nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

Crazy "Animal Rights" Fools Value Disposable Animals Over HUMANS! So You Just Know They'll Kill Medical Researchers Without Blinking An Eye!

Von: J.F. Poopnagle (kinkysr@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 08.12.2008 22:30
Message-ID: <4a5bb925-8d98-4e3d-a414-819dafd85038@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.politics.bushtalk.politics.medicine alt.food alt.animals.ethics.vegetariantalk.politics.animals
Misguided rabid Animal Liberation Front (ALF) faulty-brained buffoons
are terrorizing and attempting to murder those who would use animals
in humane experiments.

It might be safer to be an abortionist in America!

Or gay.

---------------------------
"Terrorizing Medical Research"

By P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker
Monday, December 8, 2008; A19


Terrorists have struck again. In the predawn hours one morning last
month, they used an incendiary device to destroy two cars. You may not
have heard about this, even though it followed a series of
firebombings of homes and other vehicles. The attack didn't take place
in Mumbai or Baghdad but in Los Angeles. Yet the news couldn't break
through the reports on the holiday season and our economic woes.

The intended target of this violence, a researcher at the University
of California at Los Angeles, was a scientist who uses animals in his
work. But the terrorists, reportedly from an organization known as the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF), had bad aim. The burned cars belonged
to people with no relationship to UCLA or even to animal research.

Black comedy? No, because lives hang in the balance, and not just
those of the intended targets, their families and anyone who happens
to reside nearby. Because of such terrorism, many medical researchers
are rethinking their choice of profession, putting all of us at risk
of losing out on medical advances that can dramatically improve, and
save, our lives.

In our book, "The Animal Research War," we profiled researchers who
have abandoned successful careers because they are unwilling to put
their families, in many cases including young children, in danger. One
scientist sent an e-mail to his harassers with the subject line: "You
win." "Please don't bother my family anymore," he wrote, promising to
walk away from an animal research program that had yielded insights
offering hope to visually impaired children. Walk, he did.

In Santa Cruz, Calif., in August, a firebomb targeted a researcher who
uses rodents in his work. The attack sent the man, his wife and two
young children scurrying to safety out a second-story window. The fact
that they were targeted at 5 on a weekend morning -- when the whole
family was likely to be at home -- frightened researchers everywhere.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research, which tracks attempts to
intimidate researchers, has found that a handful of sporadic actions
10 years ago has ballooned to more than a hundred annually. Most
involve nonviolent harassment, but a growing number have been violent.

Some of our own colleagues in Portland, Ore., have had to endure black-
hooded "ALF-ers" chanting in front of their homes, "2, 4, 6, 8, we
know where you sleep at night." The message is clear: Continue your
research at your peril.

But set aside the danger to researchers and their families for a
moment and think about this from a purely selfish point of view. Those
whose life's work is fighting deadly diseases are now themselves under
attack. Can we expect them to continue their efforts if they aren't
safe in their homes or can't park their cars on public streets?

Research is a trade-off: To learn how to help humans, we engage in
animal experimentation. But as part of this trade-off, we have an
obligation to see to it that the animals don't feel pain or suffer in
other ways. The extremists who threaten scientists ignore the
extensive regulations that protect animals used in research. They
place their own definition of animal rights ahead of human well-being.
They believe in the abstract principle that we can't use animals to
supply our food or clothing -- or to support our health, even if doing
so, to take just one example, can improve the chances that a child can
see.

Whether or not we agree on animal rights and animal research, we
should be able to agree that fire-bombing homes and threatening
families is not an acceptable way to try to bring about change in a
civilized society.

As Michael DeBakey, the famed heart surgeon and Congressional Gold
Medal winner, has said, "It is the American public who will decide
whether we must tell hundreds of thousands of victims of heart
attacks, cancer, AIDS and other dread diseases that the rights of
animals supersede a patient's right to relief from suffering and
premature death." The time for deciding is now.

P. Michael Conn is a senior scientist at the Oregon Health and Science
University's Oregon National Primate Center and a professor at the
university's medical school. James V. Parker is a former public
information officer at the primate center.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/07/AR2008120701925.html

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]

Antworten