Animal Rights?

nogganoodle · Post by **nogganoodle** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:08 am

Animal rights are a topical subject at the moment with both the cases of The Animal Liberation Front and Huntingdon Life Sciences, a testing laboratory used by most of the British drug conglomerates and I'm sure a lot more world wide,

As God created all living things, I am curious...

What would be the church's stance on these matters ?

Specifically the creation of genetically modified albino rodents ? - the "clean" rats and rabbits with which they test drugs and biochemicals - but not cosmetics.

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that we are allowed to breed our own hybrid creatures or if indeed we are able to ?

Could it be God's will that they (the clean rabbits) be born into lives of suffering for commercial means and what are the implications for mankind ?

Meaning, could this be the methodology by which God gives us the means to cure cancer ?

Did God ceate cancer ?

Do rabbits have souls ? and if so, will they get their reward in heaven ?

Who is most at fault - the scientists who breed these beings for testing and monetary gain or the people who use questionable means -- such as burning cars and beating up staff members and threatening their families ?

Should the scientists need to ask for forgiveness just for doing their jobs ?? - which a bit like the church is to serve the greater good.

Any thoughts on this matter?

Deleted Barkeep · Post by **Deleted Barkeep** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:53 pm

What would be the church's stance on these matters ?

Which church?

nogganoodle · Post by **nogganoodle** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:10 pm

any church i'm reckoning. I just was wondering what anyone with any kind of belief system would think to this. I'm thinking ethically speaking but with some kind of god-like being in mind

Post by **AntiM** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:40 pm

Did God ceate cancer ?

Nope, I grew mine all by myself from my very own cells. Die bunny die so I may live.

nogganoodle · Post by **nogganoodle** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:40 pm

Nope, I grew mine all by myself from my very own cells. Die bunny die so I may live.
_________________

wasnt being funny in what i said. didnt mean any harm. it was something i'd been talking about with friends. just talking about it in an ethical way xx

Post by **AntiM** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:52 am

Hey, my cancer wasn't funny. I joke about it to keep it perspective, no offense meant.

But most church answers involve the scripture abouit man having dominion over the animals. In christian theology, as I understand it, animals have no souls, therefore it is not a sin to make use of them for the benifit of mankind. As for plain cruelty, I'd have to haul out my testaments and that isn't going to happen.

You need a bible expert.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:19 am

Since people die and suffer a LOT in order to preserve things like freedom, etc., I'd say that etchically, sure, it's OK for a few animals to suffer for the greater good. After all, if humanity wasn't able to progress so much then no animals would be pets getting their asses fed and pampered by humans; they'd all be out in the wild getting eaten by whatever is bigger, faster, or more organized. My only thing about animals/pets is that they not suffer unnecessarily.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:17 am

A couple of points:

1. Animal testing is not cruel. A cruel person hurts another being for his own enjoyment, or causes more suffering than is necessary, again for his own enjoyment. Animal testing can sometimes be callous, however. Animal testing is not done for the sake of cruelty, it is done for the sake of medical advancement; and without it, we would have virtually none of the medicines that we have today. It's all about the greater good, and humanity comes first. I like what Penn and Teller had to say about it: "Teller and I would personally strangle every chimp on the planet --with our bare hands--to save one hobo with AIDS."

2: Fuck the A.L.F. Fuck them right in the ear. And their shadow supporters PETA. Except fuck them in the eye socket.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:03 am

tasty animals have the right to the correct garnish

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:51 pm

1. All dogs go to heaven.

2. I worship at the church of the petite beagle.

3. When will PETA be protesting the killing of animals to make clothing at Biker Rallies the same way they do at Fashion Week in New York?

4. When will HUMANS gain the same rights to allow their suffering to be terminated by euthanasia as animals have?

robotland · Post by **robotland** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:44 pm

joel the ornery wrote:tasty animals have the right to the correct garnish

"There's a place on Earth for each of God's creatures...next to the mashed potatoes."

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:23 pm

This seemed like the right thread for this;

> > The Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit trade group
> > representing the interests of manufacturers and retailers, formally
> > petitioned the Commonwealth of Virginia to reclassify PETA as a
> > "slaughterhouse" .
> > >
> > > An official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal=C 2
> > rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it
> > took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known
> > animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12
> > animals. The organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061 "companion
> > animals" it took in.
> > >
> > > According to David Martosko, Research Director for CCF...
> > > "It is absurd to classify PETA as a 'humane society' when its
> > employees are slaughtering nearly every companion animal they bring
> > in. PETA has killed over 17,000 pets since 1998. Given the group's
> > astonishing habit of killing adoptable dogs and cats with such
> > ruthless efficiency, it's only fair that the state of Virginia refer
> > to PETA as a slaughterhouse. "
> > > CCF's petition was directed to Virginia's Department of
> > Agriculture and Consumer Services. If approved, the new
> > classification would force PETA to abide an entirely new set of laws
> > and regulations.
> > >
> > > The Center of Consumer Freedom has set PETA in its sights because
> > PETA has targeted the companies that CCF represents, such as food
> > makers, department stores, and textile companies.
> > >
> > > PETA's most successful publicity campaigns have been those against
> > the fur industry, arguing that killing animals for fur is akin to
> > cruelty. Yet ironically, PETA itself is killing thousands perfectly
> > healthy and adoptable animals for no better reason than just ideology.

edeveber · Post by **edeveber** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:59 am

Animal testing is necessary to the development of so many technologies.

I don't know what the church would have to say on the matter, but personally I think that so long as we are always re-evaluating whether our actions are ethical, we cannot get too far off course.

I'd like to see the animals in testing facilities treated better while they are alive, and killed (if necessary) as humanely as possible, but I'd never want to stop animal testing alltogether.

How else will we ever develop the necessary technologies for me to become an immortal cyborg?

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:51 am

edeveber wrote:Animal testing is necessary to the development of so many technologies.

I don't know what the church would have to say on the matter, but personally I think that so long as we are always re-evaluating whether our actions are ethical, we cannot get too far off course.

I'd like to see the animals in testing facilities treated better while they are alive, and killed (if necessary) as humanely as possible, but I'd never want to stop animal testing alltogether.

How else will we ever develop the necessary technologies for me to become an immortal cyborg?

There's an awful lot of poor people both here and in 3rd world countries that could be recruited for these experiments--the results of testing on people would be faster and more acurate.

Lots of people on this board are already upset because we do to much to help them--like providing welfare money for food and housing--might as well have them start paying society back.

JK

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:24 am

If we depend on something, we can rationalize its use very easily.

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:27 am

The poor should be used for medical experiments, eh?

Jesus Christ on a pogo-stick...

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:30 am

jkisha wrote:Lots of people on this board are already upset because we do to much to help them--like providing welfare money for food and housing--might as well have them start paying society back.

Abso-fucking-lutely unbelievable.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:40 pm

http://web.archive.org/web/200603191445 ... educed.pdf

Believe it Sensei. Unfortunately I'm inclined to believe that his sentiments are actually real rather than another lame trolling of the waters.

Post by **mdmf007** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:51 pm

If you feel so strong about it I know your a vegan, and you shouldnt use any of the medicines developed using animals to prove their safe for humans, Make-up is out, as are all cleaners over the counter.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:40 pm

We have kill in order to live. It's easy to forget that.

Animal Rights?

Animal Rights?

Re: Animal Rights?