Is this a Joke?

[RaspberrySwirl]

That's exactly thekind of medical advancement that I love to see. I also think it'sawesome that there was no use of animals. But, based on a large part ofthepolitical scene, and USA pre-electionhooplah Irather imagine that there's a whole different group of people who willfind it far more distasteful that stem cell research was used instead.I applaud the medical breakthrough. Reading the article started my dayout on the sunny side!

Raspberry

 

[Slynk]

I just wanted to point out to everyone that wecan nowuse the same methods to research animal sickness ashuman. So you can all stop supporting suffering, as it is no longer fora cause.

Edit: Remember, these were spare eggs. No human life was lost.

 

[pamnock]

Slynk wrote:

Ijust wanted to point out to everyone that we can nowuse thesame methods to research animal sickness as human. So you can all stopsupporting suffering, as it is no longer for a cause.

Edit: Remember, these were spare eggs. No human life was lost.

I think you have misunderstood the research. These areembryos being used in the research. The donated eggsare fertilized and growing. Depending on when you believelife actually begins, babies are being sacrificed (murdered).

Pam

 

[Slynk]

They never would have been born anyway; hence nolife lost. But then, as to when life begins, I'd say when consciousness<sp>begins to take effect. Otherwise it wouldbe morally wrong to test on bacterial colonies and the like.

 

[dmmcnair]

Well I am with Pam, Sunnibunnies, andRaspberry. My husband's family comes from a long line ofhunters. I got into it when I met him, never before huntedand thought I would never kill "Bambi", but they have taught me the joyof being with wildlife, and the joy of just seeing things I'd neverseen before. It's amazing watching does and their youngfeeding together, it is magnificent to catch a glimpse of a 10 pointbuck, it will stop your heart! We have many trophies fromNorth America and from Africa. I have trophies of animals Ihave only seen on TV! They grace our home and have wonderfulstories behind them. And yes we eat the meat. It isall about loving and respecting nature...it's about wildlifemanagement. What happens when there are too many deer and notenough food? They starve to death, or become diseased andpass those diseases to other animals...why do you think you have tohave a permit and you can only get 1 or 2 bucks on 1 or two does,depending on which county you hunt in? Poachers are killers who killfor the thrill of the kill, and kill when they want not following thelaws put out, not caring about how it will impact the ecology.

I didn't look at the art. I didn't want to. It's adisgrace to any "artist" out there who thinks killing for art isacceptable. I call myself an artist...I would not killanything for my art. I would rather paint and draw animalsliving and doing what they do best.

I believe to each their own for the most part...but do not tell me thatI am evil for eating meat, do not tell me I am evil because I want thedrugs to cure disease, do not tell me I'm evil for thinking humans aremore important than animals. I don't care if you are avegan. That doesn't make a person, nor does my eating meatmake me who I am. Furs...lots of controversy there, all I cansay is humans have been using fur from the beginning of time to clothethemselves. Animal testing...Alheimers, diabetes, ADHD, heartdisease, and cancer all run in my family. I wantcures. I don't want my children and grandchildren to gothrough what I went through when my mother got diagnosed with cancer,and died. Testing on animals will find a cure. Asit has found cures for other ailments, and disease, and producedvaccines that we have all recieved. Would you risk yourchild's life for an animal's? I'm not. You can die fromchicken pox, measles, mumps, and all the other childhooddiseases. Our lifespans would still be 40 years if not foranimal testing. That's only 9 years away for me, and I don'twant to miss seeing my grandchildren grow up. When they cantest on a nonliving entity to get a cure...hey good going, but thatwill not happen. Now they are trying to harvest embryos totest on....babies are better? This is a very sore topic forme as you can see.

I believe that animals should not be beaten and abused andstarved. I love my pets. But if it comes to my petsor my kids...I chose my kids.

This is just my opinion...no one has to believe what I believe, just asI don't have to believe what you believe. But I, for one, amgetting sick and tired of peopled telling me that I should conform totheir way of thinking. This is the problem with the worldtoday. No one is willing to let people believe in what theywill for their piece of mind. If you don't believe what Ibelieve you are evil. How is getting God out of the Pledge ofAllegiance going to bring peace? How is not eating meat goingto bring peace? It's not.

If this offends anyone...oh well, some of the posts for this topic hasoffended me too. This is too touchy a subject for someone notto get offended. But I won't hold it against you. I like you guys for other reasons!!!

To each his own and let it alone.

Dawn

 

[Buck Jones]

I'm coming in rather at the tail end of thistopic I assume, but I must say, whatever one thinks of the "artist's"work, she has generated a great deal of thought and opinion on thematter and if that was her intention, she has been immanentlysuccessful.

I don't know that we can accuse her of "murder" unless we know thecircumstances surrounding the animals' deaths. They could'vedied under some one else's hand for some other purpose, perhaps"justifiably" so. It they died purely for art's sake, I wouldpersonally take issue with that practice.

