Sunday, March 05, 2006


Oxford protestorsThere has been a lot of coverage of last week's pro-vivisection march in Oxford. While I'm absolutely opposed to using violence against humans to combat violence against animals, I do find rather repulsive the views of those who believe it's right to torture and slaughter animals for the benefit of humans. (And yes, I am a vegetarian.)

This letter in the Sunday Times puts it well:

I will not have my moral compass set by a 16-year-old self-publicist (Focus, last week) and a bunch of students who will march in any cause. Neither will I pontificate on pain that I haven’t inflicted or experienced.

Edward Wheatley
Hunstanton, Norfolk


Chris said...

Out of interest, would you undergo a medical procedure which was developped through rigorous animal testing?

Ian Brown said...

I would, because I don't see the benefit of throwing away knowledge that has been expensively gained. By the same token, I would use a lifejacket — the efficacy of which was greatly improved by horrific Nazi experiments in concentration camps.

Chris said...

I'm playing devil's advocate here - surely benefitting from that knowledge is indirectly supporting future use of animals for testing? That doesn't apply to the Nazi analogy because it's in the past - but animal testing is current, and every operation carried is validation and support for the method.

Ian Brown said...

By the same logic, using a lifejacket encourages future monsters to conduct experiments where humans are exposed to freezing water to measure how long they take to die under specific circumstances.

Chris said...

Indeed - but animal testing is accepted by our modern society, and thus a committed dissident should surely fight against the elements of his or her own society which which they don't agree. i agree it's a case of drawing the line though...i just wondered where you draw it