2 of 3
2
New member from Brazil
Posted: 28 June 2007 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02
Barto - 28 June 2007 03:14 PM

Why we should protect only human life ?

We should?. No, we do, but I don’t know if we should. But we protect only human life: we eat cows, pigs, fish and so on. We use animals in preclinical experiments.

Speak for yourself. I don’t eat any meat or support experimentation on animals.  Yes, I know, if we don’t experiment on animals how do I propose we test drugs and alike before using them on the human population?  I get ask that all the time and funny people ask that when there are places asking for people to agree to test this or that with payment.  People actually allow themselves to be guine pigs.  I spell that animal.  rolleyes  Anyway, why bother with rats that may or may not tell us how something will affect us if we have humans willing to do this? That’s just my thought.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19

Well Mriana, when I say ‘we’ I refer to which is ussually accepted, not about what I ussually do (altough I eat meat). Please take into account my limitations with this language grin

In fact we have humans willing to accept clinincal experiments partly because the safety of the new drug was partially meassured on preclinical studies. I can assure you that is not easy to find healthy volunteers willing to accept , even when this preclinical safety experiments, even in a poor country like this and I not so sure we were able to find volunteers without this previous safety assesments.

I regret animals experiments a lot. I really would like to go straight to human (well, I’d have against the Helsinki consensous ), I would be more fair to me… but… in the meantime I’m not willing to reject the drugs just because this (a lot of times nasty) procedure was used to produce tem. So, I have to admit I don’t have a clear solution to this. It’s a unfair thing (another one) upon which we had build our wellfare.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2007-06-27
Barto - 28 June 2007 03:14 PM

But we protect only human life: we eat cows, pigs, fish and so on. We use animals in preclinical experiments.

We protect all life in a trade-off of sacrifice and benefits. Today, we find that creating animals for eating is ok, since meat is our main source of proteins, but it could change in the next century. We also create animals and use them for research because we believe that this sacrifice is far smaller than the benefits of these researches. But two decades ago there was a lot of animal experiments with little or none benefits, and today animal studies need potencial benefits to be aproved. Even the studies today are far more “human”, as we use anesthesics to reduce unnecessary suffering.

From the threats of other human and animals and diseases. As far as I know, in every country kill a person in normal circunstances is illegal and a crime with hard punishment. We build an health system to assit people, and in many countries you have free access to it, and we didn’t build a public vet system.

Here we have free veterinary health assistance in University centers. And the pet shops are one of the faster growing small business.

No, I think we should let anyone with his or her own beliefs and moral values when we have no factual evidence on what’s happening in reality.

I agree with this.

I agree that there is no easy balance when a human life is involved. But we don’t care if there is no human life. We don’t find terrible using a rat in diabetes research, for example ( I really feel bad when I read research reports and how we use rats, dogs and monkey on the experiments… but anyway I enjoyed having a long life. I don’t have an answer in this topic, I think we should treats animals in the best way we can, but I don’t have a solution for that).

I think I answered this above.

An, with abortion, there is no only one life involved. There are two life. Is it ethical to force a person to give her (in this situation, there couldn’t be a ‘his’) body to mantain another human being?. As a I see a acceptable isomorfism… am I obligated to donate blood?

In fact, I´m pro-choice. And I´m also pro-responsability. I just don´t agree that the abortion issue is simply about science vs. religion.

 Signature 
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2007-06-27

The research in humans and (other) animals are not just a sequency, they are really different. I once made a research about a collagenous compound that would be later tested as an nonínvasive treatment for urinary incontinence. We injected the compound in rabbitt´s ears, that later were sacrificed and all the organs were studied to find out if the compound migrate to other organs and possibly cause several and severe collateral effects. We could not do this in humans.

 Signature 
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Mriana - 28 June 2007 03:21 PM
Barto - 28 June 2007 03:14 PM

Why we should protect only human life ?

We should?. No, we do, but I don’t know if we should. But we protect only human life: we eat cows, pigs, fish and so on. We use animals in preclinical experiments.

Speak for yourself. I don’t eat any meat or support experimentation on animals.

