Pro Animal Rights Demonstration

[Accountable]

VIDEO



Oxford swamped by 'Pro-test' demo

9.27PM, Sat Feb 25 2006

Hundreds of protesters have massed in Oxford defending a controversial animal research lab, a first in the testing debate.

Students, dons and members of the public gathered outside Balliol College in the centre of the city for a march in support of the £18 million biomedical research laboratory.

Meanwhile, scores of animal rights demonstrators massed a few streets away to express their objections to the facility.

The construction project was thrown into limbo in 2004 after the original building contractor pulled out amid growing protests from animal rights activists and suggestions of intimidation by extremists.

After a 17-month break, the project finally got back underway late last year, by which time the controversy had escalated, with arson attacks on two sports buildings owned by Oxford colleges.

Before the march set off, Prof John Stein, Oxford University professor of physiology, told the crowd: "This is a historic day, we are drawing a line in the sand."

In a reference to Oxford's past medical breakthroughs, Prof Stein said: "Imagine yourself a mother with a drowsy, whimpering three-year-old with meningitis.

"Fifty years ago, that child would have died. Now, due to the discovery and isolation of penicillin in this university, we can stop that child dying.

"Do we stop her getting penicillin just because it had been tested on 20 rats?"

Among those marching was 16-year-old Laurie Pycroft who set up the Pro-Test website, which sparked the campaign in favour of the laboratory.

He said: "I felt that it was about time to speak out in support of scientific research."

At one point during the demonstration, police moved in to create a barrier between the marchers and a handful of animal rights protesters shouting slogans from the sidelines.

Among them was Jenifer James who branded the marchers "just kids having a day out".

Ms James claimed that 10,000 people a year in the UK died as a result of taking prescription medicines.

[gmc]

Why are you posting this? It's actually quite a signiicant development and the support was far greater than expected.

[Accountable]

It's history. The first of its kind. Why wouldn't I post it?

[gmc]

Accountable wrote: It's history. The first of its kind. Why wouldn't I post it?


I would agree with you actually-just wondered if you were trying to provoke debate or just thought it interesting. How big an issue is this kind of thing in the states?

[Accountable]

We have groups that protest against animal testing. For me it's just a matter of interest. I figured some people here have more passionate opinions. I'm just here for curiosity at this point, but I'm certainly ready to learn.

[OpenMind]

I am not in favour of animal testing just for the sake of it. If my life was at stake, then on the basis of self-survival, I would accept it. I wouldn't consider anything less to be a basis for animal-testing. I think that most of it is done for profit, anyway. Unfortunately, I don't have the facts to hand to back this up.

I have a pair of work shoes that look like trainers that contain some suede in them, also some leather work boots. These are requirements in some of the places where I work and I cannot get hold of anything suitable that comes up to the required standards of Health and Safety that hasn't been made from an animal. However, the rest of my attire is animal free.

www.ethicalwares.com is one good source for animal free footwear.

On the other hand, I despise the tactics used by those in the Animal Front. I would describe these tactics as nothing short of terrorism. Freeing animals from test research stations is also very stupid and dangerous and does nothing for the animals. Several years ago, a whole host of minks were freed and we've now lost control of the situation as the minks go about their business of reproducing. They are still being hunted down as I recall from a news item last year some time.

Well, that's my two-pennorth.

[BabyRider]

This is a subject I've been torn on for many years. I love Snooze's idea of using convicts to do the testing, but till that happens, animals are what we have to work with.

If animal testing can find the cure for AIDS, cancer, MS, or any of the other hideous diseases mankind is facing, then I say it's worth it. One human life is worth 100 dogs, or cats or horses or pigs or whatever. I hate that the animals go through it, I hate that we have to do it, but with these diseases being such a threat, and it's them or us, I vote for us. Heartless, I know, and a contradiction from a true animal lover, but that's how I feel.

[gmc]

SnoozeControl wrote: I had written a very long (for me) and passionate post against animal testing, including some photos... and my ISP dumped me like a bad habit. I had to leave before I threw my computer through the wall.

Needless to say, I'm against using animals like this. As someone else mentioned in another thread/post, why not use convicts? The testing would be far more accurate and some of these losers would actually serve a purpose in life.

I think the reason the Scottish guy questioned the reason for posting this is because of where you posted it. I wouldn't really consider it a "bizarre news story.":-2


Actually the scottish guy hadn't noticed where it was posted, I was just looking for interesting looking threads-accountables' usually are.

As for using convicts-if they volunteered no problem. If it was part of the punishment? If anyone needs to ask what's wrong with I don't think I want to know them.

[Accountable]

Thanks for the compliment, GMC.



Here's my take, and it's by no means iron-clad: Animals are commodities to be exploited.



If we find that a particular species is sentient (dolphins & some whales may be) then the whole situation changes. But until then......

[gmc]

Accountable wrote: Thanks for the compliment, GMC.



Here's my take, and it's by no means iron-clad: Animals are commodities to be exploited.



If we find that a particular species is sentient (dolphins & some whales may be) then the whole situation changes. But until then......


Interesting viewpoint. Do you mean the value an animal has is in it's use to mankind?

How do you establish sentience? Do you believe that an animal is self aware? In which case is having a sense of self a sign of sentience? Even cows have a sense of humour.

