New Poll -- Americans Support Animal Testing, Wearing Fur
Human exceptionalism is not only about human rights, but also human duties, including never using human beings as mere objects and the need to treat animals properly and humanely. The new Gallup Poll about what Americans consider morally acceptable behavior is interesting in both regards, and thus worth our pondering. (Part of the poll measured matters beyond our scope here at SHS, and these issues will not be addressed. The poll was also promoted by Gallup as showing Republicans growing increasingly "conservative." We don't do partisan politics here, and moreover, what some call conservative, I think of as liberal--such as opposing assisted suicide. So, let's ignore those matters, too.)
Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur: 61% to 35% think it is morally acceptable--with the "acceptable" figure up from 54% last year
Fur is the most publicly controversial use of animals, what with the seal clubbing and the scent of luxury it implies. I think that animal rights and welfare activists should actually be quite proud that 35% of the people believe that what was once seemed unremarkable is now considered morally unacceptable. But the increase in the "acceptable" category might reflect animal rights exhaustion, that is, people are tired of the preaching:
Medical testing on animals--57% think it is right and 36%
wrong. This figure is basically unchanged from last year.
Medical testing is probably the use of animals that provides humans the greatest benefit. That 36% of the people think it is wrong, is an alarming indication that the research community has not done a good job of educating the public of the importance of their work and the lengths to which researchers go to treat the animals in their care humanely.
I also think it is notable that the numbers who consider fur and animal research to be morally improper are nearly identical. If this is an increased sensitivity based on animal welfare thinking, I am cool with that, with the understanding that one can have great concern for animals and support research and fur. But if it reflects an acceptance of the ideology, values, and beliefs of "animal rights," it is cause for great concern:
Cloning animals: Morally wrong 63%, to 34%.
I have no problem with animal cloning because it doesn't impact human exceptionalism and potential great good could come from it for us. But I think the 34% figure is another example of a significant minority of the people having great concern for either the proper and humane care of animals, or animal rights. Again, if it is the former, good. If the latter, not good.
Now, we turn to bioethical and biotechnological issues.
Suicide: Only 15% think that suicide is morally proper, unchanged from last year.
This result illustrates why assisted suicide advocates have worked so hard to engineer the language. Gooey euphemisms such as "aid in dying" are intended to mask the real subject at hand.
Cloning human beings, 88% think it is improper and only 9% proper, down from 11% last year.
The massive popular opposition to human cloning is also why research cloning advocates--with the willing complicity by a biased media--pretend that cloning isn't cloning and redefine and basic biological terms to give themselves political cover. While I have no doubt that if the poll had asked whether it is morally proper to create human cloned embryos for use in research, the numbers would have moved, I still believe that a majority would oppose--as they have in previous polls. This seems especially true when 64% oppose animal cloning. I think people are just very wary of science moving into areas that have such an explosive potential to dramatically alter the natural world.
Medical research on stem cells taken from human embryos: 57% believe it is proper, down five points from 62% last year, with 36% believing it is
improper.
While this question could technically apply to therapeutic cloning, it probably reflects the "leftover embryo" scenario that proved so politically successful in garnering public support for ESCR. The significant reduction in support--five points in one year--probably reflects the success of IPSC research as well as the growing understanding that adult stem cells are performing much better than expected when the great stem cell debate began.
Abortion: Only 36% believe that abortion is morally proper, down from 40% last year, while 56% think it is morally inappropriate.
This is the third major recent poll (Pew and a different Gallup) showing people moving in a generally "pro-life" direction on abortion. The reduced number of abortions each year may actually reflect the ongoing change in people's attitudes.
All in all, it seems to me that people are increasingly concerned with the equality/sanctity of human life. Hopefully, someday that will be better reflected in our country's public policies. The increasing divide the poll shows between Republicans and Democrats also reflects, I think, a worrying trend in that it is hard to have a true society when its members view some of life's most important moral issues in such diametrically different ways.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Dear american citizens, I am strongly against animal testing for the following reason
Animals are abused, beaten, tortured, gassed, starved, drugged, poisoned, and cut open while still alive. Imagine your dog, cat, fish, or any animal you love being tortured this way. I do not understand the vocabulary of this guy (looks down) but I have a feeling he is agianst animal testing, and i support him. check this video out. go to youtube.com and type in "peta-against animal testing". This will definetly change your minds about supporting animal testing!
I made a mistake...I meant to put this arrticle as a comment for someoene elses comment I was reading... so thats why I put "I don't understand the vocabulary...etc." SORRY!
forget what I said here also...damn...my brain hurts.
The animal rights community is going to succeed in curing the world of wanting to be "humane." The definition of the word is being bent out of shape in order to deny basic rights to human beings. The activists use it as a weapon to hurt people even for trying to take care of animals in need.
It's already past the point where the animals are better off without the humane laws.
Well, this is a free country and if you do not like what is going on here my advise is move. When a majority of the people decide something is right then who is the whiney minority to buck that?
America was based in part on the freedom of choice. That is not freedom of choice for the few but for the majority. I may not like all the choices that have come down the pike but, I abide by them.
In a society there has to be rules.
Wearing of animal products is a personal choice just as what shampoo you use is a choice. I do not try to force my choices on you so why would you force me to go by your choices.
As far as the accusations that you have made, where is the unbiased scientific proof of what you say? I would dearly love to see it. How many is "many doctors ?" I guess vauge unsupported statements are easier to make, just like Hitler made in the 1930's. When and where were these supposed attrosities taken place? I never heard of them and I keep up with the medical community.
Many medical miracles have come about through animal testing . Many infants owe their life to the animal world. Are you going to tell all the mothers in America that their childs health is not worth the life of a rat?