What about the rest of life? How about bacteria? You do take antibiotics when you get a bacterial infection, don’t you? Do you wash hands? You do? Poor microbes downer. And what about the plants? Have you ever murdered an onion?  mad

Mrina, we value life depending on how close its genes mimic ours. It goes in this order:

1) your son
2) your neighbor’s son
3) animals (mammals first)
4) plants
5) bacteria

I heard in Africa they eat dirt. How do they dare? Don’t they see how cute the little stonies are? wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2007-06-27
George - 28 June 2007 04:37 PM

I heard in Africa they eat dirt. How do they dare? Don’t they see how cute the little stonies are? wink

It´s called Pica Syndrome and it´s caused by mineral deficiency and a cultural behaviour developed to fight it. It wouldn´t happen if they had enough food.

http://www.anred.com/pica.html

 Signature 
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7597
Joined  2007-03-02

Please take into account my limitations with this language

Sorry Barto.  How quickly I forget that your mother tongue is not English.  :(

I think I said some where about self-defense and self-preservation.  I’m a bit weird, but I would try to save all life the best I can first with no order.  Ever since my sons could walk, the rule has been in case of fire, grab a cat on your way out- if you can.  Luckily we’ve never had more than two or three.  Of course, since I’m so little and they were almost as tall as I am when they finally learned to walk they had to walk. There was no carrying my sons even when they were 2, but of course, that would have been a bit different if there was a fire, but I would have tried to save all 4 (at the time we had 2 cats when they were 2 and 4).  Luckily, we’ve not had a fire or anything like that.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Stefano - 28 June 2007 04:52 PM
George - 28 June 2007 04:37 PM

I heard in Africa they eat dirt. How do they dare? Don’t they see how cute the little stonies are? wink

It´s called Pica Syndrome and it´s caused by mineral deficiency and a cultural behaviour developed to fight it. It wouldn´t happen if they had enough food.

http://www.anred.com/pica.html

Hmm, interesting. I mean: sad. I had no idea. Thanks, Stefano.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19
Stefano - 28 June 2007 04:17 PM

We protect all life in a trade-off of sacrifice and benefits. Today, we find that creating animals for eating is ok, since meat is our main source of proteins, but it could change in the next century. We also create animals and use them for research because we believe that this sacrifice is far smaller than the benefits of these researches. But two decades ago there was a lot of animal experiments with little or none benefits, and today animal studies need potencial benefits to be aproved. Even the studies today are far more “human”, as we use anesthesics to reduce unnecessary suffering.

I’am sure about that, we tend to be more ‘human’ (to mean ‘less cruel’) with animals, which seems good and necesary to me. We have to limit the suffering on our farm and research animals. But I don’t see how we could avoid using them, and, I sayd previously, I enjoy their results. We, in any form or another, assign animals life lower priority than assign to human life.

In fact, I´m pro-choice. And I´m also pro-responsability. I just don´t agree that the abortion issue is simply about science vs. religion.

No, I don’t think is science vs. religion. It’s free will vs. religion. It’s about religion (or some religious persons, trying to be fair) trying to making act according to their beliefs. I see hard things with abortion (I thinks US supreme court criteria is a good balance), and I don’t like to see abortion as a another normal contraconceptive method. But I guess the better thing I could do in this is to support sexual education campaigns, not support the banning of it.

[ Edited: 28 June 2007 06:36 PM by Barto ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19
Mriana - 28 June 2007 04:53 PM

Sorry Barto.  How quickly I forget that your mother tongue is not English.  :(

That’s ok grin, just give me the benefits of doubt when I say something rude wink

I think I said some where about self-defense and self-preservation.  I’m a bit weird, but I would try to save all life the best I can first with no order.  Ever since my sons could walk, the rule has been in case of fire, grab a cat on your way out- if you can.  Luckily we’ve never had more than two or three.  Of course, since I’m so little and they were almost as tall as I am when they finally learned to walk they had to walk. There was no carrying my sons even when they were 2, but of course, that would have been a bit different if there was a fire, but I would have tried to save all 4 (at the time we had 2 cats when they were 2 and 4).  Luckily, we’ve not had a fire or anything like that.

