Animal Rights, The rights of animals

haha...that poor, poor man. he must have made a lot of mistakes in life (or a few really big ones) to get to the point where he had to wear a rodent suit in order to make a living.

Well I have come back from the farm where I spent a month and I have gained considerable knowledge regarding animals so hopefully I can say some things that might change someone's perspective. First of all, for anyone who is in to animal rights, which I don't think is anyone based on the comments on this message board, Farm Sanctuary is a great place to look at. They're much less extreme than PETA and they're focused on factory farming, which most people can agree to as being pretty horrible and fairly unneccessary, unless you have a blatant disregard to animals.
ok, in regards to animal experimentation which was the original topic, I talked to one of the other interns who read a book written by a biologist and a vet, i believe so it's very credible. i forget the entire title but it ended with the human cost of animal experimentation. anyway, according to the book, or according to this intern as i remember it, animal experimentation is 51% accurate while other methods such as live cell cultures and computer simulation or something has accuracy in the 70s or 80s if not more. i also watched a video which was partly propaganda but still had some truth, i think, and it said that studies involving animal experimentation were much more likely to get funding so experimentation was used even when it didn't have to go. but two of you are probably more informed than i am so correct me if i'm wrong.

Feezor, you said that because animals have been in a cage their entire life, they are comfortable where they are. but being in a cage for however long would not erase an animal's instinct to run around. there are animals and humans who are born starving but they are not more used to starving 10 years later than someone who gradually starves. also, i don't know if you are a vegetarian or not but if you aren't, how do you justify that while being an animal lover at the same time?

whether animals are meant to be eaten or not, they're definately not deserving of the immense suffering they go through from birth to death. i have a bunch of disturbing facts that i'd love to type but i'm not sure if anyone would actually want to read it and i'm tired anyway. but aside from the animals, there's also your health and the environment which is wasting away faster than you can imagine. and there's a reason why heart disease and cancer are the top two killers in america.

in conclusion, good night. i'll be back.

What about the poor live cell cultures?! They're being needlessly exploited for human gain! They're being created solely to improve human lives! THEY NEED A VOICE TOO!
I'm all for kindness to animals, but unsupported statements like "there's a reason why heart disease and cancer are the top two killers in america" aren't going to convince anyone to change their position on animal "rights". Do you have a cite for that? From a reputable, non-propaganda source? What about the "according to the book, or according to this intern"?.

Baloop82, being a vegetarian and animal lover have nothing to do with one another. Humans were designed to eat meat, and have been doing so for a very long time. That's great if you want to be a vegetarian for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that anyone who eats meat is cold-hearted and cannot love animals. That's like asking someone to justify how they can love to garden and eat a salad at the same time. Do you think I enjoy watching my show steers that I raise and take care of for a year getting loading on a trailer to go to the slaughter house? No! It's very painful! But on the other hand, who wouldn't be getting dinner if I didn't sell him?

As I mentioned before, I live on a farm. My family raises purebred Angus cattle and we also have turkey barns ("factory farms") for Cargill. I myself do not particularly care for the idea of "factory farming," but consider the alternative. The world population is skyrocketing. Even in America, the population is growing immensely. Therefore, agriculture has to meet the needs of the people (food.) Meat, grains, milk, and other ag products have to be produced at larger quantities with efficiency while trying to make some profit. Obviously, from the animal standpoint, the alternative to factory farming would be to grow larger numbers of open-range turkeys, chickens, and swine. But my question is this: where? I don't know where you live, but in central Missouri (near Jefferson city) the farmland is dwindling. Cities are spreading out like wildfire and farm pastures are being turned into subdivisions. The farmland that does get sold is so high in price that someone wanting to farm it wouldn't be able to afford it.

My point is, that even with a love for animals and a desire to keep them safe, one must look at the current situation with a little reality. The time of small farming where everybody raises their own chickens and has their own milk cow was gone years ago. With a decreasing number of farmers and increasing number of mouths to feed, something had to be done: factory farming. It may not be right, or happy, but it IS reality.

(On a side note: the accuracy of animal testing depends on WHO you ask.)

Here's how I feel about some of the things I've seen so far.

“Being caged the entire time doesn't bother them because they have never been free, so how are they to know what a free life would be like? Being in a cage is normal for them. That is their life. That's where they are comfortable.”

Animals being tested upon may have never experienced a higher quality of life, but I don’t think that by any means ethically justifies animal testing. Similarly, a slave born onto a plantation may have never experienced freedom, but this argument doesn’t justify slavery.

My opposition to animal testing doesn’t stem from the details of specific situations, but moreso I oppose the idea of exploiting animals for our own purposes, regardless of how important those purposes may be to us. The fact that many experiments inflict a great deal of pain on test animals supports - rather than forms the basis - for my (and probably others’) opposition to animal testing.

“However, being exposed to animal research, I can personally say that animal research is not cruel and does not make animals suffer.”

How can you “personally say” that tested-upon animals have or have not suffered if you haven’t personally endured the specific tests they are subjected to? Almost all animals have nervous systems, which among other things help them detect and respond to painful stimuli. Humans can suffer a great deal without exhibiting clear symptoms of suffering (especially when given drugs to reduce these symptoms), so why should we base our knowledge of animal suffering off of external reactions?

If animal testing truly makes no animals suffer (animals that are capable of suffering, as we are), much of it would be done solely on our fellow humans instead - this would obviously improve the accuracy of the findings. The only plausible reason I can see for testing drugs on animals is that the drugs - if successful - will ultimately be administered to animals. The reason that most things are tested on animals is, as far as I'm aware, that it's too dangerous or inconvenient to test them on humans.

"People beat and don't care for their children in the same manner, yet obviously we cannot stop reproducing. There are always going to be bad people in this world."

Reproduction is a natural process of life. Containing animals to cages and performing scientific experiments on them is not morally comparable to having children (although I do support the VHEMT, but that's another issue I suppose).

“It does however benefit humans by being able to beat pathogens that make people and animals alike suffer.”

I don't doubt that ending all animal testing may result in human deaths that could have otherwise been prevented, and I would hope that my opinion on this subject wouldn’t change if I knew someone whose life was saved by animal testing. But even assuming that all animal testing is successful, I don’t think one animal death can automatically be ethically justified by a human life saved.

During World War II, Nazi physicians such as Josef Mengele performed countless experiments on prisoners that are now viewed as horribly sadistic, and some of these experiments advanced areas of science (effects of high-altitude, poisons, and extreme cold on the human body; bone transplantation, and the nature of malaria, to name a few). It's now unanimous that any benefits to science that resulted from these experiments by no means justified any of the immense suffering that was involved. I hope that eventually animal testing will be regarded as wholly unethical as well.

". . . being a vegetarian and animal lover have nothing to do with one another. Humans were designed to eat meat, and have been doing so for a very long time."

I don't see how it can be denied that vegetarianism and animal empathy have some obvious connections. Those who are vegetarians for ethical reasons refuse to consume animal flesh because they empathize with them. There are certainly meat-eaters who consider themselves animal-lovers, but if these people really loved animals, most of them would not be eating them. Maybe they only love the animals that they don't feel like exploiting.
I became a vegetarian earlier this summer, and I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's inconvenient. For as many meat-eaters there are in our society, it's really very easy to live a nutritious vegetarian lifestyle. Aside from fruits, nuts, vegetables and so on, there are quite a few faux-flesh products available at the average supermarket that one could even be made a vegetarian without realizing it.

I think it often comes down to the fact that people are hesitant to change, especially when it involves fairly ingrained things like choice of diet. This hesitance is, in general terms, understandable. But when one's simple reluctance to change his/her diet is compared to the suffering and death that diet requires, it no longer seems remotely understandable to me.

"Not eating meat yourself 'cause you don't want to harm animals is fine. Opposing (and taking steps toward denying) another person's food source is not fine."

I think people ought to consider that vegetarianism is not only a personal reform, but a social reform as well. I understand that there are always people who will be opposed to change for their various reasons. However, it's important to consider others' motives. When a telemarketer calls your house, as annoying or inconvenient the call may be, this is their job, and they're doing it to earn money. When Jehovah's witnesses try to give you a copy of the Bible, they generally have good intentions, which is something you can realize even if you don't agree with their beliefs. If a vegetarian tries to persuade you to stop eating meat, please just try to listen to what he/she has to say, even if you ultimately reject it.

"They'd rather see a lab rat running free in the overgrown ruins of a facility they could never hope to build, but could only fight to destroy."

