Animal rights people out of controll

[davisville64]

my aunt emailed me this link...


http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=meet_your_meat&Player=wm&speed=_med



Now could they kill the animals a little more humainly? Probably

But, when my aunt started to tell me how horrified she was, I told her of a horror that I have. Somewhere in a 3rd world country, lets say Nigeria, there is a little kid starving. He hasn't seen a full meal in months, if not years. If we shut down all these slaughter houses, there will be even LESS food to go around this country, and almost none to go to nigeria. But as long as Mrs piggy doesnt get hurt, its ok. :rasp:

My aunt is the kind of person that would save a cat she didnt even know from a burning building before she got a baby out of its crib, and yes I am serious when I say this.

 

[wastedwhiteboy2]

I know a lot a freaks like that also. I think they have some mental problems. seriously!

 

[BigP0ppa3]

They'd rather have us starve and eat soy all day long??

Why not concern yourself with some real issues - or are the economy, healthcare, and war not important enough???

BP

 

[dbag333]

now I'm hungry.

 

[FOCUS]

PETA

7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA

1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.� This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.

2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical� treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist� group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows� is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.�

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!� PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.�

5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM's president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.� PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate� campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals. 7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.�


Info from animalscam.com

 

[Jeff]

PETA - "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals"

 

[Nullifidian]

Yeah, whenever I hear someone is a member of PETA, I suddenly can't stand them or anything they are involved in.

For example, I can't stand The Pretenders now that I know Chrissy Hynde is an active member of PETA.

 

[davisville64]

7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!� PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.�

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.� PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate� campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals. 7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.�


Info from animalscam.com

A) If I ever see a peta member outside my school, hes getting kicked in the nads :nutkick:

B) If I see one outside my church he will be sacrafised along with a goat (the goats only for the irony of the situation)

 

[CEDeoudes59]

PETA loves abortion :nutkick:
PETA loves sheep
PETA hates babies

PETA is just a lousy 'spokesman' for animal rights - they do more harm than good to themselves. They are so far from the mainstream they aren't even taken seriously.

 

[davisville64]

PETA - "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals"

Which would the people of peta rather see, Alec Baldwin(a peta spokesman) being eaten by a tiger, or a dead tiger being eaten by Alec Baldwin? :food:

 

[hypo]

Unfortunately, the raising of slaughter animals is pretty brutal. But if farmers raised them humanely, that steak dinner from applebees would be $100 instead of $20. It is a sad fact of life.

But inhumane cosmetics testing is another story. Torturing animals so that women don't cry when some mascera gets in their eye is wrong. I sincerely believe that death row inmates should be used for clinical/cosmetics testing instead of animals. When you commit murder/rape/etc you basically agree to waive your rights. Plus it would lower the prison budget and I'll bet decrease violent crimes as well. But prisoner rights is another topic.

remember, we're all animals here on earth, and all feel the same pain. So is meat slaughter wrong? Not in my mind, it is a necessary evil. But cosmetics and clinical testing with no thought to the animal's pain is wrong.

 

[Blown]

Good post hypo

 

[davisville64]

Unfortunately, the raising of slaughter animals is pretty brutal. But if farmers raised them humanely, that steak dinner from applebees would be $100 instead of $20. It is a sad fact of life.

But inhumane cosmetics testing is another story. Torturing animals so that women don't cry when some mascera gets in their eye is wrong. I sincerely believe that death row inmates should be used for clinical/cosmetics testing instead of animals. When you commit murder/rape/etc you basically agree to waive your rights. Plus it would lower the prison budget and I'll bet decrease violent crimes as well. But prisoner rights is another topic.

remember, we're all animals here on earth, and all feel the same pain. So is meat slaughter wrong? Not in my mind, it is a necessary evil. But cosmetics and clinical testing with no thought to the animal's pain is wrong.

:goodpost:

I agree, they shouldnt be tested with cosmetics. They should, however, be tested in clinical studies.

 

[FOCUS]

:burger: :food: :FUfinger:

 

[Nullifidian]

Unfortunately, the raising of slaughter animals is pretty brutal. But if farmers raised them humanely, that steak dinner from applebees would be $100 instead of $20. It is a sad fact of life.

