Advertisement
I am very much an animal activist. I don't usually post to forums about my efforts here and abroad. I am also a pragmatist and not a troll.
There are some things in life that are just contradictions. I wear leather shoes and I eat a largely veggie diet. *I require* some animal protein and find sources that are local and as cruelty free as possible. But I won't pretend that I don't go there. My speciesism if you will extends to the point of where I help where I am able and live as best and as lightly as I am able without being a rat bastard who disregards the value of what animals are as well as WHO they are and how they contribute to the well being of all of us directly or not.
I must say... I have a spouse who does medical research. No there is NO other substitute for modeling in his work save for animal modeling. He nor his lab staff are involved in the direct destruction of these animals. They salvage their relevant parts for their work in ending human disease in translational research. We'd all feel better about for real, uncontaminated and usable stem cell lines but these are illegal. Do I have issues with this? Yes. Does he? Yes. But without rationalization, he did not do or create the genetic knockouts and lab dependent for environment in which to be alive/existent animals used for this purpose. He salvages what would be useless and makes the best of the models available. Without this research, not only would more human beings die, so would your household pets and fuzzies that we all love and treat to the best of our abilities. Freeing them would damn them to a death that would be far less humane than to have them euthanized or to live to the end of their natural lives. In some cases with other work, it would unleash potentially deadly disease into the population for us all. Not our kind of action or what my husband does, but some of the actions taken by well-meaning people are truly dangerous to not only ourselves. It's tough to wrap one's head and heart around this and I am not here to apologize or rationalize.
I reiterate that this is the fodder for lively frank discord in our house mixed with guilt and pragmatism. However, for people to have directly to have threatened my husband and his staff's life for their work is extreme and wrong. To have had him run off the road and worse is wrong. To have them moved under the shroud of secrecy to a very secure environment inside and out is a lot to digest. To take different cars and routes home is a hell of a concept and reality as I live it too.
We cannot be apologists for making the best of a situation that forces the hands of many people who genuinely care for what they do and how the ends are achieved. Science is not fashion and/or a diet. Until some of the aggression of some people who feel that they are entitled to do unto others in the name of animal rights is mitigated, no one is truly safe or progress isn't going to be made toward really more productive avenues of research. We do the best we are able, argue the points with the USDA and legislators and try to be as non-invasive and carefully responsible in a big picture world as we are able.
We get it. We also GET IT and not from people who preach peace and rights of well-being for everything. I post this as an animal lover, a believer in the progress of science and and as a human who cannot live in bread or veggies alone. What are the compromises? Are there any? What do you want to see as solutions to the conundrum many are placed in because of law and lack of venue?
I believe these are legit questions as I/We struggle with this every day. I look at my rescues/successes and our mutual enrichments and my efforts to work on behalf of animals in the communities in which I live and am one of the local "kooks". What would you have people do?
It's more gray than black and white. It is for us. How do you resolve these issues in this environment?
Thanks for your well conceived and civil responses.
MA
There are some things in life that are just contradictions. I wear leather shoes and I eat a largely veggie diet. *I require* some animal protein and find sources that are local and as cruelty free as possible. But I won't pretend that I don't go there. My speciesism if you will extends to the point of where I help where I am able and live as best and as lightly as I am able without being a rat bastard who disregards the value of what animals are as well as WHO they are and how they contribute to the well being of all of us directly or not.
I must say... I have a spouse who does medical research. No there is NO other substitute for modeling in his work save for animal modeling. He nor his lab staff are involved in the direct destruction of these animals. They salvage their relevant parts for their work in ending human disease in translational research. We'd all feel better about for real, uncontaminated and usable stem cell lines but these are illegal. Do I have issues with this? Yes. Does he? Yes. But without rationalization, he did not do or create the genetic knockouts and lab dependent for environment in which to be alive/existent animals used for this purpose. He salvages what would be useless and makes the best of the models available. Without this research, not only would more human beings die, so would your household pets and fuzzies that we all love and treat to the best of our abilities. Freeing them would damn them to a death that would be far less humane than to have them euthanized or to live to the end of their natural lives. In some cases with other work, it would unleash potentially deadly disease into the population for us all. Not our kind of action or what my husband does, but some of the actions taken by well-meaning people are truly dangerous to not only ourselves. It's tough to wrap one's head and heart around this and I am not here to apologize or rationalize.
