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.)From the poll:
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.
New Poll -- Americans Support Animal Testing, Wearing Fur
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Human exceptionalism?
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.
- tpanitz
May 21, 2009 11:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Au Contraire!
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.
- color
May 24, 2009 4:24AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why do scientists test on animals?
There are four principal reasons that scientists continue to test on nonhuman animals , despite the availability of other means of conducting research and testing.
These include:
—Money: Like most aspects of the pernicious socioeconomic paradigm of capitalism, the number one driving force behind vivisection is money . Vivisection (nonhuman animal testing ) is big business for the companies that supply nonhuman animal research subjects (by capturing them or by breeding them in captivity); manufacture and supply cages, food , lab equipment and other accessories; and that do the actual research and testing. Researchers (vivisectors) who work for public institutions (like universities) and perform vivisection, can obtain federal grant money much more readily than those who don´t do animal testing. Institutions and universities have also grown dependent on the large grants they receive for vivisection.
Careerism: Because grant money is readily available and because institutions rely so heavily on that grant money, researchers who pursue nonhuman animal advance their careers much more readily than those who don´t. Also, in the "publish or perish" environment of academia, employing the widely accepted practice of vivisection greatly enhances a researcher´s chances of getting published.
—Inertia: Nonhuman animal testing is a practice dating back to the nineteenth century. While an immediate conversion to other means of research and testing may be unrealistic, there are many viable avenues scientists could pursue to eventually eliminate the abjectly immoral practice of torturing nonhuman animals in the interest of " science ." However, as is the case in most instances, there is a tremendous amount of resistance to radically changing the status quo. Vivisection has been the prevailing method of drug, procedure, and product testing for over a century and as new scientists are educated and trained, they are indoctrinated to believe that animal testing is both necessary and morally acceptable. Vivisection has become dogma. Therefore convincing scientists to embrace other means of research will be no easy task.
Corporate cowardice: Corporations continue to employ nonhuman animal testing on their products to shield themselves from tort liability. If a human consumer of their products is harmed, injured, or killed, a corporation hides behind the defense that it tested the product on nonhuman animals and "determined it was safe." Also, the FDA requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to rigorously test their drugs on other animals before beginning human clinical trials. Thus as is usually the case, the corporate-state complex sacrifices life to protect property and profit.
- tpanitz
May 31, 2009 1:28AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
R u for real??
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.
- Sonbear
May 26, 2009 12:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dixie Bitch
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.
- Dixie Bitch
May 22, 2009 5:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
With all the nonsense
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.
- TomMi
May 23, 2009 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.