![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljJust a brief note here, on which i hope to further explicate in my blog.
I've read animal rights by peter singer. it's fairly convincing, the basic thesis is that the primary consideration for "right of life" is the right to be free of pain, thus any entity that can feel pain has an inherent right and desire to avoid that pain.
he's an anti-vivisectionist for this reason. animal medical research is cruel torture to animals, breeding strains of creatures predisposed to certain things(ie: cancer), so that they can try new therapies on them.
his arguments are persuasive, and for the most part i agree. however, i just read an article today about research where they stripped the outer shell of HIV and attached another viral coating that attaches it to cancerous sells, and that there's indication that this is a potential approach. they tested this on lab mice.
i think of this, and it's hard to reconcile this with my overall view of animal liberation.
perhaps the best moderate view would be one that eliminates as much animal testing as possible save for medical necessity... Of course, any superficial(ie: cosmetics, etc...) purposes should be banned, and if there are ways to test(ie: computer models) that can replace animal testing, it should be used.
it's a good question of where to draw the line...
I've read animal rights by peter singer. it's fairly convincing, the basic thesis is that the primary consideration for "right of life" is the right to be free of pain, thus any entity that can feel pain has an inherent right and desire to avoid that pain.
he's an anti-vivisectionist for this reason. animal medical research is cruel torture to animals, breeding strains of creatures predisposed to certain things(ie: cancer), so that they can try new therapies on them.
his arguments are persuasive, and for the most part i agree. however, i just read an article today about research where they stripped the outer shell of HIV and attached another viral coating that attaches it to cancerous sells, and that there's indication that this is a potential approach. they tested this on lab mice.
i think of this, and it's hard to reconcile this with my overall view of animal liberation.
perhaps the best moderate view would be one that eliminates as much animal testing as possible save for medical necessity... Of course, any superficial(ie: cosmetics, etc...) purposes should be banned, and if there are ways to test(ie: computer models) that can replace animal testing, it should be used.
it's a good question of where to draw the line...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 10:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-14 12:19 pm (UTC)