The reason groups like the Animal Liberation Front fights to destroy facilities is because they see them as unethical. Unless I misinterpreted that, what you said was similar to saying that abolitionists could never hope to own plantations so they resorted to freeing slaves. It's not an issue of opportunity, it's an issue of what a person feels is right or wrong.

We see cannibalism as atrocious and unethical largely because of the empathy we hold towards our fellow humans. The amount of time the human diet has been transfixed around meat can vary quite a bit depending on the source. Some scientists have argued that the human intestinal tract and dental makeup suggest that our ancestors were almost exclusively herbivorous.

"Before any project can be undertaken, it must be approved by multiple animal care boards - the boards must be convinced that there is no way the given results can be found without using animals. "

That's certainly better than some situations. From how you described it, it sounds like that's just about the ethical peak that animal testing can possibly reach. Unfortunately, animals are still being contained for the duration of their lives, and regardless of benefit to mankind, that ethical peak is dwarfed by the possible alternatives that don't involve animals. I think some degree of cruelty is inevitable in animal testing. I'd love to be proved wrong about this, but unless you shape your definition of cruelty to exclude animals, I don't see how. The principle revolves around exploitation, and I see exploitation as inherently cruel. Earlier I related the situation to slaves on a plantation. No matter how well the slaves are treated, they are ultimately still not free creatures like their kin, and the same holds true for test animals.

On another note, is it true that animal research is much more expensive than the current alternatives (Reduce, Refine, Replace)? I see why it's less accurate, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was more expensive because of the facilities needed for the upkeep of the test animals, but I can't remember where I read that, so I'm not going to base anything off of it...

"I interpreted that as we can use them to our advantage, such as a food source or in advancement of medicine, so we ought to, or else we're being blind to something in our self-interest."

That's one of the big problems when ethics arise from religion. I think there's way too much interpretation. If someone thinks that God's word supports genocide and rape, will that person get away with either of those crimes? I hope not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm#diff

And who's to say which particular sections are to be taken literally or dismissed as fables?

This post has been edited by coelacanth on Aug 22 2005, 10:12 PM

http://www.geocities.com/loyal2truth/ethic...mals/index.html

This post has been edited by coelacanth on Aug 22 2005, 10:13 PM

Here are a few things to think about.

Animals being tested upon may have never experienced a higher quality of life

I think this premise is false in the first place. I think that most animals used in scientific research experience a much greater quality of life than they would otherwise. They're provided with ample food and water, opportunities to exercise and play with each other, shelter from the elements, and freedom from predators.

A slave born onto a plantation may have never experienced freedom, but I believe – and I assume you agree with me - that this argument doesn’t justify slavery.

Please, let's not bring freedom into the discussion. Arguing about differing conceptions of the word "freedom" in this context is a waste of our time. The word "freedom" as applied to humans can mean dozens of different things, not limited to "freedom from X," "freedom to X," and "liberty." All of these are different concepts. This is why I don't find your slavery analogy compelling. What does "freedom" mean to an animal? As you yourself mention above, we're not animals. We can't know exactly what it means to an animal to be "free" or to possess the ephemeral quality of "freedom," or that such things have any meaning whatsoever to an animal. How do we know that animals have some innate "drive" to be free? For that matter, how do we know humans have one? This topic has been debated for centuries in popular literature.

The fact that many experiments inflict a great deal of pain on test animals

Contrary to popular belief, there's a difference between saying something's a fact and that something actually being a fact. We generally bridge this gap between what's said and what's actual by citing studies and other literature to back up what we're saying. I suggest you do some research. Of course, this statement is a generalization, anyway, and thus isn't particularly credible. The way to argue something like this is to preface your remarks with, "I believe," or "It is my understanding that..." That way, we can avoid attributing factual qualities to what are, in fact, opinions.

And another note about this—you say that we, not being animals, don't know if they're feeling pain or not. While this is surely true in some cases, it doesn't justify the implication that experiments are necessarily painful to animals.

If animal testing was - as you claimed - truly painless in all cases, I don’t doubt that much of it would be done solely on humans instead, because this would undoubtedly improve the accuracy of the findings. Why would humans test drugs on animals if the tests could be administered to humans humanely? The only plausible reason I can see for testing drugs on animals is that the drugs - if successful - will ultimately be administered to animals. The reason that most things are tested on animals is, as far as I'm aware, that it's too dangerous to test them on humans.

