Animal Rights/Dissection Debate

[Ragnarok]

I'm against the abuse of animals used as specimens for dissection. I'm also against testing chemicals on animals to make cosmetics (make-up, hair products etc..) Here is an essay I wrote for school....

To dissect or object?, that is the question. It is a question of conscience. Alternatives to dissection should be available to students. Millions of animals are killed each year to be dissected for educational experiments. Dissection was thought to be a good learning tool in the study of anatomy, physiology and evolution when it was first introduced in the 1920's. More sophisticated teaching methods have been developed since. Today, these alternative methods can replace dissection and save the lives of many animals.

Many animals are subjected to suffering in the process of becoming dissection specimens. During the last decade, a national animal rights group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was able to go undercover into the nations largest animal supply house, Carolina Biological Supply Company (CBSC). CBSC, known to employees as "Satan's Pit", at the time filled up to three thousand orders for specimens per day. Jobs there included stretching worms, cutting the heads off dead dogs, drowning frogs and snakes in alcohol, gassing cats and rats and then hooking them up to the formaldehyde machine, sometimes while still alive. There were many reports of employees purposefully terrorizing the frightened, trapped animals waiting to die. The report detailed sickening accounts of desperate dogs, rabbits, rats attempting to climb out of dead piles and how these incidents were handled.

Students have a right to have their feelings and beliefs respected. Some students find dissection objectionable and even repulsive. Demanding it as a course requirement can thwart a student's interest and enthusiasm for the course. If a strong objection to dissection exists, it is not fair to expect a student to either participate in it or drop the class. Observing the dissection and being made to take a test using dissected specimens are not acceptable alternatives for many students.

Alternatives to dissection can include writing a detailed paper, using a computer simulation, preparing anatomical charts or studying diagrams, videos, or models. A student shouldn't be penalized for his ethical beliefs. Many schools allow alternatives to dissection, and five states have passed laws protecting the student's right to a humane alternative.

The desensitizing effect of mutilating and dismembering animals in the name of education is the most harmful effect of dissection. This has the most far reaching and long lasting consequences on our society. It teaches students that life is unimportant instead of promoting a respect for all life. If a child grows up oblivious to the pain and suffering inflicted on animals, a vicious cycle is created. The numbness gets passed on to each successive generation. "The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi

[Nerdanel]

i agree with you. too few people understand that we are animals too, with no right to see ourselves as better than other animals.

your essay is well written. thank you for bringing this subject up.

[Insidious Rex]

Well I dont know about that last bit about teaching kids to be animal butcherers but the rest of it sounds awful grusome. I never had a problem dissecting animals when I was in school and theres certainly a humane way of dispatching the animals. I cant imagine there are nearly the level of horrors and cruelty that you would find in a random slaughter house. Nevertheless, if you strongly believe that its wrong then by all means I would support exrpessing that opinion and refusing to take part in the dissection. The alternative should be taking a zero for the cause OR sitting down with administration folk and going over what could be an alternative. The problem is when this becomes a get a note from your mommy thing to just get out of it and not have to worry about it. Then suddenly youll find hundreds of kids are suddenly concerned very much with the well being of star fish and sea worms. Not because they give a crap but because its an easy out. So an alternative would have to be something harder then the dissection itself I think.

[BeardofPants]

I am a vegetarian, and consider that I hold life sacred. However, I am also at heart, a scientist, and hold that some animal research is necessary. Beauty products I do not agree with at all, but there are some matters of research which, IMO, necessitate animal testing. I also feel that those who moralise against animal testing, and continue to eat hormone-filled animals are hypocrites.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I am a vegetarian, and consider that I hold life sacred. However, I am also at heart, a scientist, and hold that some animal research is necessary. Beauty products I do not agree with at all, but there are some matters of research which, IMO, necessitate animal testing. I also feel that those who moralise against animal testing, and continue to eat hormone-filled animals are hypocrites.

I believe that animal testing is alright if there is a legitmat ereason that could saves lives or something like that. However, putting chemicals in animals eyes and sewing them shut, or cutting animals and injecting the chemicals into their body, and other sick twisted thing they do is wrong. I don't think animals should suffer so girls can paint their faces on with make-up.

