What is wrong with experimentation on animals?
Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.
George Bernard Shaw (Playwright, Nobel 1925)
Vivisection is the blackest of all the black crimes that a man is at present committing against God and his fair creation.
Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)
What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit for their cruelty.
Leo Tolstoy (author)
No pain, no gain.
回覆刪除The problem is:
Whose pain? Whose gain?
Another problem is:
Pain never guarantees gain.
In the laboratory, we expect to see:
Pain on the animal rat guinea pigs.
Gain to the human beings, but no guarantee.
In the world outside laboratory:
Pain on human beings who suffer from diseases caused by bacteria or viruses transmitted from other human beings or animals.
Gain to the bacteria, vuruses or other non-human life whose spread kill or hurt the host carriers of the diseases, including human beings and/or other animals as the media- "middlemen".
Can the media/carriers of diseases such as dogs, cats, rats, cows, chickens, birds, fish, reptiles, ... etc. capable of doing experiments, carrying out investigations, and discovering curing methods. No way!
Only man can find out the fighting method against the common enemies (bacteria or viruses)
We love animals. Can we also love bacteria and viruses? Nobody, not even deep ecologists would proclaim that we love germs. No... nobody.
Is it wrong to get rid of germs? Who can do this if not man.
Human beings bear the mission to find ways to fight against some common enemies. It sounds crazy but such reality exists outside man's control. The battlefields are there, right there whether we are willing to fight or not.
At war, there are always casualties. Either the enemies die or our people die. To cut short the time of the cruel war, and to decrease death rate to at least our side, unusual means have to be adopted.
The decision of dropping two atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly killing hundred thousands of Japanese civilians was made on basis of the above rationale.
All the Japanese civilians in death were effectively treated as means (tools) to serve an end (immediate cessation of war)- "the gain". They (Japanese civilians)were guinea pigs, no different from the animal rats in laboratories.
Were Japanese civilians capable of stopping the war. No. Can rats stop spread of germs? No.
Who could stop the war quickly if not USA of the Alliance in possession of the technological means (atomic bombs).
Was the war evil and damaging common to the world including Japanese themselves at that time?
The answer should be "yes".
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the laboratories. Very cruel? Of course!! Terrible?? Absolutely "yes"!
Perhaps much more terrible in scale, in pain and in damage and aftermath than vivisections in laboratories!
If we have to accept the two atomic bombing disasters, we can borrow same reasoning to accept vivisections in laboratories.
Provided veterinary surgeons, scientists, and veterinarians take part side by side with pathologists and scientists in the laboratories working on animal rats as guinea pigs in their joint reasearch works, and progresses can be achieved on both human and animal sides, then my conclusion from the perspective of "getting rid of diseases as a war" would have to be conditional acceptance of vivisections in laboratories.
回覆刪除