it. I don't know how hard it is to know that if I rubbed bleach paste over your eyes, you'd go blind. Seems like common sense to me.

Other tests include force feeding dogs so until 50% of the group dies. That doesn't seem like a cure for cancer to me.

And furthermore, the majority of the results they acquire can't be accurately applied to humans. Heard of Penicillin? It almost was thrown out because it killed the mice in the lab test and was deemed harmful to humans. Now, it is one of the most widely used medicines for several illnesses that use to kill people.

I'm not saying that PETA is always right. They go too far too many times with the things they do. But I am highly against animal testing. I don't eat animal products besides fish, milk, and cheese, and I refuse to even touch real fur coats.

[mikaboshi]

Except 90% of the results we get from medical researching cannot even be APPLIED to humans. That's the real kicker. And we DO have alternatives; but when most people hear "alternatives" they think using NO part of animals at all. Reduction, Refinement, Replacement.

Replacement:
-One example of a replacement alternative is no longer considered an alternative--it has become the norm. Not too many years ago, if a woman wanted to find out if she was pregnant, she'd have to get a laboratory test that involved killing a rabbit. Now, she can buy a small kit over-the-counter that tests her urine for certain chemicals--the rabbits have been replaced.

-Synthetic skin is now being used in Europe and parts of the U.S. to test for skin corrosiveness.

-Computer modeling also can replace certain kinds of animal use, particularly in education. High school biology classes, for example, might practice dissection on a computer model rather than on real, live frogs. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on.

Reduction:
-Improved statistical design represents one form of reduction alternative. With sophisticated, low cost statistical packages available for the computer these days, investigators can get the most out of the data generated by each animal they use and so need fewer animals altogether.

-If one researcher is studying rat brain tissue, for example, when it comes time to kill the rat, he may allow other researchers to use the kidneys, liver, or other parts of the animal for their own studies. Re-designing studies to collect as much information as possible from the same set of animals can also reduce animal usage.

Refinement:
-Refinement covers anything that serves to reduce the animals' pain and distress or to enhance their well-being. These alternatives may come in a great variety of forms. Giving an animal appropriate medication for pain is one example of a refinement alternative.

-Techniques that are less invasive to the animal also may constitute refinement. For example, researchers can use such modern medical technologies as ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to look at what is happening inside an animal without cutting into it.

-Refinement also includes such things as giving animals bigger cages, offering them appropriate toys to play with so they won't get bored, and allowing them to have companions of their own kind (if that is a natural condition for the species).


There are ways to deal with this "necessary" evil.

[ladygreeneyes]

Well, then if these alternatives are available, and in use, that is great.  I really haven't kept up with a lot of this, because it can be tedious at times to wade through some of the none-too-trustworthy information put out by some of the more radical animal rights groups.  As I stated before, I don't think there should ever be unneccesary cruelty to animals, as we are supposed to be caretakers, and thus should do all that is possible and practical to ensure the comfort of animals that are neded for testing.  I know that when I was in the military, I had training in animal care, and we did have a number of dogs that were used for the course.  During this course, we learned how to give injections (saline only), draw blood, and do stitches (this was on one animal, under general anesthesia, with groups taking turns adding stitches AFTER a lot of practice on synthetic material).  These animals were very well cared-for, even back then, as we were required to walk them twice daily, groom them as necessary - usually daily brushing; plus, we really did like these animals, and they were happy and well-treated, with roomy, easy-to-clean kennels that were cleaned daily by the class.  Under those conditions, these animals helped us to obtain superior training so that we could help treat other animals with better skills.  When we did dissections on cats (yeah, yeah - I LOVE cats myself, and it was sad), the animals we used were from animal shelters, that would otherwise have been simply disposed of.  

If animals are needed for medical studies - legit studies, NOT cosmetics, etc. - then if they are treated well, and used only as necessary, then people should be able to accept that.  When so-called "animal rights" groups start taking drastic measures, breaking into buildings and destroying property, or even more extreme tactics, that is going too far, and endangering people to help lower creatures.  Heck, there is even a very real danger that some of these people could unwittingly release to the public some harmful substance or germ that was being tested by releasing the animal in use (ever see 28 Days Later?)  I think simple common sense and a realistic set ot priorities would be useful for some of the more radical groups, and would even help them to get across their point, as people listen to the more sensible organizations, while dismissing any radical group outright.

[mikaboshi]

And I have never once said that I agree with what Peta does. And the stuff you are talking about I am totally not against. It's just that when animals are force fed medications that will kill them, and then those results cannot be used on humans....what is even the point of that? That's my main argument against medical research.

Btw, can you use a smaller font size and maybe a different color? that really hurts my eyes and makes it hard for me to read

[africanwilddog]

Wow Mika those are amazing alternatives! It would do a lot of good.

