OPINION

Suffering For The Actions Of A Few

Written by Mark Edward Manning
Published May 20, 2006
page 1 | 2

Vivisection is a business. Profits flood in from the torture of animals. Just as the abortion industry rakes in millions from its own slaughter, so do the drug and medical companies. It's big business telling people, "Look, if I do several sick and twisted things to this lab animal, one day you and yours will be able to live a cancer-free life."

Even if that were true — and I don't believe it ever will be — you're still left with the amazingly arrogant statement: "Well, we're human. At the end of the day, we're the only species that really matter."

Fish stocks dwindle due to human overfishing — we blame and kill the seals. We encroach upon the territories of alligators in Florida — we blame and kill the alligators. We believe that medicinal research on animals will bring about a cure-all for human diseases — we torture and kill untold numbers of animals year after year.

This, despite mounting evidence that vivisection is unscientific. Yet, because we've been lied to over and over again by drugs companies and research facilities with slick PR offices, we believe that animals will help us by suffering and dying for us.

My disgust with vivisectionists also extends to the extreme faction of the animal rights movement. Not only is their terrorism cowardly — as indeed are all terrorists — but they do much more harm than good to the cause they support. Thanks to the latest spate of animal terrorism in Britain, the good-hearted animal welfare movement has probably been set back a generation. One animal-rights activist told a London news station that she would not condemn the extremists. Well, you're the reason why animal-rights campaigners are very unpopular at the moment! If you had even half a brain, lady, you'd realize that the extremists who resort to terrorism should be punished, and you would support action against them.

However, Tony Blair should have known better than to stick up for animal research. The People's Petition he signed is a sick travesty. But then, we're human. We never learn from our mistakes.

page 1 | 2
Mark Edward Manning grew up in Boston, MA and now lives in London, England. He wrote commentaries for The Boston Herald in the mid 1990s.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Suffering For The Actions Of A Few
Published: May 20, 2006
Type: Opinion
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Life Sciences, Politics: Policy, Culture: Society
Writer: Mark Edward Manning
Mark Edward Manning's BC Writer page
Mark Edward Manning's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Mark Edward Manning
Sci/Tech: Life Sciences
Politics: Policy
Culture: Society
All Politics Articles
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — May 20, 2006 @ 14:32PM — mschannon [URL]

While I think you tend to underplay the importance of some animal testing, you've written an important analysis of both the animal right's extremists and the hypocracy of many of those who support animal testing. Good job.

#2 — May 20, 2006 @ 19:24PM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

Thanks, Mark. Well, harmless psychological tests on rats and other animals can be of importance, but any testing that involves what can only be viewed as tortorous is something I cannot endorse. Again, what's the point of growing a human ear on a mouse? Other, of course, to say, "Look what we did! More money, please!"

That's why I respect Dr. Alexander Shulgin who created many hallucinogenic amphetamines like Ecstasy - and tried them all out on himself. If you really want to know how a drug works, that's the way to find out!

#3 — May 21, 2006 @ 02:37AM — Dave Nalle

Screw the vivesectionists, what are they doing about bringing back fox hunting?

Dave

#4 — May 21, 2006 @ 04:19AM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

Dave, the government decided to keep the ban on fox hunting - they're going to employ all the toffs in the countryside to capture the foxes live and deliver them to medical research facilities instead - for which they will make a killing.

You know, just like the Canadian government pays Newfie rednecks to shoot and club seals? Never mind, we've already been there.

#5 — May 21, 2006 @ 12:04PM — mschannon [URL]

Dave, you want to hunt foxes? More people get killed than foxes--which probably isn't a bad thing given who gets killed. But that's so upper-crust of you--I never knew.

In Decaf Veritas

#6 — May 21, 2006 @ 12:25PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

Mark, I can hunt foxes all day long in my backyard, and considering how many of my chickens they've killed I relish it. But my version of fox hunting isn't exactly upper crust since it involvs no horses, dogs or fancy red outfits.

What bothers me is the death and dilution of tradition. To me the idea of overdressed buffoons riding around chasing foxes is a lot more appealing than protecting a species of what are basically verminous predators.

Dave

#7 — May 21, 2006 @ 14:45PM — mschannon [URL]

Whew, Dave, I'm relieved you're not wearing red at least. But you raise chickens? Isn't that what supermarkets are for? You trying to put Giant out of business?

I'm hard put to choose between the red-jacketed buffoons & the foxes. To paraphrase someone, God made the fox, but only a human can make a buffoon...whatever that means.

It's the difference, though, between hunting for "sport" and hunting to eat (or killing to protect). If you want to make it a sport, give the foxes guns. Otherwise, it's like a football game (American style) where one team is naked with their hands tied behind their backs.

In Decaf Veritas

#8 — May 22, 2006 @ 01:47AM — Dave Nalle

Whew, Dave, I'm relieved you're not wearing red at least. But you raise chickens? Isn't that what supermarkets are for? You trying to put Giant out of business?

Giant shut its last store around here 25 years ago. But I like fresh eggs, and you can't get them fresher than plucking them right from under the chicken. The chickens also keep the population of grasshoppers down.