There was a time in my life when I hunted woodchuck forsport. I imagined I was doing the farmers a good deal byreducing the likelihood that their stock would break limbs by fallinginto woodchuck holes and farmers seemed to be appreciative of thepractice by permitting me to hunt on their land.

It was pointed out to me later that few people had ever met a farmerwhose stock ACTUALLY had broken a limb in such a manner, and I had toagree I fell into that category. I could no longerfinda "justification" to continue to hunt the haplesscreatures other than the ability to use a rifle to shoot "varmints" inthe State of NJ at that time. I, to this day, have never metsomeone who lost an animal due to stepping into a woodchuck hole.

When I had to carry a rifle to survive in a war time situation, Irealized I could never again "hunt" an animal for the "sport" ofit. One can accomplish just as much, if not more, with acamera. I also think few of us in this country HAVE to huntout of necessity, and for those few I wholeheartedly endorse a "pass"for them to do what they have and must do.

For those of us who just want to save a few bucks by stocking yourlarder with game, I'm not so sure you are justified in doing so, butyou've got to live with your actions, not me.

I've read a couple of books within the past few years, by clergymen Imight add, that suggest that we might just investigate the premise thatanimals have souls a great deal more than we have in thepast. Current advances in animal psychology andbehaviorism certainly indicate a much great sentience than we had everpreviously believed possible amongst such species as elephants,gorillas, apes, orang-utans, chimps, dogs, cats, horses, parrots,pigeons, chickens, porpoise, whales, and even fish, to namebut a few. It seems whenever someone sets up a serious studyof some species behavior, we are all extremely surprised to find athinking, loving, feeling being existing beneath that skin, fur,feather, or scale.

I know we are omnivores andmust eat. I do think itbehooves us to dispatch food animals as quickly and painlessly aspossible. I do wish there was a better solution and, perhaps,some day there may be.

Buck

 

[lanna21974]

Slynk wrote:

Theynever would have been born anyway; hence no life lost. But then, as towhen life begins, I'd say when consciousness<sp>begins to take effect. Otherwise it wouldbe morally wrong to test on bacterial colonies and the like.

Oh this is sooo touchy.

Being a "stem cell" receipient....I applaud all the efforts to researchstem cells and their many uses. HOWEVER, I !!DID NOT!! and !!WOULDNOT!! accept stem cells from an embryo.

Whether or notembryos are "conscious" beings and at what agethey are conscious has not been proven. In my mind...atwohour old embryo is no different than a two hour old baby. MYOPINION.

Lanna

 

[Delphinum]

Buck Jones wrote:

Current advances in animal psychology andbehaviorism certainly indicate a much great sentience than we had everpreviously believed possible amongst such species as elephants,gorillas, apes, orang-utans, chimps, dogs, cats, horses, parrots,pigeons, chickens, porpoise, whales, and even fish, to namebut a few. It seems whenever someone sets up a serious studyof some species behavior, we are all extremely surprised to find athinking, loving, feeling being existing beneath that skin, fur,feather, or scale.

I find animal behaviours fascinating, Buck! I studied the 60sculture, science, religion and music this year at uni and this was partof it... I've abridged to make it easier to type! LOL

Before the 1960s it was thought that women were 'naturally' subservientto men as they had studied female primatesand concluded thatfemales were "sexually receptive and docile" and were generally a prizefor the males to fight over. When some female scientistsinvestigated this further, they found that females were as competative,dominant and were sexually assertive, the opposite of what waspreviously thought.

From this one study of the animal world, we have found thathumanfemales are also competative, dominant, assertive, andcan juggle the demands of a male and children all at onetime!Our natural role was notto besubmissive, child bearers with no aggression.

 

[Delphinum]

LOL I put my 60s text book down on the floor after typing that and already Henry's in there having a nibble!

 

[Slynk]

Peace is definitely not something I seek.I have the recipe to C-4, poison(s), and thermitein mybedroom. Perhaps unlike other people, I'd not kill something for a cure- being it for me or anyone. I'd kill for defence; butIcannot justifythe painful death of an entitywhowould never have harmed me any more than mostpeoplecould justifykillinganinnocentto save a hostage (I know, wierd reference). So howcan I justify trillions that died (and continuetoneedlessly)sad, lonely and in painsohumans can have convenient lives?

As for the morality of testing on stem cells, technically wecould just harvest some once and grow them from then on. That's whatthey do anyway - only they don't keep the left overs for other reasons.I suppose they could even be harvested, grown, and then re-injectedinto an embryo so that both purposes (life, research) could be served.People don't want to, or don't care to; but it could bedone. When you say it can't or won't happen, you demonstrate why.

 

[AnnaS]

I have not read all of the posts, but actually most of the people do think that rabbits should be picked up by the ears.
When people come over to feed my bunny when I am not home, I alwaysleave them a note not to pick up the bunny by his ears or actually notto pick him up at all.

As a common sense, I always thought how do ears hold the entire weight of their body.

The first picture is just horrible.

 

[RaspberrySwirl]

Slynk,

Since this morning when I read your firstpost, it's been eating at me. I've been re-hashing your last commentsall day trying to figure out what it was that isn't meshing. I finallycopied it all to one so I could read and re-read your opinions.

------------------------------------------------------------
Slynk wrote-

Every now and again I meet people who should be shot. Then there are those who should be outright gutted.

Some of this is really not making sense. It's okay to kill them if youlook after their bodies? I can see why people use them for food(although we're quite capable of stopping that now) and I know (some)hunters don't kill for joy, but I don't see how any of that helps theanimal. It's all the same to the dead what happens to their body.Better to not kill it in the first place.

Personally I'd hate to go in my sleep. And you know what? I'd love todie of the experiments they do on those animals. ON CAMERA. Then seehow many people support it. The sad part is: we are now able to developways to research things without killing. We've already got some (likeartificially grown skin). Thing is, people don't want to change, itcosts too much to develop (even though it's cheaper afterwards) andthey aren't getting anything out of it. Scientists get recognition forhelping humans. Not so with animals.

You mean cured like that, Raspberry? Notice the lack of animals involved.


I just wanted to point out to everyone that we can now use the samemethods to research animal sickness as human. So you can all stopsupporting suffering, as it is no longer for a cause.

Edit: Remember, these were spare eggs. No human life was lost.

They never would have been born anyway; hence no life lost. But then,as to when life begins, I'd say when consciousness <sp>begins to take effect. Otherwise it would be morally wrong to test onbacterial colonies and the like.

Peace is definitely not something I seek. I have the recipe toC-4, poison(s), and thermite in my bedroom. Perhaps unlike otherpeople, I'd not kill something for a cure - being it for me or anyone.I'd kill for defence; but I cannot justify the painful death of anentity who would never have harmed me any more than most people couldjustify killing an innocent to save a hostage (I know, wierdreference). So how can I justify trillions that died (and continue toneedlessly) sad, lonely and in pain so humans can have convenient lives?

As for the morality of testing on stem cells, technically wecould just harvest some once and grow them from then on. That's whatthey do anyway - only they don't keep the left overs for other reasons.I suppose they could even be harvested, grown, and then re-injectedinto an embryo so that both purposes (life, research) could be served.People don't want to, or don't care to; but it could bedone. When you say it can't or won't happen, you demonstrate why.


--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't actually strongly disagree withmost of what you have to say.I do sensehoweverthatbecause of some distasteful acts of somehumans, you have chosen to value animal life above human life. I findit irrational that you can so easily spring to the defense of labanimals, yet so easily dismiss thetheory that an embryo mayindeed be a living being. I also must assume that you do not havechildren, for no one that I know who has children of their own couldverbalize the things that you did, not the least of which is your quote"Peace is definitely not something Iseek".

I'd also like to point outthefact that you seem so angry with a select group of peoplethat you've began to lump all of us together into the same category. Asyour posts progressed you became more and more accusatory. I believeeveryone here has been fairly open minded about bouncing ideas off ofeach other. You might learn somethingyourself abouttolerance by doing as I did and going back over the post and reading itagain.

Raspberry

 

[Carolyn]

This Post is Going Too Far.


The question was answered here by Elf Mommy. This post has gotten underfar too many's skin and I don't like what it's turning into. If itcontinues to pick up with saying things like

"I'm don't care for peace" and

"If this offends anyone, oh well...", or

"Every now and again I meet people who should be shot, and then thereare those that should be outright gutted" (Stated on this publicrecord, I'm sure many would agree that this is a very disturbingcomment.)

...then it's becoming corrupt.

No matter what your passion, if you feel strongly about the issue athand, Participate! Find a place that you can do something about it.

*This forum is not that place.*

Let's wrap this one up, People, because no one's getting anywhere productive in this one anymore.

This could go on and on and with no end in sight of agreeing. Agree to disagree.

Unless you can state your case with respect for others opinions on this board, then don't hit the reply button.

It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to shove it down each other's throats.

-Carolyn

 

[Carolyn]

Raspberry Swirl,

I'm sorry to have posted that after you're usual extremely well-thought out and diplomatic style.

I haven't been keeping up with this post, and when I read it just awhile ago, I found some things within it as very disturbing...as I'vestated above. It was the things I've named in my previous post thatinspired me to write it.

-Carolyn

 

[RaspberrySwirl]

No apology necessary. I trust your judgment.

Raspberry

 

[Carolyn]

Thank you, Raspberry.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

We all know where each other stands on this issue, now let this post fade.

* * * * * * *

"A Knowledgeable Man knows what to say, a Wise Man knows when not to speak."

-Carolyn

 

[showrabbits]

Carolyn,

I love that quote!!!!!!

"A Knowledgeable Man knows what to say, a Wise Man knows when not to speak."

You always have those great sayings.... Where do you get them...