Yes, finding a cure for AIDS is worth it. But when researchers repeatedly do the same test in different labs just to get more money, thats overdoing it and cruel, like the rhesus case.

PETA should shut up abt Steve Irwin though. Steve did a lot more for wildlife, whatever his intentions, than PETA has. And PETA's racist comments will just bring hatred towards the whole movement for animal rights.

[Crookshankz227]

Mika I completely agree!!!  :goodpost:

This might sound horrible, so I apologise in advance if I hurt anybody. Just because you have bred the animal does not give you the right to kill it. I am sorry, but I see no way in which you can justify the breeding of animals simply to kill them for their skin or meat. Slaves were 'bred' to work - wasn't that horrible? Maybe in 100 years our grandchildren will be shocked by how we treated animals.

africanwilddog, if they use chimpanzees to develop cures for AIDS, then they should keep them in humane conditions. Even if they are developing a cure for AIDS, they could keep the animals in large enclosures, give the animals enrichment and give them a generally high standard of life. Scientists think chimpanzees may be capable of complex emotions, like wonder. They might be thinking animals, almost like us. Would you like to be locked in a 5x5 cage for the rest of your life?

I am vegetarian. I do not support PETA. Animal rights are not a joke; just look into your dog's eyes - would you like him/her to be butchered (no anaesthetic, remember animals for slaughter never get them) and eaten?

[Seadragon]

 :loony:<--- PETA    


They just don't do anything good somehow.

[Zoo Titan]

Maybe when I grow up, get my zoo to be the biggest and most successful zoo in the world, and become very rich, I'll buy PETA and turn it into a good organization and save thousands of animals.

That'd be kinda cool.

[Hyena Girl]

Maybe when I grow up, get my zoo to be the biggest and most successful zoo in the world, and become very rich, I'll buy PETA and turn it into a good organization and save thousands of animals.

That'd be kinda cool.

Yeah! Better start saving your money!

[Zoo Titan]

Yeah! Better start saving your money!

No, I'm serious. I know I can do it when I grow up.

[Bongo-Bongo]

I don't think I could ever support PETA. To me, they have always come across as an organisation that look to cause trouble rather then do any good. In truth, this is probably the minority that are like this, but it's always the case that a few bad apples ruin something for the good majority.

[ndmpatriot]

For some reason I can't vote in the poll. I complete agree with what PETA does. I'm against any kind of animal testing (makes no sense when animals are so different from humans), cruelty and killing of any kind. But I do think they need to stop about Steve Irwin, he did so much for wildlife conservation and education.

[Zoo Titan]

I complete agree with what PETA does. I'm against any kind of animal testing (makes no sense when animals are so different from humans), cruelty and killing of any kind.

So am I, however as I simply cannot support a bunch of bomb toting, arsonist funding looneys :loony: who give 5 year olds graphic flyers that turn them against their parents, and who say that the rats are more important then the child in the hospital who just died of cancer yesterday!

Edit: There is no reason to bring religion into this. You may inadvertently offend someone by some of your words. Mika

[Crookshankz227]

I too support PETA's principles - I firmly believe that circuses involving animals should be banned. I also do not eat meat and am horrified by the conditions in which cows,pigs and chickens are kept before being slaughtered.

Don't get me wrong, I think PETA needs to get its priorities straight. In India, all PETA seems to be good for is holding pickets outside KFC, whilst there are countless stray dogs starve to death and are run over everyday.

[seaworldgurl1]

I can't vote for some odd reason so I will just state my opinion. NO! Read crookshankz227's post, thats what i have to say. I agree 100% with you!

[Zoo Titan]

[mikaboshi]

If you noticed, most of us have agreed that SOMETIMES it is necessary. But the problems with your rebuttal is this

1. No one said humans were to be substituted for animals
2. the force feeding of the dogs has nothing to do with medical research for humans. It is not applied to humans at all.
3. Most research done on animals is NOT for cancer cures. Notice I say most. Some IS but the majority of it is not, and what IS can not always be used on humans. Rats were given penicillin and died from it and it was almost thrown away because it was thought to be lethal to humans. Now, it has saved countless lives. If we had relied solely on animal testing, then penicillin wouldn't be one of the most commonly used drugs in the world.
4. Stuff that happens in a dish on HUMAN TISSUE is much more applicable to humans than what happens to an animal that shares hardly any of the same genetic material as a human.
5. Animals are usually only killed humanely if the meat is labeled Kosher. Otherwise, the animal can suffer. Chickens, for example are ran through scalding hot water while still alive and hanging from their legs to remove feathers. And conditions of living could be so much better - cramming a baby cow into a pen only as large as itself so that it cannot move, or lay down or ever see its mother so that we can have veal is not humane.

No one hates you for your opinions. We are all entitled to them