You're claiming a lot of different things here, and I'm not convinced that they're all compatible. Your claims are as follows: (1) Humans do testing on animals because the testing would cause humans pain. (2) The only justifiable reason for testing drugs on animals is to improve the quality of life for those animals. And (3) Humans do testing on animals because the testing is too dangerous for humans.

Claims Nos. 1 and 3 are not, to my knowledge, true across the board. We often do testing on animals because it's far easier to arrange a study involving animals than it is to arrange the same study involving humans. Animals are always available; you don't have to wait for them to show up. They don't miss appointments. They don't have the vast, complex set of preferences and neuroses that human subjects do, so experimental results are often clearer when animals are used.

As for claim No. 2, that's an ethical question, and it's also a question of personal belief. Perhaps you believe the only justifiable research on animals is that which is done to improve animals' quality of life. That's fine; you can believe that. But we don't all have to believe it.

I also take issue with the implication that most testing on animals involves administration of drugs, chemicals, or other mind- and body-altering substances. A large amount of animal testing, especially that which is done at research universities, doesn't involve any of that. By conflating drug testing and behavioral research, you diminish your argument.

I would hope that in the not-too-far future, animal testing will be generally regarded as unethical as well.

I really don't think Mengele's experiments are comparable to most animal testing. You are free to believe what you like. In my opinion, however, the death of a rat is more than justified if a human life can be saved, and it will be a sad, sad day for humanity if animal testing is at some point deemed wholly unethical.

On a side note, though, I find interesting the fact that you're arguing against death of any animal, including humans, yet you won't approve of steps to keep millions more animals, including humans, from meeting their deaths. The animals in labs generally won't die untimely deaths. They'll be kept alive far longer than they otherwise would. Similarly, vaccines, medicines, and therapies tested through animal research will keep millions of humans and possibly other animals alive for far longer than they would have otherwise lived. Are you anti-death, or anti-utilitarian? Or is it not an issue of death at all, but of some conception you have of what's "natural" or not?

I'm still much inclined to think if these people really loved animals, most of them would not be eating them.

That's fine. You're free to think that, and I'm free to deny the validity of that premise.

I think it often comes down to the fact that people are hesitant to change, especially when it involves fairly ingrained things like choice of diet.

I can only speak for myself, but in my case, I continue to eat meat because (1) I think arguments against eating meat are largely flawed, or appeal to premises and systems of thought that I don't personally uphold, (2) I believe meat is important to a balanced diet, although I know that in some cultures and religious traditions (particularly the Jainist tradition), they've managed to eschew it completely, and they're still thriving, and (3) You know what? I really enjoy eating meat.

vegetarianism is not only a personal reform, but a social reform as well

I think it's an entirely personal choice, but perhaps that stems from my flawed "Western" view that such matters are best left to the individual to decide for his/herself.

Some scientists have argued that the human intestinal tract and dental makeup suggest that our ancestors were almost exclusively herbivorous.

Which scientists? Are they credible? What research suggests this? Can you give us citations? There may well be credible scientists doing research right now that evidences this point of view—but you haven't given us anything to go on here. Like I mentioned earlier, citation is incredibly important in this kind of debate. Without citation, debate is futile.

I think some degree of cruelty is inevitable in animal testing. I'd love to be proved wrong about this, but unless you shape your definition of cruelty to exclude animals, I don't see how.

I don't think so. And I think the burden of proof is on your side, not ours. Your claim is an absolute, and is thus almost certainly more difficult to justify.

No matter how well the slaves are treated, they are ultimately still not free creatures like their kin, and the same holds true for test animals.

Like I said earlier on, the issue of "freedom" really doesn't need to be brought into this. It just muddies the waters and shuts down productive discussion.


These are some things to think about.

‘They're provided with ample food and water, opportunities to exercise and play with each other, shelter from the elements, and freedom from predators.”

The things you mentioned are obviously positive aspects of some instances of animal testing, but they are only positives aspects of something that is, as I see it, absolutely wrong. A prisoner of conscience may be fed expensive food and treated nicely, but those benefits don’t make it ethical for governments to take prisoners of conscience on those terms, do they?