But inhumane cosmetics testing is another story. Torturing animals so that women don't cry when some mascera gets in their eye is wrong. I sincerely believe that death row inmates should be used for clinical/cosmetics testing instead of animals. When you commit murder/rape/etc you basically agree to waive your rights. Plus it would lower the prison budget and I'll bet decrease violent crimes as well. But prisoner rights is another topic.

remember, we're all animals here on earth, and all feel the same pain. So is meat slaughter wrong? Not in my mind, it is a necessary evil. But cosmetics and clinical testing with no thought to the animal's pain is wrong.

I disagree abotu the clinical testing.

As for cosmetics, they have to be tested. If you aren't goign to test on animals who are you going to test on, humans? I think not.

What they CAN do however is require more extensive in vitro tests for cosmetics before permitting companies to do animal testing. Clinical drug testing however already requires a lot of in vitro stuff before it can be approved for animal testing. As for humaneness of clinical drug testing, in most cases it can't be humane. It involves inflicting diseases on animals and then subjecting them to experimental treatment. Sorry but that's just how it works. Plus afterwards the animals have to be put to death anyway because they have to study all tissues in the animal which can only be done once it's dead.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I just don't know where they get these vids....I've grown up around farmland, and that's just not how its done at any farm i've ever seen.

Anyway, necessary evil, yes. Video still makes me sick though.

Hypocrisy of PETA makes me even more sick though.

Deo brought up a good point, PETA = for abortion, however i can guarantee that if we were to start aborting animal X of their children, they would throw a fit.

(I'm pro choice, BTW, so long as you're not deciding to get rid of the kid after he's got a brain....I mean, don't mean to go O/T, but WTF is up with people deciding to have late term abortions?)

 

[hypo]

"As for cosmetics, they have to be tested. If you aren't goign to test on animals who are you going to test on, humans? I think not."

Sure, why not? Cosmetics are NOT necessary like medicine and food and don't benefit the human race one iota. Cosmetics companies should pay volunteer humans to test their products, but they are interested in making as much money as they can, and you don't have to pay stray cats and dogs.

I do however support your in vitro comment, they should test more before animal/human studies. But again, it all boils down to the profit. It's cheaper to just spray the **** in a cat's eyes and watch how long it twitches than to pay scientists to develop further.

 

[doggzj]

I think it is funny how it is "Pro-Choice" not "Pro-Abortion" because pro-abortion sounds bad.

 

[Matthew D]

It is pro choice just because you think that it a woman's right to be able to choice does not mean that you think that abortion is right..

 

[davisville64]

You can kind of relate this to survival of the fittest... kinda

We humans are equiped with farms to kill animals and get food to MAKE OUR SPECIES SURVIVE (hence, survival of the fittest). The more the population grows, the more food we need. The animals we eat didn't adapt enough to protect themselves, and to the victor go the spoils (just dont spoil my milk :thumbsup: )

 

[kwyckemynd00]

It is pro choice just because you think that it a woman's right to be able to choice does not mean that you think that abortion is right..

Bingo...I'm vehemontly against abortion after the first 3-4 months, but if you find out your pregnant and decide you cannot have / do not want to have a child, then abort the pregnancy before the poor kid developes feelings...I believe within 5-6 months they start to dream...makes me sick if you kill them after that--there are exceptions, IMHO, in late term, but not many....

</off topic>

 

[jrkarp]

It is pro choice just because you think that it a woman's right to be able to choice does not mean that you think that abortion is right..

Why does the media always say "Anti-Abortion" instead of "Pro-Life?"

/karp

 

[Nullifidian]

Why does the media always say "Anti-Abortion" instead of "Pro-Life?"

/karp

Because the "pro-life" movement is also for capital punishment which means they are NOT pro-life.

Personally I'm pro-death. I think it is a double standard that a fetus is considered alive after the second trimester, yet the start of life is always listed as being at birth. When someone says they have lived 20 years, they are talking about from the day they were born. So personally IMO, abortion should be legal right up until the day before the kid is born, otherwise it really doesn't fit.

I'm also pro death penalty though I think they shouldn't use lethal injection, they should just take a pipe to the inmate's head or something equally inexpensive.