[BeardofPants]

I will certainly agree with that. I'm not a big make-up wearer at any rate, and the products I do use are animal-testing free. I do think there should be a bigger effort to ensure that animal testing is more regulated in that a certain code of ethics should be adhered to.

[edit] I have undertaken dissection twice myself, and I don't have a problem with it, as in both cases it was for research purposes.

[HOBBIT]

but animals are so tasty.... :P

out of respect though, I dont eat pigs. I also find fish and insects disgusting, so i dont eat those as well.

[katya]

I had to dissect a cat for Bio2 last year. When I was in Bio1, thinking about it, I decided that I didn't want to do the cat dissection. However, we started with crayfish, and worked out way up through frogs, fetal pigs, and finally, the cats. Since I didn't complain about the crayfish, I couldn't complain about the cats. And furthermore, my opinions changed to the point that I looked forward to the cat dissection, because I honestly was interested in doing it for research's sake. And anyway, my not taking part wouldn't have changed anything- the same amount of cats would've been purchased. That's why I did it, however, I'm proud that some people are protesting the horrible practices associated with the specimins.
The things that too often happen in places like the ones mentioned are terrible. It almost literally makes me sick. However, there are fairly decent ways of doing things. I mean, we did cats. You know how many cats are euthanized anyway? Might as well use them for something. But torturing them, mistreating them, that's just sick.
Now as far as the dead cats we had in the room, I did have a problem with people disrespecting them. These cats are there so we can further our understanding of anatomy- not so we can make fun of them and play with their dead bodies. I know it doesn't really matter that much, because it's not like they're still alive, but still, they were at one time, and it's barbaric to treat the cats as anything other than a formerly living thing, and a research specimin. I personally did everything I could to make sure my group behaved themselves (in other words, I basically didn't let *that one kid* touch the cat), but I can't control everybody. I did feel, however, that it was a very positive learning experience for me. I wouldn't do it again (I mean, unless I had to), but I don't regret taking part.
Oh yeah, animal testing is ok sometimes, when they're treated with respect and used for a good cause (i.e. saving lives) but certainly not for cosmetics. I saw an episode of the old Degrassi that dealt with the subject.^^

[Master_Samwise]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I am a vegetarian, and consider that I hold life sacred. However, I am also at heart, a scientist, and hold that some animal research is necessary. Beauty products I do not agree with at all, but there are some matters of research which, IMO, necessitate animal testing. I also feel that those who moralise against animal testing, and continue to eat hormone-filled animals are hypocrites.

I'm also a vegetarian (actually, a vegan, though I do eat dairy every now and then, like when I'm not home). I agree that to test for reasons that would save lives, that's fine (PETA would strongly dissagree, probally), but to test make-up, that's just stupid. I don't wear any make up myself (only 15), but I think that the people who want to wear it can have it put on them for tests, after all, it is going to and on a human. If they don't want it tested on them, then they shouldn't wear it at all, there's more then a money price tag for wearing what you want sometimes.

I need to take bio. though soon, not this year, infact, I have anywhere from my 10-12 grade year to do it, and will probally take it next year. However, I am going to make an apointment with my school counsaller to see if there are any alternatives to dissecting, and tell her that it's against my beliefs. Now I go to a school that serves 2 vegitarian chouses in each lunch meal, so hopefully they will be more understanding then my old school, who only served salad for veggies, and even that only had salad dressing with dairy in it. I would just skip bio 1 and 2, but it's required to get into a 4 year collage, I don't know where I'm going to collage yet, but I want to ceep all of my chouses open, so therfore, I want to have good grades and do all of the courses required for a 4 year collage. Unforchently, I don't live in one of the states where law protects me from having to dissect.

