Animal Rights / Vivisection Debate on "Third Thursday" pt. 1

Cleveland Amory, Stuart Zola (now the director of the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta), and others involved in the issue of vivisection/animal research engage in a debate on this television program that aired sometimes around 1990. The debate took place in San Diego. Marty Levin (current NBC anchor) moderates the discussion.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• vivisection
• animal rights
• animal research
• yerkes
• animal experimentation
• vegan

[kimberlily1983]

@kimberlily1983 *** Just want to clarify a point in my previous post, for people who've not looked into this much: I wanted to distinguish clinical trials and in vitro tests, etc. FROM animal testing. These are two examples of medical studies that are entirely cruelty-free, to my knowledge, and involve only humans and/or tissues/cells from humans and animals (no live animals). These are the kinds of fields that can be both ethical and provide a vast amount of useful knowledge. ***

[kimberlily1983]

@kimberlily1983 (cont) .... reliable ways to protect our children than torturing animals, from clinical trials, in vitro culture tests, etc. A healthy diet free of animal products and full of antioxidant-rich produce, active lifestyle, eating organic as much as possible, maintaining a healthy weight, social support, sanitary living conditions, not to mention having the proper attitude towards the rights of others, having empathy, compassion... this is what makes for a good, healthy human life.

[kimberlily1983]

@kimberlily1983 (cont)... , if it wasn't wrong to the child him/herself, it would definitely be wrong to bring children into the world if the only way you could protect them from certain harms was by harming other beings (here, the animals in laboratories, etc.).

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, there's no way around the antinatalist argument: it is wrong to bring people into the world. Fortunately, for those of us who do it anyway, there are other, vastly more effective and... (continued)

[kimberlily1983]

@kimberlily1983 (cont) ... Now, let's for argument's sake assume that a small amount of animal testing/experimentation is useful and valuable for medical progress. The tiny fraction of risk to my potential offspring that this research would eliminate, first of all, would not be enough to make me see bringing a child into this world as something morally neutral or right; it would still be wrong. Second of all, even if bringing children into the world was a morally neutral activity... (continued)

[kimberlily1983]

Well, this is not the angle most people would approach this from, but just want to give my 2 cents.

I'm an antinatalist. I'm choosing to not reproduce - ever - because bringing life into the world involves great risk to that being, great harms: disease, abuse from others, war, etc. Conversely, not being brought into the world does not harm one; there is no benefit - to that being - to being brought into the world. Therefore, reproducing is wrong, in my view. (continued)

[dalektaliban]

i think doctor who summed it up best " if people exist because others suffer then life is worthless"

[xxxxxxxxxx713]

@FreethinkingJim

i heard China does that

[jeffmagic32]

yeah right. The animals don't need a warden. It's a make work program designed to employ the socially retarded.

[FreethinkingJim]

@jeffmagic32 Nope. gonna arrest lotsa morons. :)

[jeffmagic32]

you're joking, right?