On 13 Nov 2006 07:08:11 -0800, "Diana Hsieh" <diana DeleteThis @dianahsieh.com> wrote:
>** Please forward this announcement and flyer to anyone in Colorado you
>think might be interested in attending this debate. **
>
>What: Debate on "What We Owe to Animals" with Dr. David Barnett and Dr.
>Robert Hanna
>
>Where: Old Main Chapel on the campus of the University of Colorado at
>Boulder.
>
>When: Thursday, November 16th from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m.
>
>About the debate:
>
>How ought humans treat other animals? Should we regard their
>interests--their pleasures and pains--as equally important as those of
>humans? Is our failure to do so a vicious form of discrimination like
>racism and sexism?
>
>Our answers to these questions could radically alter our lives, our
>society, and our laws. If animals are morally equal to humans, then we
>might be morally obliged to close down the factory farms
· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.
Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
>that put inexpensive meat and other animal products on
>store shelves,
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>to outlaw the use of animals in medical experiments to find
>treatments for human diseases
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.
There are several reasons for this:
* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.
* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.
Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.
Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.
7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.
There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.
Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.
Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.
Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.
http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research has
improved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation, improved
cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart disease, brain
disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field, the prevention of
genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only because of humane
work on animals.
Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their
assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of "experiments"
banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation.
....
Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people believe
that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie. Animals do not
give information that is 100% accurate when applied to humans, but they
do provide invaluable information that cannot be replaced by computer
modelling, cell culture or human experimentation. Mice have virtually the
same genes as humans, which is why they are so useful for exploring
human physiology.
Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for physiology
or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they could not have
made their discoveries without animals. Polio would still be claiming hundreds
of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for animal research by the Nobel
laureate
Albert Sabin. "There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use
of innumerable animals," he once said."
....
The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of animal
research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects were revealed,
the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on pregnant animals for the first
time. Birth defects were quickly seen in mice and rabbits. This prompted an
overhaul of the legislation and is the basis for our laws on drug development.
....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1786503,00.html#article_continue
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