I understand that it's hard for a school to say that you can skip it if you want, because then all of the students who wanted to skip would. Now in 7th grade, I had to dissect a chicken, and my teacher (who was a vegetarian) said that if we had a note saying that we havn't eaten meat for at least the past 2 weeks, then we could get out of it. Unforchently, I wasn't a veggie then. I anjoyed the dissection, and even asked if we could do another one. However, now since I'm more animal friendly, and know what gose on behind the sceens (the cow dosn't grow up on a happy farm with green grass and butterflys) I wouldn't do it again.

[The Gaffer]

This is one of those topics where things can get heated, so I'll start by pointing out that I totally respect the view that animals have rights and should not be abused.

However, the movement as a whole is thwarting medical progress in name of an extremist interpretation of what exactly these rights are.

At the moment here in Oxford there is a project to build a new science research centre which has been halted because the animal rights brigade have started threatening the contractors. There are lots of things which enrage me about this, but here are the top three:

1) Animal research is an essential component of basic scientific progress. New drug treatments, for example, cannot be licensed until they have been shown to be safe in animals (as well as a whole bunch of other things). You cannot simulate this kind of study with computer models and such like.

2) There is far more cruelty going on day in, day out in the abattoirs and factory farms around the country. Why, then, target science? (Hint: farmers have shotguns and tanks for spraying silage)

3) It has provoked our ultra-illiberal Home Secretary into brewing up some nastily oppressive anti-protesting laws which are completely unnecessary and further erode our non-existence civil liberties (no constitution, you see)

I particularly enjoyed the irony of a protestor outside the Huntingdon Life Sciences who had an asthma attack and had to be saved by a policeman using an inhaler which had been tested at, yes, Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Bar stewards.

[Master_Samwise]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This is one of those topics where things can get heated, so I'll start by pointing out that I totally respect the view that animals have rights and should not be abused.

However, the movement as a whole is thwarting medical progress in name of an extremist interpretation of what exactly these rights are.

At the moment here in Oxford there is a project to build a new science research centre which has been halted because the animal rights brigade have started threatening the contractors. There are lots of things which enrage me about this, but here are the top three:

1) Animal research is an essential component of basic scientific progress. New drug treatments, for example, cannot be licensed until they have been shown to be safe in animals (as well as a whole bunch of other things). You cannot simulate this kind of study with computer models and such like.

2) There is far more cruelty going on day in, day out in the abattoirs and factory farms around the country. Why, then, target science? (Hint: farmers have shotguns and tanks for spraying silage)

3) It has provoked our ultra-illiberal Home Secretary into brewing up some nastily oppressive anti-protesting laws which are completely unnecessary and further erode our non-existence civil liberties (no constitution, you see)

I particularly enjoyed the irony of a protestor outside the Huntingdon Life Sciences who had an asthma attack and had to be saved by a policeman using an inhaler which had been tested at, yes, Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Bar stewards.

Yes, but you see, I do think that it's okay to use animals in science if it's for medical reasons, like I think most of us have pointed out. However, when you are in high school taking 2 courses so that you can get into a 4 year collage to become a Christian missionary, which has been your dream for a couple of years (over 7 by the time I graduat high school), then let me just be as honost as I can, and tell you that there is no point in dissecting animals. Animal dissection should be saved for the collage student looking into a sceince or medical field, now some people would dissagree, and say that it's a good thing to dissect in high school, because you might get intrested into science through dissection, and continue into a science field. Personally, I must dissagree. I did anjoy one dissection in 7th grade, but did it interest me into the science field? Not at all! I would much rather spread my religiose beliefs then play with a dead body, which was extreamly pointless, because we wern't looking for a cure to something in the first place. I look back and regret my dissecting the poor abused animal.

Now, you said that we should be targeting factory farms. I am geussing that you are talking about factory farms that raise animals for meat and dairy and all of that. Well, I do agree with you. We should also target those places. And I am, by not eating meat and dairy products (well, dairy products acasionally, read my above post), thus I am a vegan. There are many people out there who are refusing to dissect in high school, or oposed to it and trying to get the high schools to make it optional. Many of these people are also vegetarians and vegans, thus making a stand against factory farms also. Some of these people make a chouse to eat organic meat and dairy only, thus also making a stand against factory farms by saying that though they do anjoy there meat and dairy, they prefer it hormone free and from well treated animals, some may have other reasons.

