Freethought & Rationalism Archive

brighid · 04-12-2002, 12:30 PM

Certainly, if you could preserve the life of the animal that would be the best choice and I would choose the same. But as you said, if it came down to the choice of the animal or your daughter, you would choose your daughter. Therefore, you have valued your child more then the animal and it would be illogical for you to sacrifice your child for an animal, but according to your words you WOULD sacrifice an animal to save your child.

I apologize for assuming you are female and a mother. I should know better

Well, it is certainly your choice to refuse medication because it was tested on animals. The next time your doctor prescribes you or your child penicillin, or requires a vaccine, or requires almost any medical treatment what so ever, please keep that in mind and I sincerely hope that you would choose more wisely then that. The vaccines your child received to protect her polio, rubella, mumps, measles, and small pox have all been tested on animals. Any antibiotic you have ever taken or will ever take in the future have been tested on animals, ranging from cute little mice, to fuzzy bunnies to more highly evolved animals. If you have ever benefited from modern medicine you have been a recipient of a benefit provided to you by animals.

And if there were an anthrax or small pox attack on your town and the government offered you life saving vaccines for you and your family would you say – No, I shall watch my wife and child die painful deaths because you tested the safeness of these vaccines on animals first.

Thankfully, in the world of humans you have choices to make. But I would place a wager that when it came down to the difference between your survival or that of your family you would not choose to forgo the necessary treatment to prevent the needless suffering and death of your beloved family members.

Brighid

Mageth · 04-12-2002, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by free12thinker:
I value them the same indeed. Here's some proof. A dog attacked my daughter, and had his tooth through her middle finger. I simply grabbed the dog, in a very light manner, by his gruff and took him to his owners house. They were frantic (fearing I would sue or something, anyway), they offered to have him put to sleep. I said dont be silly, he's just doing what comes natural, and I left it at that.

Why do you think a dog attacking a human child is "what comes natural?" (sic) Most dogs do not do this. What would "come natural" to me is killing the dog that attacked my child. This may sound harsh, but it's the truth.

Dogs that attack children (or other humans, or other dogs, cows, chickens, sheep, etc.) without provocation are a menace. The dog you had mercy on may next time attack and seriously maim or kill a child. The moral and merciful thing to do to such a vicious dog is to have the dog put down.

free12thinker · 04-12-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
Certainly, if you could preserve the life of the animal that would be the best choice and I would choose the same. But as you said, if it came down to the choice of the animal or your daughter, you would choose your daughter. Therefore, you have valued your child more then the animal and it would be illogical for you to sacrifice your child for an animal, but according to your words you WOULD sacrifice an animal to save your child.

I apologize for assuming you are female and a mother. I should know better

Well, it is certainly your choice to refuse medication because it was tested on animals. The next time your doctor prescribes you or your child penicillin, or requires a vaccine, or requires almost any medical treatment what so ever, please keep that in mind and I sincerely hope that you would choose more wisely then that. The vaccines your child received to protect her polio, rubella, mumps, measles, and small pox have all been tested on animals. Any antibiotic you have ever taken or will ever take in the future have been tested on animals, ranging from cute little mice, to fuzzy bunnies to more highly evolved animals. If you have ever benefited from modern medicine you have been a recipient of a benefit provided to you by animals.

And if there were an anthrax or small pox attack on your town and the government offered you life saving vaccines for you and your family would you say – No, I shall watch my wife and child die painful deaths because you tested the safeness of these vaccines on animals first.

Thankfully, in the world of humans you have choices to make. But I would place a wager that when it came down to the difference between your survival or that of your family you would not choose to forgo the necessary treatment to prevent the needless suffering and death of your beloved family members.

Brighid

If it came down to an animal or a human I would choose my daughter. In this, there is no special choosing one above the other. It's choosing the defenselss (my daughter) against the agressor (the dog or human). If I saw someone killing a dog, I would save the dog. See the connection here? I am saving the defenseless from the agressor. It's not just my daughter over an animal. In my opinion, species should live free from the wrath of other species as best as the cycle of life will allow. If the cycle makes some species carnivores, than, by instinct, those carnivores have no choice but to kill to live. Unfortunately, I don't believe we need animals to live. We will disagree on this point until the end of time, but just knowing that your logic extends from you and not some deity or book is enough for me to respect it. I have no disrespect for those who don't look at animals in the same light I do, unless their opinions on the matter come from someone other than themselves. :0)

tronvillain · 04-12-2002, 04:10 PM

free12thinker:

Quote:

Where did I say "I" and most other humans value their lives above normal animals life? I don't remember putting I in that sentence.

See my second post after the one you are responding to:

Quote:

I just realized that it was brighid who said "I, and most other humans, value their lives and human life above animal life." Your use of the quote command leaves something to be desired.

Oh, and I'll ask you again: Are you indifferent between the death of a human and the death of a dog? Not your daughter and and a dog, not you and a dog, just a human and a dog.

free12thinker · 04-12-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
free12thinker:

Oh, and I'll ask you again: Are you indifferent between the death of a human and the death of a dog? Not your daughter and and a dog, not you and a dog, just a human and a dog.