I reiterate that this is the fodder for lively frank discord in our house mixed with guilt and pragmatism. However, for people to have directly to have threatened my husband and his staff's life for their work is extreme and wrong. To have had him run off the road and worse is wrong. To have them moved under the shroud of secrecy to a very secure environment inside and out is a lot to digest. To take different cars and routes home is a hell of a concept and reality as I live it too.
We cannot be apologists for making the best of a situation that forces the hands of many people who genuinely care for what they do and how the ends are achieved. Science is not fashion and/or a diet. Until some of the aggression of some people who feel that they are entitled to do unto others in the name of animal rights is mitigated, no one is truly safe or progress isn't going to be made toward really more productive avenues of research. We do the best we are able, argue the points with the USDA and legislators and try to be as non-invasive and carefully responsible in a big picture world as we are able.
We get it. We also GET IT and not from people who preach peace and rights of well-being for everything. I post this as an animal lover, a believer in the progress of science and and as a human who cannot live in bread or veggies alone. What are the compromises? Are there any? What do you want to see as solutions to the conundrum many are placed in because of law and lack of venue?
I believe these are legit questions as I/We struggle with this every day. I look at my rescues/successes and our mutual enrichments and my efforts to work on behalf of animals in the communities in which I live and am one of the local "kooks". What would you have people do?
It's more gray than black and white. It is for us. How do you resolve these issues in this environment?
Thanks for your well conceived and civil responses.
MA
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: Intolerance and "Rights"- Are There Compromise Positions?
Thu, September 18, 2008 - 8:28 AMThis is a beauitiful post and thank you for breaking your silence and deciding to post here M.A.
This is exactly what I meant and is definitely in keeping with spirit of the tribe and discussions with regards to the ETHICAL treatment of animals.
Obviously I have a differing views from you and your husband, but I appreciate the viewpoint.
1.we need to be careful with words.
activist means someone who is active and does activism.
so an animal activist would be someone who is active for the animals.
now I am not saying that you don't , you may be doing welfare based actions for the animals.
but if not. if you only "love" animals, loving animals is not enough to be an activist.
2. Intelligence does not negate ignorance.
and I say ignorance here in a non-judgemental but more matter of fact way. As in "I am ignorant of Zulu traditions" that does not mean that I am "an ignorant" as in an insult, but simply that I know nothing of Zulu traditions. I only become "an ignorant" if I speak out about Zulu traditions and know nothing of it.
Which is not what you are doing at all. You are VERY MUCH speaking about wat you know.
What I would like to suggest is that your obvious intelligence and the intelligence of your husband do not automatically mean that you can not be wrong, or that you can not be ignorant about all the facts. In fact I often find that intelligent people and well educated people have a tougher time because they often reach a point where they think they "know it all" and need to learn no more...(like Lady Bird for example in the milk sucks thread) and to me that is not true intelligence.
Life is about learning and we must always grow. now again I am not necessarilly saying that is the case for your husband and you.
What I will recommend is that you read "Animal Experimentation: A harvest of shame" by Dr, Momeim Al Fadali. He is a cardio-vascular surgeon and did animal research in the past, and makes a VERY STRONG scientific argument (with all the historical facts and sources) that animal research is not only inacurate, but also that it is dangerous and harmful to humans in many direct and indirect ways.
As for diet. Well you are 100% wrong there. The Canadian and American Dietary Association have both stated that a vegan diet was healthy and that one gets all the nutrients from it.
In fact that you claim to "need" animal "protein" proves that you know very little about nurtrition.
If you wish to learn more about human nutrition I suggest you visit the website of the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine: www.pcrm.org
3. and finally I will say this: It IS about rights... in the past people have justified great evil like slavery for example, and said that the NEED (economic or otherwise) for this was an excuse for the evil...this is a bogus argument.
Is it true that slave labour is economically beneficial? of course. But it is wrong.