[sun-star]

Firstly, I agree with the Gaffer about the animal rights movement. Caring more about the welfare of animals than about that of human beings is something I simply do not understand, and cannot support.

I also agree that animals do have rights, and it is our responsibility to protect them. But just out of curiousity, when did the debate start to focus on demanding "animal rights" rather than demanding that human beings fulfil their responsibility to behave in a humane manner and not cause unnecessary pain? The second seems easier to prove than the first, to me.

And let me share with you a question from my General Studies exam paper: "Is the concept of animal rights sentimental?" I said yes, it is, but that doesn't mean the concept has no meaning - because all rights, animal and human, depend on recognising the needs of others and therefore require empathy (and 'sentimental' is a perjorative word anyway).

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This is one of those topics where things can get heated, so I'll start by pointing out that I totally respect the view that animals have rights and should not be abused.

However, the movement as a whole is thwarting medical progress in name of an extremist interpretation of what exactly these rights are.

At the moment here in Oxford there is a project to build a new science research centre which has been halted because the animal rights brigade have started threatening the contractors. There are lots of things which enrage me about this, but here are the top three:

1) Animal research is an essential component of basic scientific progress. New drug treatments, for example, cannot be licensed until they have been shown to be safe in animals (as well as a whole bunch of other things). You cannot simulate this kind of study with computer models and such like.

2) There is far more cruelty going on day in, day out in the abattoirs and factory farms around the country. Why, then, target science? (Hint: farmers have shotguns and tanks for spraying silage)

3) It has provoked our ultra-illiberal Home Secretary into brewing up some nastily oppressive anti-protesting laws which are completely unnecessary and further erode our non-existence civil liberties (no constitution, you see)

I particularly enjoyed the irony of a protestor outside the Huntingdon Life Sciences who had an asthma attack and had to be saved by a policeman using an inhaler which had been tested at, yes, Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Bar stewards.

Yes, I'm all for using in animals for beneficial reasons that will help mankind. Its the abuses that major companies like Proctor and Gamble that make me sick, so if you buy Pringles you are supporting Proctor and Gamble and their animal abuse. Heres a link, http://www.pandgkills.com/main.html.

My mom is an animal rights activist and I've seen some of the pamphlets she has with pictures of these abused animals. It is utterly sick, the animals hardly look like themselves. Their eyes were sewn shut, their hair was shaved and on the skin was blisters and burns, ther bodies looked distorted. When I saw these pictures I wanted to puke.

WARNING: Heres some pictures of some animal abuse, I picked out some of the less greusome ones....







That monkey's eyes are sewn shut incase you can't see...

[The Gaffer]

These are classics from the archives. No, seriously, they are.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone here thought that it was wrong to use animals regardless of the benefit to people, and I agree with what Sun-star said about the onus being on us to behave like moral beings.

But I do think that images like these have led to people thinking that this happens all the time everywhere there are folks in white coats.

Why do you think that those people that object to ALL testing choose to target scientists rather than food producers?

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Firstly, I agree with the Gaffer about the animal rights movement. Caring more about the welfare of animals than about that of human beings is something I simply do not understand, and cannot support.

I also agree that animals do have rights, and it is our responsibility to protect them. But just out of curiousity, when did the debate start to focus on demanding "animal rights" rather than demanding that human beings fulfil their responsibility to behave in a humane manner and not cause unnecessary pain? The second seems easier to prove than the first, to me.

If you look at it from the scientific aspect than yes, the welfare of humans should come first. However, the abuse, torture and murder inflicted on these animals for hair products, soaps, make-up, cosmetics is not a beneficial factor to society. That is where the abuse is being done, not in scientific labs, the scientists are more humane. The problem is big companies like Proctor and Gamble who are abusing animals for illegitimate reasons.

I never demanded "animals rights", I demand respect for animals (for all life) and that they be treated in the right way.

[Master_Samwise]

[QUOTE=Ragnarok]
My mom is an animal rights activist and I've seen some of the pamphlets she has with pictures of these abused animals. It is utterly sick, the animals hardly look like themselves. Their eyes were sewn shut, their hair was shaved and on the skin was blisters and burns, ther bodies looked distorted. When I saw these pictures I wanted to puke.
[QUOTE]

I'm gelouse of you for having an animal advacist as a mom, I would be so much more supported in my eating chouses if I did, and maybe I would be willing to tell my mom that I want products not tested on animals, like shampoo, but for now, I have to say "Hey, mom, this one smells good" and pick out one that is not tested on animals that I like the smell of, other wise I think she would get fustrated, and I don't need to build on the frustration caused by not eating animal products. Besides, then she would know that I'm vegan more for the animals then for the health benefits, and try harder then ever to turn me back to where I eat organic dairy, but I won't go there...

Anyways, more into the subject. Someone said that they wonder why the lab workers in white coats are targeted more then the food industry. I have to say that I dissagree with this statement. I have looked far and wide in the past seven months+, and before I became a vegetarian I also looked around online. The thing that motivated me the most (other then not having the stomach for meat one night at supper and my whole family freaking out over it (they had expected em to go veggie, so they had the right to) and that being a perfect excuse) was pictures of how the meat industry treated animals. What convinced me to go vegan? It wasn't the health, it was A. to help the animals and B. to be healthyer and C. to have a change from cheese and milk. Looking around, I find that many people online target food industrys more then anything else when it comes to animal abuse. So, I have to dissagree with the statement that goas against the percentage of what I have found on my own. Just one more fast point... If I remember correctly, I have a vegetarian friend who is looking forward to dissecting animals, so she is targeting the meat industry but not the guys in the white thingymabobers.

That's just my point of vew...

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

These are classics from the archives. No, seriously, they are.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone here thought that it was wrong to use animals regardless of the benefit to people, and I agree with what Sun-star said about the onus being on us to behave like moral beings.

But I do think that images like these have led to people thinking that this happens all the time everywhere there are folks in white coats.

Why do you think that those people that object to ALL testing choose to target scientists rather than food producers?

Well killng animals for meat could be discussed as a completelt different topic, have you ever been to a slaughter house? I encourage you to go to one.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Well killng animals for meat could be discussed as a completelt different topic, have you ever been to a slaughter house? I encourage you to go to one.

I have, and it aint pretty. And I've seen a nice fluffy lamb get its throat cut, get skinned and butchered, and then thrown onto the hotplate. If you can eat it, you should have the guts to kill it. Its all about Darwinism people, survival of the fittest, and so on.

But back on topic.

The testing on animals for medicine is vital to the research into a variety of diseases. But testing lipstick on a bunny rabbit is immoral, for it does not serve a legitimate scientific purpose.

It may just be me, but it seems we are all agreeing with each other on that point.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, and I admire your stance, Master Samwise. I'm sure your folks would understand your objection to cosmetics that have been tested on animals.

I disagree about the food industry. How many farms or factory farms or abattoirs get death threats from animal rights activities? How many have to cease operating because of the threat of violence? How many of their employees have threats against themselves and their families? That's what's been happening to scientists here lately.

I could go to an abattoir, and I would kill, skin and gut a lamb for myself if I was particularly hungry but a) I'd do it badly and b) someone else is prepared to do it for me so c) hooray for civilisation!

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

If you look at it from the scientific aspect than yes, the welfare of humans should come first. However, the abuse, torture and murder inflicted on these animals for hair products, soaps, make-up, cosmetics is not a beneficial factor to society. That is where the abuse is being done, not in scientific labs, the scientists are more humane. The problem is big companies like Proctor and Gamble who are abusing animals for illegitimate reasons.

I actually wasn't weighing the human benefit achieved through scientific testing against animal welfare, I was weighing animal welfare against the behaviour of violent animal rights activists to humans. I'm totally opposed to cosmetics being tested on animals - I don't know anyone who isn't. But I'm also opposed to targetting scientists and their families in the name of animal welfare, which was my point.

I never demanded "animals rights", I demand respect for animals (for all life) and that they be treated in the right way.

I meant the animal rights movement in general, not just you