Against All Forms of Animal Cruelty

Wicca has taught me to value the lives of every species in the world.  It has made me realize that my life is no more valuable than the spider currently hovering above my computer or the crickets outside my window that terrify me.  I believe all life is equal and therefore, cannot stand behind the legal animal abuse that goes on in the name of "testing." I don't think we have any right to inflict pain and suffering on innocent creatures.

I would much rather see pedaphiles and rapists being used for such experiments.  And while I meant what I said about all lives being equal, I think if you're out raping and molesting children and others, you deserve to suffer, too. 

paperkit10 paperkit10
36-40, F
9 Responses Mar 18, 2009

here is good info to help you win debates with vivisectors (animal experimenters) , trhewse peopel are not usually smart and their titles are based on electrocuting mice etc, they are worthless. http://www.vernoncoleman.com/howtowindebates.htm

Hi, this is what we will be handing out in Melbourne, Australia. I advise you all to adapt it to you area and do similar when the next big cancer research money making day comes up where you live. Cancer 'research' is the biggest killer of animals in 'experiments' this century so needless to say the disease just gets bigger and the money keeps rolling in...<br />
<br />
"Australia's Biggest MOURNING Tea. The Cancer Council funds animal experiments with your donations…and we continue to die of cancer.<br />
<br />
"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute<br />
<br />
"The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known...Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer." 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY<br />
more at http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/cancer.html<br />
<br />
As Australian mice and other animals used in cancer research are also not human the same is true here.<br />
<br />
Why MOURNING? For the humans who continue to die of cancer and the animals who continue to die in cancer 'research'. The deaths of both are intrinsically linked as the history of cancer research on animals has shown it to be a consistent failure and the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals over the last century has not lead to the cure of a single human cancer. In fact cancer killed only 3% of the population in 1900 and now, 100 years, hundreds of millions of animals and billions of dollars later, kills approximately 30%. Despite this the Cancer Council continues to fund animal research.<br />
<br />
ABMT raised over $10 million dollars last year and the cancer council gave over $47 million to cancer research in 2009. Much of this research is on animals and while claims and hopes are many cures are still yet to be seen.<br />
<br />
We encourage the Cancer Council to continue to fund prevention, education and support services. We also encourage them to fund valid research which provides results applicable to humans predictively, not retrospectively.<br />
<br />
from the Safer Medicines Campaign www.curedisease.net<br />
<br />
"Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]<br />
<br />
The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.<br />
<br />
The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.[25] [emphasis added]<br />
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.<br />
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.<br />
25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4."<br />
<br />
Most Carcinogens PASS animal 'tests'.<br />
<br />
In fact warnings on cigarette packets were delayed for 10 years as animals did not get lung cancer no matter how much smoke they were forced to inhale. Tobacco companies still do animal tests. The same applies to thousands of carcinogens. This is what Dr. Bruce Ames, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of California at Berkeley has to report:<br />
"Of 392 chemicals in our database tested in both rats and mice, 226 were carcinogens in at least one test, but 96 of these were positive in the mouse and negative in the rat or vice versa."<br />
Dr. Ames continues: "Conversely, important human carcinogens may not be detected in standard tests in rodents; this was true for a long time for both tobacco smoke and alcohol, the two largest identified causes of neoplastic death in the United States."(4)<br />
A simple analysis of Dr. Ames' findings proves that, for all practical purposes, there is a 50:50 chance that a mouse carcinogen would be a rat carcinogen as well -- this amounts to the flip of a coin. This means that there is absolutely no correlation between the rat and the mouse. If there is no correlation between two such so-called "closely related" animals, there certainly can never be one between the rat and the dog, or the dog and the cat, let alone any correlation between any of these animals and the human being. <br />
It is not surprising that thousands of "known" animal carcinogens are routinely used and/or found in our drinking water, food, and the chemical products we use. Chloroform is one such carcinogen, a by-product of useable water supply chlorination. Pesticides declared carcinogenic following animal tests, and yet routinely sprayed on crops, is another example.(5) Triethanolamine, an ingredient in many laundry detergents and Perchloroethylene, the commonly used dry cleaning agent, are amongst the countless "animal carcinogens" which we consume.<br />
Refs:4. Bruce N. Ames, Renae Magaw, Lois Swirsky Gold, "Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards," Science 236 (1987), p. 275.5. "Food Use Pesticides Which Have Been Evaluated For Carcinogenicity," U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances, Reto Engler, Ph.D., July 1992. http://www.vivisectionresearch.ca/davoudia.htm<br />
<br />
So the simple fact is animal experiments cause cancer but never cure it…and they never will.<br />
<br />
Please tell the Cancer Council that you will not donate to them until they cease all animal experiments as these results are not applicable to humans and have only given us decades of broken promises and dashed hopes.<br />
<br />
They also cause terrible suffering to animals. <br />
<br />
If you would like to donate to medical research which engages in valid research and therefore do not do animal experiments see www.aahr.org.au/humane_charities/ or www.humaneseal.org/<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You may also want to see www.mrmcmed.org www.curedisease.net www.curedisease.com www.pcrm.org www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr www.dlrm.org www.vivisectionresearch.ca www.speakcampaigns.org www.navs.org www.humaneresearch.org.au<br />
<br />
<br />
Please dispose of litter thoughtfully."

While i agree with your sentiments about animals and these criminals it is important to note that sayign that we should test on criminals gives the impression that the only alternative to animal testing is human testing. This is not the case. "The rabbit eye is structurally and physiologically different to the human eye." (Johnson and Johnson) Firstly the animal 'tests' do not work anyway, they are a legal device, not a scientific one. "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons." Dr Ralph Haywood, former scientific director of huntington life sciences.<br />
<br />
Real scientific methods do exist and they avoid harm to humans, unlike animal 'tests' which cause harm to humans. Microdosing for pharmaceuticals, gene technology, there are many many others. www.curedisease.net is a good site to start at also www.mrmcmed.org www.navs.org www.speakcampaigns.org www.nzavs.org.nz<br />
<br />
Vivisectors are very keen for the animal rights argument to be the only one the public hears as they know that people will always put their own lives ahead of rats (or any other animal). google 'ajudem nos singer rockefeller ruesch vivisection'<br />
<br />
I hope you can add the scientific argument to your ammunition in this most important issue

Agreed.

Beautifully expressed : )

couldnt have said it any better myself

i wish we all thought that way,all my friends think vegetarianism is stupid and eat meat in front of me,they are trying to tempt me but really they are disgusting me.i have this friend,the most selfish friend ive ever known.she agrees with animal testing,factroy farms,she has a cat,it was starving and had cat flu,and she rescues it,i try to convince her(she thinks that cat is special,she thinks its like a teenage girl,she thinks it can understand her).i tell her that cat is exactly the same as the cats dying right now because of that mars bar shes eating(she ove mars bars and is quite very aware they test on animals)but she says her cat is save at home so who cares what happens to chimps and dogs and all sorst of animal,humans are better and therefore its ok that other animals die for a few minutes of murderous joy.i hate her sometimes.

I agree. Rub chemicals into a rapists eyes, not an animals!!!

Good idea for the rapists & molesters!!!!