Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 5, 2006, at 20:38:00
In reply to animal lab terrorists convicted, posted by pseudoname on March 5, 2006, at 15:42:44
I don't know... I don't think that activism and terrorism are quite the same thing. I didn't read where any people had died, and I understand how strongly these people feel against vivisection.
Many animals still suffer for no good reason. Testing still goes on to prove that nicotine is actually dangerous, and that other toxic substances are still toxic. Another thing that angers many is that after expirementation, even healthy animals are destroyed.
I think that a great deal of expirements are pointless and useless. I don't like the idea that healthy animals are destroyed after expirementation.
On the other hand, there are times when expirements on live subjects are necessary. Some things can't be learned with models or computer simulation.
Maybe the furor would subside some if only necessary expirementation were to take place on the minimum subjects required to gather the appropriate data. If we show that a chemical kills 99 out of 100 animals, do we really need to show that it will kill 990 out of 1,000? or 9,900 out of 10,000?
I'm not a researcher. I don't know what's necessary, responsible, or prudent. But I don't like the idea of needless suffering and death either. If it's really necessary, maybe some of the questions should be answered. Why do we need to know that nicotine is still deadly? If some of the expirements with Splenda showed it was dangerous, why is it still on the market? If, after expirementation, animals are still healthy, why are they destroyed? Couldn't some of them be adopted as are greyhounds? Or are they too wild? Why can't they be used for other expirements? What assurance do we have that these animals do have a humane life?
Some of the footage that SHAC has obtained was quite disturbing. I'll grant that it was probably obtained illegally, and that they only post the worst of the cases they find, but it's still disturbing.
I guess I just don't know. I don't think what the people of SHAC did rises to the level of terrorism. If it does, then those found burining down churches ought to be jailed for terrorism as well.
Inciting violence? perhaps. Stalking? I don't know. Maybe. They did publish names and addresses. Terrorism? I think this country is going too far. I remember a small town in Maine, and every time McDonalds tried to build, they burned it down. They were protecting the local restaurant, thinking that McD's would put it out of business. By current law, it seems that's terrorism. The government is putting concerned but agressive people, perhaps causing damage to facilities, in the same category as those who would kill hundreds or thousands of people to make a point.
To me, it's not the same thing. The word terrorist raises the blood pressure of the public, and maybe that's the way to gain public support. Most of the public isn't going to research and find out what these people actually did, they're just going to be happy to see another "terrorist" in jail.
I guess I've got a lot of thinking to do. If I was doing something that that many people didn't like, I probably wouldn't want my name and address on an activist web site either.
Lots of questions I have...
--Dee
poster:deirdrehbrt
thread:616253
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/616358.html