Well, I couldn’t choose between my cats and my son. Really, I hope never have to face this situation. I really don’t think that the genetic distance determines the ‘emotional distance’. I certainly love my cats and don’t share gene with them…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2007 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2007-06-27
Barto - 28 June 2007 06:29 PM

No, I don’t think is science vs. religion. It’s free will vs. religion. It’s about religion (or some religious persons, trying to be fair) trying to making act according to their beliefs. I see hard things with abortion (I thinks US supreme court criteria is a good balance), and I don’t like to see abortion as a another normal contraconceptive method. But I guess the better thing I could do in this is to support sexual education campaigns, not support the banning of it.

Even the “free will” position don´t support murder. There is no discussion on the fact that after the birth the baby is alive and terminating its life is murder. The discussion is where to put the moment that defines if terminating the pregnancy is murder or abortion. And this moment could not be defined by any scientific fact. It´s just arbitrary, and the religious definition is not necessarialy worst than any other.

 Signature 
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2007 12:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4097
Joined  2006-11-28

And so we see ethics are complex.  :grin:
I think George is essentially correct in saying that we have a sliding scale of ethical standards, if you will. It may not be exactly as he describes, but basically most humans act as if the most important being in the universe were themselves, and then their concern and sense of moral obligation spreads outward and diminishes stepwise until you get to somehting almost nobody cares about, say the emotional well-being of rocks. Now, our reason often devises ethical theories and positions that contradict this tendancy, so we feel as if all human life, or all sentient life, or all life, or all XXX(insert your preference here) is equally precious. Very few of us are able to put such ideas consistently into practice hwever. I personally don’t eat animals, but I support limited animal research because this is a compromise between the ideal (that all life is equally valuable) and the real (that I value the well-being of humans higher than rats in practice, if not in theory).

Now, I think ethics can be made more rational and consistent by employing general principles that can be applied in specific cases. I, for example, see as a moral imperative to relieve and not to cause suffering insofar as possible. I can rationalize killing without suffering because I place the value on the experience more than the outcome. So I’ll eat free-range chicken eggs, but not those from chickens housed in cages. I’ll permit medical experimentation on animal as long as aggressive measures are tyaken to minimize suffering. And I consider abstract concepts such as “rights” to be applicable on a sliding scale based on the level of sentience of the creature. Chimps, for example, should have a right to socialize with other chimps and express those behaviors natural to their kind, but they don’t have a right to vote or own property. However, I freely admit that such principles only carry me so far, and then I fall back on pure prejudice. One could argue a mentally reatrded person should have no more rights than a chimpanzee of normal intelligence since they are at roughly equivalent levels of sentience, but in practice I would likely treat the person better than the chimp. Life is a struggle to form a rational and consistent ethics and then to actually live it, and I think most of us are less successful than we’d like to be, but that doesn’t invalidate the effort. And it is certainly preferable to plucking ethical principles out of your descending colon and then calling them “God’s will!”

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2007 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19
Stefano - 28 June 2007 07:01 PM

Even the “free will” position don´t support murder. There is no discussion on the fact that after the birth the baby is alive and terminating its life is murder. The discussion is where to put the moment that defines if terminating the pregnancy is murder or abortion. And this moment could not be defined by any scientific fact. It´s just arbitrary, and the religious definition is not necessarialy worst than any other.

No, the religious definition is not worst, but it’s no best than any other. So, there is no argument to put it as general law. On the other hand, we don’t force people to be blood donors, nor organs donors (the later after the death, of course), so, why we should force a woman to give her body to support a another life?.

Of course, with a less restrictive law, the religous person still could act with themselves according to his beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2007 03:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2007-07-02

Hello from Brazil,

I am a new member from Western Desert of America and I hope we can all enjoy true and free enquiry!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2007 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2007-06-27
Cdoubt - 02 July 2007 03:27 AM

Hello from Brazil,

I am a new member from Western Desert of America and I hope we can all enjoy true and free enquiry!

From where ??

 Signature 
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2