 

[jrkarp]

True, "Pro-Life" means "Pro Innocent Life," but that's not as catchy as "Pro-Life."

When I mention the day I was born, I don't mean it as a measure of how long I've been alive, I mention it as a measure of how long it's been since I was born. I've never seen the date of birth listed as the the beginning of life; I have always seen it listed as the date of birth. Since we all know our birthdays and few of us know the day on which we were conceived, it's certainly a more convenient date to use as a reference.

/karp

 

[Nullifidian]

All lives are listed from date of birth to date of death. They NEVER EVER list date of conception, or date of second trimester, or whatever. People say "I began my life..." and are referring to the day they were BORN.

Hence, abortion should be legal up until the day before they are born.


Actually, it would be even better if abortion were legal up until the first 3 years. I've seen some really worthless kids, and if I had one as screwed up as any of these, I'd want it recalled.

 

[jrkarp]

You missed my point. If we need a reference date for the beginning of a life (i.e., on a tombstone), and we can't be sure of the date of conception, the only date we can use is the date of birth. I never said anything listed the date of conception; quite the opposite. I said that we can't list the date of conception, because we usually don't know it. The DOB is a known reference date.

Not to mention that there is no explicit statement that the date of birth is being used as "the start of life" instead of simply being the "date of birth." No tombstone that I've ever seen lists "Start of life" over the birthdate. Furthermore, every form that I've ever filled out said "date of birth," never "start of life."

I should also point out that the tradition of using date of birth as the first date in someone's life span is centuries old (and perhaps older). If, back when that tradition began, there were some means of determining date of conception, it is very possible that we'd use that as the reference, not the date of birth.

From a legal standpoint, using the centuries-old tradition of what date is listed on tombstones and such to justify abortion up until the moment of natural childbirth is fallacious. The current abortion laws don't base the second trimester rule on some idea of when life begins; they base it on the approaching point at which the fetus would be capable of living if born prematurely.

I can point out the biology of why a fetus is alive and why it is a separate (parasitic) organism, but in the context of abortion arguments science has little place.

Your point is taken, in any case. My personal belief on abortion is that it is killing of an innocent human being, that it is unbelievably absurd to suggest that the constitution contains some kind of privacy right that guarantees women access to abortions, and that abortion is an evil that we must live with, because at this point banning it completely would do more harm than good.

/karp

 

[Nullifidian]

No I didn't miss the point. I've seen myriads of tombstones that do not say "born XXXX, died XXXX". They say "Lived XXXX-XXXX".

In reality, law typically has little care for science. Law actually only cares about existing legal presidence. Since a person is alive from the moment of birth according to law, then they should be able to be terminated at any time leading up to that date. Personally I think it would be great. You'd have plenty of extra infant organs that could be in perfectly good shape for harvesting for other infants that need it.

Actually there's a lot more we could do with aborted fetuses that we aren't. For example, I here fetus meat is very tasty and quite tender. I bet fetus-burgers and fetus-steaks would be quite a tasty meal indeed.

 

[MarcusG]

You missed my point. If we need a reference date for the beginning of a life (i.e., on a tombstone), and we can't be sure of the date of conception, the only date we can use is the date of birth. I never said anything listed the date of conception; quite the opposite. I said that we can't list the date of conception, because we usually don't know it. The DOB is a known reference date.
......

Exactly. I wonder if laws and tombstones may change if dates of conception can be accurately found out.

Aborted fetus are the big secret for raw material in medical research. I think the commercial implications are such that if an aborted fetus is taken out alive, it is typically killed since its worth more as a spare parts container than a viable living baby.

 

[Nullifidian]

Exactly. I wonder if laws and tombstones may change if dates of conception can be accurately found out.

Aborted fetus are the big secret for raw material in medical research. I think the commercial implications are such that if an aborted fetus is taken out alive, it is typically killed since its worth more as a spare parts container than a viable living baby.

I'm telling you, not just spare parts. MEAT! Although, you can strip the organs and still be left with plenty of muscle and tender juicy fat to cook. Mmmmmm, fetuses ....:food: :burger:

 

[jrkarp]

I've actually never seen a tombstone that said "Lived." I've seen many that simply included dates with no explanation of what they were. This could be a regional thing; most of the cemetaries I've seen have been in Upstate New York and Florida.