I am a devoted animal lover, but I am also a realist. Animals were put on this Earth to help man, man was given dominion over them, not to be cruel or to abuse them. check it out in the Good Book, it has it all.
Human exceptionalism -what a conveniently self serving concept! We certainly are exceptional - the only species that tortures its own and other species, makes war, pollutes the earth. The fact that we see ourselves as somehow superior to everything else on earth indicates arrogance and egotism, with disastrous consequences to other living beings. It is definitely far from a moral position.
It's not surprising that most people in this country support animal testing , because they never hear anything against it. Despite the fact that there are tons of data indicating the ineffectiveness, and even harmfulness, of using animals as human surrogates, and despite the fact that there are many doctors and scientists opposed to vivisection, you never see an article opposing animal testing in the mainstream press. This is due to the influence of Big Pharma. In contrast, in England, which has a much freer press than we do, and where a much more balanced presentation of the pros and cons of vivisection is made, public support is much lower than here.
The vivisection industry sends out incessant propaganda about how every medical advance is due to vivisection, which is patently false, and how its work is "humane." The word "humane" is repeated endlessly, and seems to have become attached to animal testing, ie, "humane animal testing," like it's one concept. If you regard drilling holes in animals' skulls so that chemicals can be poured in directly on their brains, or screws placed to attach their heads to fixed posts so they can't move them during testing, or removing infants from their mothers at birth so experimenters can document the already well known effects of maternal deprivation, or conducting sleep deprivation experiments on animals like cats who go mad from the lack of sleep with no knowledge gained on the nature of human sleep, etc, etc, etc - if you regard all this as "humane", then the word has no meaning.
I wish I could say it as well as you did. It sickens me how people can be so cruel and selfish.
We definitely need to show the stuff that really goes on though it breaks my heart to watch. I am so sensitive to the cruelty that I sometimes am not sure I want to live among people anymore inasmuch as I love people. At least good, kind and careful people.
Thank you for your words.
Free range chickens often resort to cannibalism? Animals often defecate in their own water source. I don't know what planet you are from... but all of the animal kingdom is self serving== From the little ants that will EAT their own dead-- to elephants that will attack each other unto death for territory.
Now let's think this out-
They never said "resort to cannibalism". They said peck at each other. As in "You are going for my food , back off." not "Mmmm... Chicken".
Humans dump all sorts of synthetic chemicals into our water sources, which is a hell of a lot worse. There are some places around where I live where you can literally light the tap water on fire.
Humans have been known to eat their dead. Seriously, most of the animal kingdom does. It's an efficient use of available resources, and only sentient animals attach a stigma to it, due to purely emotional reasons.
As for fighting over territory, have you not noticed all the various wars that have happened since the dawn of time? Land to an elephant means steady food, water, and the chance to pass on genes. Humans have fought over much dumber things. (For example, the War of Jenkin's Ear, which is exactly what it sounds like. It was a war fought over a diplomat's ear.)
Now before you attack me, I'd like to point out that I am not some animal rights wacko. I like meat, and I like medicine that works. That being said, I also like some of the protocols and security measures put in place to protect animals that are used for testing, as well as animals raised for food purposes. I just think that you need to think a bit more before opening your mouth and wailing to whoever's closest.
What is most often publicized if not advertised, used as motivation for donations and conversion of behavior and belief is the Vegan run Animal Rights propaganda against animal testing , along with animal use in every way. With small seemingly innocuous steps, the Animal Rights movement is posing as animal lovers wishing to spay and neuter every pet, portray chickens as better off free range while it is most detrimental to their health to peck away at each other and face the health risks increased through exposure free range. When in comes to wearing fur, the Animal Rights movement succeeded in reducing the industry 10 fold. The consequence is becoming the extinction of heavy coated fox and raised for color thick coated mink. The reduced breeding of domestically bred fur animals will soon result in the extinction of those animals carrying certain qualities which took generations to create. The same thing is about to happen to the pure bred dog and cat, who along with the mixed bred is being desexed and disallowed to reproduce through the Animal Rights proclaimed goal which is to present legislation in each state disallowing reproduction withing the confines of residential homes. Can we imagine that? The government demanding that major surgery be performed on our pets , fining citizens and confiscating pets because owners wanted to be able to raise their own pet's offspring rather than finding an unrelated pet with different characteristics upon its demise. Our pets usually do not outlive us, why should government stop us from being able to have its offspring if we so choose?
We must maintain individual rights in this country. We must not allow the beliefs of others to micromanage the individual, we are all entitled to our own beliefs. This does not give anyone the right to harm others, however it also stops those who want to force beliefs onto others from harming the other. Forcing ideologies which are foriegn to the personal belief system of the individual creates stress, cognitive dissonance, and possible anarchy.
The day may come when society is stretched to far by the Political Action Committees (PAC) agendas and the quickness of our representatives to do PACs favors.
I personally will not give a medication to a child which has not been at least tested on animals, I will wear fur as I do not want to see the extinction of any domestic animals. In the final analysis I believe that it is better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all. I do believe in kind treatment, but I am also a realist.
Two things to look up and be aware of: The CEO of The Humane Society of the United States (a PAC) most quoted statement:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
And John Stossel's report:
Eat the Tigers!
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/05/13/eat_the_tigers !?page=full&comments=true
More food for thought can be had by pondering this: If the CEOs of the Humane Society of the United States Wayne Pacelle and of Peta Ingrid Newkirk do not use animals at all is it any wonder that they are not to happy with the idea of man keeping pets for simple companionship that do eat other animals? Watch your pet, and think through any legislation being proposed. You may not have those loving eyes of a different species if you let their propaganda alone shape your view. They have a motive, to remove animals from the human experience completely. The question should be what does the individual want. No one is forcing others to eat, wear, suse products tested on, or own animals.