“What does "freedom" mean to an animal? As you yourself mention above, we're not animals. We can't know exactly what it means to an animal to be "free" or to possess the ephemeral quality of "freedom," or that such things have any meaning whatsoever to an animal. How do we know that animals have some innate "drive" to be free? For that matter, how do we know humans have one? This topic has been debated for centuries in popular literature.”

It doesn't matter whether or not non-human animals can grasp any of society's varying concepts of freedom. Rather than possession of a “drive to be free,” I think beings should be granted rights based on their capacities for pain. Would it be ethical to conduct the same experiments on mentally retarded participants who can’t give consent? If not, what separates the situations? The mentally retarded participants would feel pain and experience anxiety - just as humans and other animals do. The difference in species, though it may seem important, comes back to what I said about empathy. Is the only reason we don’t perform unconsented tests on the mentally retarded that we empathize better with them?

“But we don't all have to believe it.”

You and I have a huge amount of freedom of thought and freedom of action, and we should be grateful for that. One way we can demonstrate our appreciation is to make choices that are respectful to those around us – humans and non-human animals alike.

“Which scientists? Are they credible? What research suggests this? Can you give us citations? There may well be credible scientists doing research right now that evidences this point of view—but you haven't given us anything to go on here. Like I mentioned earlier, citation is incredibly important in this kind of debate. Without citation, debate is futile.”

http://www.bhj.org/books/diets/chap3.htm
http://www.skcv.com/vegetarian1.htm
http://ayurveda-foryou.com/treat/vegdiet.html (Anatomy and physiology of herbivorous and carnivorous animals)
http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/prasadam.../vegetarian.htm
There’s quite a bit on that page, so I’ll paste the excerpt here for you:

“Rollo Russell, in his Notes on the Causation of Cancer, says, ‘I have found of twenty-five nations eating flesh largely, nineteen had a high cancer rate and only one had a low rate, and that of thirty-five nations eating little or no flesh, none had a high rate.’
Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short intestinal tracts (three times the length of the animal's body), to pass rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat out of the body quickly. Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long intestinal tract of a[ny] herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can overload he[sic] kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism and even cancer.”

http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qaphys.htm
"There has been much dissension among scientists regarding the topic of human physiology and diet, and opinions have spanned the continuum from one end to the other. The fact is, human physiology does not fit neatly into any of the three major categories of mammalian diets: carnivorous, herbivorous, or omnivorous. We have a few traits from each of these classifications, which makes it easy for researchers to "prove" their position merely by pointing out those characteristics that suit their particular opinion.

It is often suggested that specific features of human anatomy or physiology dictate our behavior. However, from the perspective of diet, our physical makeup only prescribes our nutritional requirements, not how specific nutrients must be obtained. For instance, although we have a nutritional need for iron, there are many dietary sources of iron. Nutritionally speaking, it is irrelevant whether we get our iron from plant or animal sources; what matters is simply that we get it.

The argument that "biology is destiny" is typically used to justify a particular eating style. In that light, we must acknowledge that humans are the only species on Earth that appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be. We are also the only species that has self-inflicted diet-related diseases, caused extensive environmental destruction through basic food production, and created pathogenic infestations that widely infect our food supply.

This type of reasoning also blatantly ignores a critical element of human evolution -- the aspect of choice. The arguments that "humans are meant to eat meat" or " humans have always eaten meat" are certainly no rational defenses for its continuation. If we were to accept this type of twisted logic, we would also have to say that humans have always murdered, raped, enslaved, and committed other heinous acts that our culture today finds reprehensible. Unlike most other animals, humans can choose what foods to eat. Sadly, our poor choices in the past have ravaged our land; fouled our air and waterways; heaped immeasurable suffering upon other species; and undermined our own health.

Our ability to digest a wide variety of foods undoubtedly contributed to our species' survival throughout history. Today, however, our dietary choices have more to do with tradition, culture, economics, politics, and availability than with some predetermined fate. It is time for our species to behave responsibly and select those foods that best sustain the Earth, the animals, and ourselves. Only then can we truly say we that humans have evolved in body, spirit, and wisdom."

“I do think God put animals here for us to eat.”
Is it fair to justify entirely unnecessary murder and consumption of animals through your own religious beliefs? In our society, religious beliefs are generally accepted on the basis that they don’t infringe on others’ rights. A person can’t legally justify cannibalism by saying it’s an element of his/her religion. Why should animals be treated differently?