So even if we ignore all the arguments against animal experimentation: and we believe the lie that animal experimentation will HELP humans, it is still wrong.
because it is a violation of the animal's basic rights.
Animal Rights is not about giving dogs the vote or cats the right to drive. It is about the most basic of rights. RIGHT to LIVE.
To use animals in researhc reinforces the mentality that might makes right and that because an animal is smaller or weaker than us we can torture him or her.
ad the other argument of the animal's intelligence or cognitive ability is also a bogus arguemnt because we don't do experiemnts on vegetables or the severely retarded.
and the argument of human similarities to animals to justify the potential results is a weak circular one: animals can be tortured for science because they are different from us and therefore not deserving of rights, but the results are valid because the animals are similar to us.
??
you can't have it both ways: either the animal is different or he isn't.
And if your argument is that as a scientist one NEEDS to practice on an animal that is close to humans, then wouldn't it be more acurate to "practice" on humans?
and your answer to that question is the reason why we cannot "practice" on other species as well.
the problem with those who speak against animal rights is that they never ask themselves the REAL question. They just state matter of factly that animals don't have rights and hold to that BELIEF zealously and religiously, and when we come up and ask questions and want to discuss WE are the zealots! ;-) ? wow!
The question is not should non-human animals have rights?....but rather...
Why are non-human animals not deserving of rights? (and "because they just aren't" is not a valid response) ...for more on this I suggest reading Peter Singer. -
-
Re: Intolerance and "Rights"- Are There Compromise Positions?
Thu, September 18, 2008 - 8:59 AMI appreciate your thoughtful reply. I am not only an animal over just for the record.I actually do work with a Zoo and rescue groups, foster and have my houses filled with those who have not been wanted elsewhere. I'm glad for the opportunity. We do have issues with the ethos of animal usage and this is why I brought the whole thing up. Plenty of carnage abounds as we are aware. In trying to facilitate valid research, my husband is not a waster. He'd be all up for a little TOBASH and a few non-diseased human pancreases for more expansive research. We don't live in The PRC where that still doesn't happen but there is a large harvest of shame there as well.
In regard to my own diet Antoine, I do not seek to justify it. I have serious absorption problems that require me to eat from a variety of sources including my own well guarded and guided gardens. I do what I need to as minimally to have a life. "Taste" doesn't come into it. Of course we could all learn more but that won't change my physiology nor will it potentiate or catalyze a system driven by those who are in charge. As a NP and as a person who has gone the nth mile to keep within my buddhist beliefs as well as my others, I wish things were different for me and for us.
For as much as I believe I walk my talk and do on so many levels, I cannot nor can we escape the fact that or everyone or everything has he basic rights to even exist that SHOULD BE in that place called the here and now. It may not exist in the future.
We're not entrenched as much as frustrated and we look for more compromise ways to live a more ethical life within the precarious slopes on which we walk out of pragmatism and compassion. Again we are looking for the best compromises we are able to attain. In a world of no compromise, there feels *to me* to be an us/them dichotomy. That may just be my perception. I don't want to feel good at anything's expense but I also do not feel that it is reasonable to be threatened for doing ones' best to make something useful out of a very challenging situation.
For as much as I'd like to be and do as a purist, I cannot. It's not that I have refused, it's because it fails me. My apologies and my education do not atone for what *I have to do*. I agree with that fact that there is blood on my hands. But how does one exist with two feet in one world and have the best max outcome when it is a legislated or physiologic zero sum game or so it appears? We discuss this ad infinitum and off I trundle to the hospital if I don't circumvent that which I am given. For my husband, well, he works and waits and I hope he comes home safe everyday. We acknowledge the imperfection of action and belief manifesting itself in reality. So then again my question remains, what does one do to attain the best most reasonable compromise when we truly have acted to opt out of the loops and chains in which we find ourselves?
Is there room for people like us in the world where we are educated, educable and try like hell to be consistent? We're not looking for rationalizations. We're looking for better ways, safer ways and ways that max out the best for everyone and every creature. Where are the answers for that? I'm just asking-
Thanks-
MA
-