Yes I am indifferent between the death of a dog and that of a human. I treat them as equally mournful events.

droolian · 04-12-2002, 08:15 PM

Tom Regan again:

Quote:

10. Even if other animals do have moral rights and should be protected, there are more important things that need our attention -- world hunger and child abuse, for example, apartheid, drugs, violence to women, and the plight of the homeless. After we take care of these problems, then we can worry about animals rights.

Reply: The animal rights movement stands as part of, not apart from, the human rights movement. The same philosophy that insists upon and defends the rights of nonhuman animals also insists upon and defends the rights of human beings.

At a practical level, moreover, the choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both. People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested on animals in order to help children. In fact, people who do respect the rights of nonhuman animals, by not eating them, will be healthier, in which case they actually will be able to help human beings even more.

tronvillain · 04-12-2002, 09:06 PM

free12thinker:

Quote:

Yes I am indifferent between the death of a dog and that of a human. I treat them as equally mournful events.

Interesting. In other words you could decide between a human being killed and a dog being killed by flipping a coin. While you may consider me immoral for eating meat, I consider you immoral for such indifference.

Frankly, I find such a statement totally disgusting.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Dr. Evil · 04-12-2002, 09:43 PM

Quote:

I also refuse to take medicine or use products that were made from any level of experimentation.

Then you've never taken any medication prescribed by a physician since ALL prescribed meds are tested for toxicity in animals and given an LD50 rating, which is the dose of a specific medication that caused death in 50% of the animals it was tested on.

I hope you don't get sick soon and need antibiotics!

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Evil ]

droolian · 04-12-2002, 11:15 PM

Dr. Evil---

Quote:

I hope you don't get sick soon and need antibiotics!

Some people are probably already getting more antibiotics than they asked for.

Quote:

Every year in the United States 25 million pounds of valuable antibiotics - roughly 70 percent of total US antibiotic production are fed to chickens, pigs, and cows (Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2001)

<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food/hogging_exec.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucsusa.org/food/hogging_exec.html</a>
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35918,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35918,00.html</a>

Dr. Evil · 04-13-2002, 03:02 PM

No one will listen to the threats of antibiotic resistant outbreaks untill stories like <a href="http://healthandenergy.com/e_coli.htm" target="_blank">this</a> become more prevelant.

As long as farmers see a benefit in keeping their cows infection free (and thus gaining weight more rapidly) attitudes will not change. Oh well!

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Evil ]

04-13-2002, 03:02 PM	#50
Dr. Evil Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 42	No one will listen to the threats of antibiotic resistant outbreaks untill stories like <a href="http://healthandenergy.com/e_coli.htm" target="_blank">this</a> become more prevelant. As long as farmers see a benefit in keeping their cows infection free (and thus gaining weight more rapidly) attitudes will not change. Oh well! [ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Evil ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2002, 12:30 PM	#41
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Certainly, if you could preserve the life of the animal that would be the best choice and I would choose the same. But as you said, if it came down to the choice of the animal or your daughter, you would choose your daughter. Therefore, you have valued your child more then the animal and it would be illogical for you to sacrifice your child for an animal, but according to your words you WOULD sacrifice an animal to save your child. I apologize for assuming you are female and a mother. I should know better Well, it is certainly your choice to refuse medication because it was tested on animals. The next time your doctor prescribes you or your child penicillin, or requires a vaccine, or requires almost any medical treatment what so ever, please keep that in mind and I sincerely hope that you would choose more wisely then that. The vaccines your child received to protect her polio, rubella, mumps, measles, and small pox have all been tested on animals. Any antibiotic you have ever taken or will ever take in the future have been tested on animals, ranging from cute little mice, to fuzzy bunnies to more highly evolved animals. If you have ever benefited from modern medicine you have been a recipient of a benefit provided to you by animals. And if there were an anthrax or small pox attack on your town and the government offered you life saving vaccines for you and your family would you say – No, I shall watch my wife and child die painful deaths because you tested the safeness of these vaccines on animals first. Thankfully, in the world of humans you have choices to make. But I would place a wager that when it came down to the difference between your survival or that of your family you would not choose to forgo the necessary treatment to prevent the needless suffering and death of your beloved family members. Brighid

04-12-2002, 12:35 PM	#42
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by free12thinker: I value them the same indeed. Here's some proof. A dog attacked my daughter, and had his tooth through her middle finger. I simply grabbed the dog, in a very light manner, by his gruff and took him to his owners house. They were frantic (fearing I would sue or something, anyway), they offered to have him put to sleep. I said dont be silly, he's just doing what comes natural, and I left it at that. Why do you think a dog attacking a human child is "what comes natural?" (sic) Most dogs do not do this. What would "come natural" to me is killing the dog that attacked my child. This may sound harsh, but it's the truth. Dogs that attack children (or other humans, or other dogs, cows, chickens, sheep, etc.) without provocation are a menace. The dog you had mercy on may next time attack and seriously maim or kill a child. The moral and merciful thing to do to such a vicious dog is to have the dog put down.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.