A few lines of scripture can’t justify the deaths of twenty five billion animals per year (in the United States alone) - http://www.goveg.com/feat/a-favs-intro.asp). I think religion can often be used as a convenient way around an issue. Surely you have a sense of right or wrong that covers what's not specifically addressed in the Bible. Why not follow that instead?

http://www.surfinthespirit.com/environment...ve-of-God.shtml
http://www.jesusveg.com/qow11298.html
http://www.purifymind.com/AnimalFuture.htm
http://www.viva.org.uk/goingveggie/top20.html

"3. Eating meat is natural.

As we’ve just seen, it isn’t. Humans have only eaten meat in relatively recent evolutionary history and then only through the use of tools like spears and fire. Only when we started farming (hardly natural!) did meat become even a regular part of most human beings’ diets and eating meat on a daily basis is very recent - since the advent of factory farming after the Second World War. This brought the cost of rearing animals down and the meat eating explosion was the result. In 1946, for example, the number of poultry eaten in Britain was 31.9 million and in 2001 it was over 800 million. And what’s natural about factory farming, live exports and slaughterhouses?"

“I just think that it would then be pretty hypocritical if you wore leather, ate any meat, or used products that are derived from animals or were tested on animals.”

Yeah, about as hypocritical as it seems to me when people call themselves animal-lovers and then consume the flesh of animals with no regret and while countless other nutritional choices of diet are equally available.

“You're claiming a lot of different things here, and I'm not convinced that they're all compatible. Your claims are as follows: (1) Humans do testing on animals because the testing would cause humans pain. (2) The only justifiable reason for testing drugs on animals is to improve the quality of life for those animals. And (3) Humans do testing on animals because the testing is too dangerous for humans.

Claims Nos. 1 and 3 are not, to my knowledge, true across the board. We often do testing on animals because it's far easier to arrange a study involving animals than it is to arrange the same study involving humans. Animals are always available; you don't have to wait for them to show up. They don't miss appointments. They don't have the vast, complex set of preferences and neuroses that human subjects do, so experimental results are often clearer when animals are used.”

I think you’re right about the first and third claims. Even if they are true very often, it can’t be the case for each one of the 17 to 25 million mice and rats tested yearly. The reasons you listed sound accurate enough to me, but I think another of the main reasons is that there are few laws protecting some of the specific species tested. Birds, rats, and mice – some of the most common species used as test subjects – just happen to be conveniently excluded from the Animal Welfare Act. And obviously, more experiments can be conducted when the experimenters don’t have to worry about things like legal consent.

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageSer...s_birdsratsmice
http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageSer...mal_welfare_act

”As for claim No. 2, that's an ethical question, and it's also a question of personal belief. Perhaps you believe the only justifiable research on animals is that which is done to improve animals' quality of life. That's fine; you can believe that. But we don't all have to believe it.

I also take issue with the implication that most testing on animals involves administration of drugs, chemicals, or other mind- and body-altering substances. A large amount of animal testing, especially that which is done at research universities, doesn't involve any of that. By conflating drug testing and behavioral research, you diminish your argument.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m opposed to animal testing even if the intended results would benefit only animals. Even if the animals were being sacrificed solely to their own species’ "cause," it would be completely involuntary. And that would really just be our cause projected onto another species. There isn’t a way for animals to consent to undergoing tests, so there’s no way to ethically justify performing the tests on them. Legal justification is another issue…

I would be diminishing my argument if I had even slightly differing issues with the two situations. But I’ve grouped them together on purpose because my problem with animal testing really doesn’t have to do with the purpose or intended outcome of the tests. Granted, I’m sure that many people do see drug testing on animals as something very different than behavioral research.

Someone might have posted this link already, but I'm not sure.
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=126
(The sources are at the bottom of the page)

”I think it's an entirely personal choice, but perhaps that stems from my flawed "Western" view that such matters are best left to the individual to decide for his/herself.”

Many moral issues are reinforced by the law. If we can agree upon this, then we should only need to debate whether animal rights is a valid moral issue, right?

Also, I would define a social reform, as I referred to vegetarianism/veganism, takes place when an aspect of society (perhaps a moral issue previously seen as a personal choice) becomes accepted by a large enough portion of a society that societal change regarding that aspect can be seriously considered.

This post has been edited by coelacanth on Sep 11 2005, 10:24 PM