Don't forget it is not so long ago that it was argued that negroes were less than human and therefore i was O.K. to exploit them. In Medeival times religious philosophers debated whether women had souls or were merely there to be the recipients of man's seed. For a while it was touch and go as to whether they did or not.

I'm no vegetarian and i know exactly where my last steak came from how it was reared and killed and don't feel guilty about it. If push came to shove and there` really was no better alternative then by all means use test animals. But only if there is no choice in the matter.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: Interesting viewpoint. Do you mean the value an animal has is in it's use to mankind? Of course. The value you have is in your value to me. How else does one establish value? I mean, your value to your boss or your family means little to me, but much to them. I'm sure I'm equivalent in value to a dust bunny in your boss' mind.



gmc wrote: How do you establish sentience? Do you believe that an animal is self aware? In which case is having a sense of self a sign of sentience? Even cows have a sense of humour.



Don't forget it is not so long ago that it was argued that negroes were less than human and therefore i was O.K. to exploit them. In Medeival times religious philosophers debated whether women had souls or were merely there to be the recipients of man's seed. For a while it was touch and go as to whether they did or not.
I leave those definitions to scientific-types. I wish the politicians would do the same so we could stop debating abortion.



gmc wrote: I'm no vegetarian and i know exactly where my last steak came from how it was reared and killed and don't feel guilty about it. If push came to shove and there` really was no better alternative then by all means use test animals. But only if there is no choice in the matter.
So in general, plants have less value than animals? Insects fall below reptiles? Birds below mammals?



Not just for GMC: would cockroach testing be more acceptable than cocker spaniel testing?



Hey! How about fetal testing, since they're not alive anyway?

[gmc]

posted by accountable

Of course. The value you have is in your value to me. How else does one establish value? I mean, your value to your boss or your family means little to me, but much to them. I'm sure I'm equivalent in value to a dust bunny in your boss' mind.


I have my own sense of intrinsic value just as I am sure you do as well. How others view me does little to enhance or diminish that.

How about all life has an intrinsic value? I suppose from there you can go on to establish a hierarchy of value depending on the relationship to you, but then why a hierarchical structure?

posted by accountable

I leave those definitions to scientific-types. I wish the politicians would do the same so we could stop debating abortion.


Why leave it to them? A scientist may be more educated about a thing than you but that does not necessarily make their opinion right. Similarly with a priest of any religon, they may be more knowledgeable about some things but that does not make their opinion or interpretation the right one or their viewpoint any more valuable. Do ou really need someone else to tell you what to think or believe?

posted by accountable

So in general, plants have less value than animals? Insects fall below reptiles? Birds below mammals?


If you decide to adopt a hierarchal approach perhaps, but then plants need insects and birds as much as they need them-so which is more important? Or do they all need each other?

posted by accountable

Not just for GMC: would cockroach testing be more acceptable than cocker spaniel testing?


Probably, cocker Spaniels are cute.

posted by accountable

Hey! How about fetal testing, since they're not alive anyway?


How do you decide that? If you leave the definition of sentience to scientists which definition do you accept?

[OpenMind]

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary.

Sentient, a. That feels or is capable of feeling.



Seems like a far reaching term to me.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: I have my own sense of intrinsic value just as I am sure you do as well. How others view me does little to enhance or diminish that.



How about all life has an intrinsic value? I suppose from there you can go on to establish a hierarchy of value depending on the relationship to you, but then why a hierarchical structure?I hadn't thought about it that way until I read your post. It doesn't wash. Intrinsic value is a nice idea, but the only thing that keeps that random guy from killing me is the value he places on me. Even if he defines it as intrinsic, it's a value he assigns.

As for a hierarchical structure, it's just the way my brain works. I think of things in distance from me, either physical distance or some other value. It's nice to say things have equal value, but when place in a position of decision, one must necessarily have more value than another. Otherwise, you're not in a position of decision.



gmc wrote: Why leave it to them? A scientist may be more educated about a thing than you but that does not necessarily make their opinion right. Similarly with a priest of any religon, they may be more knowledgeable about some things but that does not make their opinion or interpretation the right one or their viewpoint any more valuable. Do ou really need someone else to tell you what to think or believe?I would simply expect them to notice before I would. They've established that life begins at conception, but society doesn't want to accept it. Doesn't make it untrue.

Similarly, they will start publishing research proving that dolphins are intelligent, self-aware beings long before society at large is ready to accept it.



gmc wrote: If you decide to adopt a hierarchal approach perhaps, but then plants need insects and birds as much as they need them-so which is more important? Or do they all need each other?Ah, but that's their value to each other; but we discussed this a couple sentences ago.





gmc wrote: How do you decide that? If you leave the definition of sentience to scientists which definition do you accept?It's scientific fact that fetuses (feti?) are alive - parasitic, perhaps, but alive - even some adults aren't sentient. We have to use some common sense here, imo.

[OpenMind]

Forming decisions based upon personal values are incomplete if compassion is not also included as a value. The level of a person's compassion is reflected in the actions taken by that person.

[DesignerGal]

I dont even have to say anything...Snooze said it for me. In the names of Kudzu and Annie, I LOVE ANIMALS!