Animal Rights - Guinea Pig farm closure

1. It's wrong that these terrorists have won, "Animal rights campaigners" - I'm all for ensuring animals aren't treated cruelly but the hypocrisy of some of these people in that they will use violence to put forward their views, they will break into private property and release animals that are being experimented on without knowing what diseases these animals may have been infected with during the course of the research, which then potentially endangers wildlife and possibly human life. And then to steal a dead body from a graveyard!!!!!
2. Just how were these guinea pigs being treated badly by the farm? They were being bred for research, therefore they wouldn't survive were it not for research. I'm sure they were treated quite well on the farm.
3. It depends what the research is for - for instance I don't see that it is necessary to test cosmetics on animals, how many different ways of making a lipstick do we want, you've got it, it works, that's it! Same goes for testing things like washing powders, detergents etc - we've got those so why do they still need testing on animals? However medical research is a different matter entirely, new drugs that can aid us are being produced all the time and at the early stage of testing then I see a requirement to use animals. But not just so I get a nicer smelling shampoo!

 

you're having a giraffe

Just how were these guinea pigs being treated badly by the farm? They were being bred for research, <u>therefore they wouldn't survive were it not for research</u>. I'm sure they were treated quite well on the farm.

by your logic, as they were bred for research its ok to torture them and be cruel to them? why would they not survive? they'd be let out survive or die on the land, in nature.

treated quite well on the farm - ok, get one of your family members in there, trapped in a cage to be medically tested on - don't fancy it? mmmmm, so they are not that well looked after are they?

what about the kid who was born recently so he could be a donor to his brother? as he was bred specifically to be a donor, does that give his brother the right to torture him for the rest of his life?

 

For your final point yes , I think the family will have that right.

 

you think the family have the right the torture the bairn?

 

RE: anarchists these days, eh!!??

*marks card*

 

RE: you're having a giraffe

Where did I say it was ok to torture them?
"trapped in a cage to be medically tested on" - in the farm? Weren't they just being bred on the farm and then sold to the firms that did the testing? Therefore they were treated well on the farm.
So you don't agree with using animals for medical research - that's your prerogative but make sure you check next time you go to hospital or to the chemist that you aren't receiving anything that was developed using animals at any point.
And my point about the fact that if they were not being bred for testing then they wouldn't survive is quite valid - or do you think farms would just continue breeding guinea pigs? Same goes for animals bred for food - if they weren't bred for food then there would be no need to breed them therefore various cows, pigs, lambs etc would never be born in the first place!
As for the kid born to be a donor - well I don't agree with having a kid purely as a donor anyway.

 

In this country now

the terrorists win. IRA, the Animal Rights Fascists, what next?

 

RE: The people that worked

what a feckwit!

my wife works at a major testing lab in Harrogate where the animals are kept in extremely good conditions. And none of the testing is for cosmetics etc - the vast majority of tests are for drugs that are to alleviate diseases which are prevelant in the 3rd world.

And what thanks do they get? over the course of the past year she has been spat at, harrassed on a daily basis and had her car windscreen smasked by the soap dodging protesters who have nowt better to do that stand outside her workplace and give everyone grief everyday.

If a close menber of your family had cancer and a drug could save them that had been tested on animals would you reject the treatment on moral grounds? Or course not.

******

 

Well they are removing bits/stuff to help the other kid , so why not!

(blaze)

 

RE: totally agree on your sentiments but the ends don't justify the means

By saying, "I can't find much sympathy for those who torture animals" aren't you almost condoning the use of violence? I find it interesting (and this isnt aimed at you) that many people go all gooey eyed over animals yet don't feel the same compassion towards humans. DJFattyBoy's post is a good example.

Of course if he thinks its ok to attack people who take part in these activities, then would he extend the same use of violence to himself? For example : In the same way he finds the use of animals in experiments abhorent, others find it equally abhorent that people in SE Asia work for $1 per day making cheap trainers so we can wear them and Nike can make a fat profit. Using his own logic he is perfectly fair game for a beating. Of course he may disagree and try to rationalise his use of violence as being acceptable and another use as not.

 

RE: you're having a giraffe

"Weren't they just being bred on the farm and then sold to the firms that did the testing? Therefore they were treated well on the farm. "

Im not necessarily discounting the fact they were not looked after well (as I genuinely dont know), but you have now made two sets of assumptions based on nothing but your own apparent want to believe they are being treated ok. Chickens are bred on farms but many aren't treated well. They're kept in cramped conditions and are bred to be a certain weight etc... how do you know that these guinea pigs are not undergoing a similar kind of treatment so that they fit in with the needs of the experimentations?

 

because

If the animals were not healty - they would be no use for experiments.
how could you tell if your drug had worked or not?

 

What's your angle Acky?

Are you for or against animal testing for medical advancement?

Personally I'm for it, when people talk about nature, 'survival of the fittest' is always quoted as being the most natural selection method. Rightly or wrongly the human race has advanced well beyond the realms of simply living of the land.

Developing drugs for healthcare is part of our advancement in nature and is hopefully all about prolonging life, relieving suffering and curing illnesses of our kin. We have also developed products that prolong life of the animal kingdom, but I'm guessing that's not important.

There is much more cruelty against animals for 'unnatural' reasons around the world everyday and these bellends just look for the easiest targets, closest to home. As much disruption for minimal effort.

As far as I'm concerned they can go and **ck themselves, every one of them.

Using 'emotional' ways of gaining support as opposed to the actual facts and looking into all the good that has come out of the research that has no doubt benefitted all of them at some stage during their pathetic lives.

 

RE: In this country now

War is Peace
Peace is War

I suspect anti-war campaigners will be next in line. You know, those peace loving terrorist types.

http://www.newshounds.us/images/ssprotesters.jpg

 

I think they could learn a lot from Ghandi

I hope they're caught and brought to justice for the financial and emotional damage they've done to the people involved in this legitimate business, same for all similar cases.

To go to such extremes of action I can't justify and it's because of these kind of people that I'm unsympathetic to animal rights and would, on principle, refuse to give any money to an animal charity.

 

This board

taken over by pharmaceutical types and those who do their bidding. Most sinister.

 

RE: because

If they are prepared to let us eat food that's been kept in horrendous conditions, then Im sure animals which are to be experimented on aren't far behind in certain cases. Of course what you or I think is suitable and what is suitable for the individual animal concerned are two different things, surely?

Im not necessarily against it, mainly because I dont know enough about it, just as usual Im prepared to be sceptical.

 

Name calling!!!!!!!!

Classy, keep hiding behind your computer playing the big man.

 

the most horrendous conditions I have seen

have been on organic farms.

 

RE: What's your angle Acky?

Sit down, because for once I genuinely dont have a firm opinion on the subject of the use of animals in testing.

On the one hand I believe the breeding and exploitation of animals is wrong, but on the other I doubt Id have the moral conviction not to use a drug, or deny it to someone else because its been tested on animals. It's one of those circles that I simply can't square. I'd like to think that science and medicine can try and evolve new, reliable methods of testing which don't rely on animals. After all testing on animals isnt perfect and there are many cases of drugs not doing what they thought they would, see phalidamide (spelling!)

As far as violence on this issue goes people ought to be careful what they say is acceptable and what isn't. What goes around, comes around.