The law typically uses things called "legal fictions." Just because the law says something is a certain way doesn't actually mean that it is that way. As an example, even though adoptive parents are not "natural parents" (i.e. they are not biologically related to the child), they are considered "natural parents" under the law because the laws that govern adoption say that they are.

Again, the abortion laws do not define when life begins. The limitations that are placed on abortion have to do with viability. Also, I am not aware of any law that says a human is "alive" when born; they say that a "person" is a "human being that has been born alive" (or sometimes say that a "human being" is a "person that has been born alive"). "Person" under the law has historically had a different meaning than in everyday usage. For example, when we had slavery, even though slaves were very much alive, and were human beings, they were not "persons" under the law.

You should also note that the law in many states considers the illegal killing of an unborn child to be murder (so killing a pregnant woman can be double homicide), and allow children born alive to sue for injuries they suffered before born. That kinda throws a wrench into your argument, don't you think?

/karp

 

[MarcusG]

I'm telling you, not just spare parts. MEAT! Although, you can strip the organs and still be left with plenty of muscle and tender juicy fat to cook. Mmmmmm, fetuses ....:food: :burger:

I have no doubt its tender but how much meat can you harvest?

Plus stripping the fetus for blood, tissue, bone, skin is probably alot more than a good meal. Eat a puppy instead..now puppies mmmmmmmm slurp!

 

[AGELESS]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion and a joke is a joke, and meant to make people laugh. I personally dont think this is funny...and you are out of line.

IMO - youre offending more people than you are making laugh.

If you truly believe what youre saying here...I only wish your mother and father felt the same way you do. This is not a flame here. Personally I have 4 children of my own, and I would die on the spot for any one of them. But thats just my choice.

no reply to this is needed. and to flame each other would be a waste of time. we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Nullifidian]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion and a joke is a joke, and meant to make people laugh. I personally dont think this is funny...and you are out of line.

IMO - youre offending more people than you are making laugh.

If you truly believe what youre saying here...I only wish your mother and father felt the same way you do. This is not a flame here. Personally I have 4 children of my own, and I would die on the spot for any one of them. But thats just my choice.

no reply to this is needed. and to flame each other would be a waste of time. we can just agree to disagree.

Oh now who's being silly.

Not everyone laughs at dark humor so you are entitled to your distaste. This was something along the lines of "A Modest Proposal." A lot of folks mistakenly thought that Swift was actually being truthful. Then again, a lot of people thought Gulliver's Travels was a factual account as well.


To clarify because some didn't get the sarcasm, it would absolutely ridiculous to say babies should be "abortable" up until birth. My real opinion is that once a baby reaches the point where it could actually be delivered (prematurely) and survive, it should only be legal to abort it under these circumstances:

1) It is dead or dieing anyway
2) It is risking the life of the mother

 

[jrkarp]

I didn't really find your humor funny, so I chose to ignore it. For those unfamiliar with A Modest Proposal, here's a little info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

As for the other argument, I saw that you were being sarcastic, particularly when you mentioned aborting already born children (which I would call retroactive abortion). I just love to argue.

/karp

 

[CDB]

It's an interesting issue. For me it always comes down to self sovereingty. Not just for women, but for anyone their body is their property and they are the final word on wha goes on in there, whether it's to carry a baby to term, to use recreational drugs, to get implants, to use steroids, whatever. The issue of abortion is more charged because it's very arguable that an innocent life is about to be harmed by the actions of another. It really comes down to whether or not a woman should have the option to essentially evict the fetus from her body even if it means certain death for the fetus. Some people are hardcore property rights people who would say yes, some are more swayed by the moral, ethical and legal problems they see in the situation because, whether the mother has the right or not is basically contingent on whether or not her exercising that right will adversly affect someone else's right to do the same. To put it another way, suppose the kid 'wants' to live and we just have no way of asking him. It all hinges on the legal status of the fetus it seems. Personally I find abortion disgusting, especially late term abortions, but I wouldn't interfere with most current laws as they seem to strike a happy medium between both points of view: choice to a reasonable point.