I'm hard put to choose between the red-jacketed buffoons

That actually sounds like it could be a chicken breed.

It's the difference, though, between hunting for "sport" and hunting to eat (or killing to protect). If you want to make it a sport, give the foxes guns. Otherwise, it's like a football game (American style) where one team is naked with their hands tied behind their backs.

I wouldn't call it a sport - it's more of an entertainment. But I hate to see traditions die on the altar of political correctness.

Dave

#9 — May 22, 2006 @ 03:46AM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

I defend marriage on the grounds of tradition. But fox hunting? Maybe you have a point, concerning the tradition argument, about forcing animal rights views down the throats of these countryside buffoons, but still ... foxes are simply trying to eat to survive. Having chickens on your property is a magnet and a beacon for them, Dave. I see foxes every night here in London - I work nights - and my heart leaps every time I do. They're beautiful animals and have a right to live free from terror by humans.

But, Dave, I wouldn't worry about fox-hunting legistlation. Fox hunting has not had its death knell. They still carry on with the hunts and the government can't be bothered to enforce it. I would pistol-whip Bryan Ferry and his lawbreaking son if I had the chance, but Blair's lame-duck government isn't as strong-willed as I am.

#10 — May 22, 2006 @ 03:47AM — Dave Nalle

Mark, to pistol whip them the government would have to let you have a gun...how likely is that in jolly old england?

Dave

#11 — May 22, 2006 @ 04:31AM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

I have another great idea. Let's kill off any other species that is a nuisance to us all-important humans. Raccoons, oppossums, crows, magpies: Kill 'em all! The hell with biodiversity! Humans are the only species that have a right to live on this planet, damnit. Everything else is just a damned inconvenience. Let's have a jolly good bloodbath, what what!

#12 — May 22, 2006 @ 09:33AM — Dave Nalle [URL]

They're not an inconvenience, they're here for our use and entertainment. Surely you can see that. But biodiversity IS overrated. It's time to implement survival of the fittest based on the criteria of serving man the master.

Dave

#13 — May 22, 2006 @ 10:53AM — mschannon [URL]

Oy, Dave, you finally crossed the line into error. Shame. Unless there's a bit of irony in here--I can't tell, damn you.

They're not an inconvenience, they're here for our use and entertainment. Surely you can see that. But biodiversity IS overrated. It's time to implement survival of the fittest based on the criteria of serving man the master.

Biodiversity is critical to the survival of the planet--which I have to believe you understand. That's the big concern about biotech created crops which all have the same genetic code. One nasty virus, and, wham, no more corn for your chickens.

Plus, we've barely scratched the surface in understanding how the world works. I just read in Discovery (don't have link but can get it if you want) that 20% of all mammals are worms in the earth & we don't know squat about them.

The earth has been going through a relatively calm period geographically and environmentally for the past 100 thousand years or longer...but that will change, and it's biodiversity that will protect some form of life when the earth decides to burp or fart.

And you've got to be kidding about implementing survival of the fittest based on serving man the master...right? If not, go back and read your Darwin--or anything about evolution.

In Decaf Veritas

#14 — May 22, 2006 @ 15:45PM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

No, I don't see it, Dave. I don't see it at all. "Man the Master" has completely f***ed up the entire planet and you appear to be cheering his dubious accomplishment.

I suspect you are pulling my leg here with a mischeivous grin on your face - perhaps? If not, then I am appalled by your Neanderthalic P.o.V. I see no dichotomy in being a conservative and a conservationalist or respecting all life. Too bad you do.

#15 — May 22, 2006 @ 16:20PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

I may perhaps have engaged in a tiny amount of hyperbole earlier.

However, while biodiversity is certainly desirable, you have to acknowledge that the balance of species can be wildly different from one part of the world to another. The loss of a single obscure species in one part of the world does not threaten the whole automatically. The system can and will adjust. Something will move in to fill its place in the ecosystem.

So while we should try as hard as we reasonably can to protect all species, even vermin, our efforts need to be reasonable and remain humanocentric. If the choice is between human welfare and the welfare of another species we have to come down on the side of the humans, because we ARE humans. Plus we are the only species which, if we create a problem, might be able to fix it later - by cloning or reintroduction of species as we have done in a number of cases.

Dave

#16 — May 24, 2006 @ 04:02AM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

Dave, thanks for clearing things up and I understand your position a bit better - though I still don't endorse it.

However, I'd appreciate it if next time we don't see eye-to-eye on something, you'd be more direct and not poke fun. Smart-ass behavior tends to rub people the wrong way - including me.

#17 — May 24, 2006 @ 04:04AM — Mark Edward Manning [URL]

Mark Schannon: "it's biodiversity that will protect some form of life when the earth decides to burp or fart."

Mark, I thought the Earth burped every time a volcano erupted? Or would you consider that a fart?

#18 — May 24, 2006 @ 10:58AM — mschannon [URL]

Well, I've never smelled a volcano, so I'm not sure. It's worth some research, though. Let me know what you find out, LOL.

In Decaf Veritas

#19 — May 25, 2006 @ 03:47AM — -E [URL]

Congrats, this article was picked for one of this week's Ed Picks. Keep up the good work.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/48035)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments