Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing (Transplant)

November 30, 2006

, Paul Russell <prussell wrote:

> You're given the choice of a human heart from,

> say, a Chinese prisoner who can be executed to provide it, or the

> heart of a pig which can be slaughtered to provide a transgenic

> heart. My guess is that most people, even AR people, would go for the

> pig's heart rather than the human heart

Then such people (AR) would not be true to 'their' cause. The obvious

options are:

*Flip a coin to choose between the pig and the human.

*Choose the option of least harm, which would mean choosing the human

heart (allowing a human to live and a pig to die would leave the human

to continue a much more harmful life (99.9% probability) whereas the

pig would more than likely cause hardly any harm at all to the Earth

and its inhabitants.

*Choose neither. Be truly altruistic and die.

November 30, 2006

On 30 Nov 2006, at 03:51, veganseer wrote:

> , Paul Russell <prussell wrote:

>> You're given the choice of a human heart from,

>> say, a Chinese prisoner who can be executed to provide it, or the

>> heart of a pig which can be slaughtered to provide a transgenic

>> heart. My guess is that most people, even AR people, would go for the

>> pig's heart rather than the human heart

>

> Then such people (AR) would not be true to 'their' cause. The obvious

> options are:

>

> *Flip a coin to choose between the pig and the human.

>

> *Choose the option of least harm, which would mean choosing the human

> heart (allowing a human to live and a pig to die would leave the human

> to continue a much more harmful life (99.9% probability) whereas the

> pig would more than likely cause hardly any harm at all to the Earth

> and its inhabitants.

>

> *Choose neither. Be truly altruistic and die.

>

So which of the above options do you think that you would choose ?

Paul

November 30, 2006

, " veganseer " <veganseer wrote:

>

> The obvious options are:

>

> *Flip a coin to choose between the pig and the human.

>

> *Choose the option of least harm, which would mean choosing the human

> heart (allowing a human to live and a pig to die would leave the

human

> to continue a much more harmful life (99.9% probability) whereas the

> pig would more than likely cause hardly any harm at all to the Earth

> and its inhabitants.

>

> *Choose neither. Be truly altruistic and die.

And another option, of course, is to choose the human heart because at

least it's from the same species and so is likely to be more

compatible!

The body may reject the heart anyway (whether from pig or human), so

it's not even absolutely guaranteed to save one's life: what right

does someone have to decree the death of another living being just on

the chance it might save their own life? (Obviously for most people,

the most 'important' person is themself, and so they would choose

themself over another, be it pig or human.)

Personally, although it's a difficult decision, I'd probably say use

the human heart - the criminal may not have committed a bad enough

crime to deserve death, but I'm willing to bet the pig definitely

hasn't! Other than that, it'd be flip a coin. How do you put a value

on a life, and decide which life to save and which to sacrifice?

November 30, 2006

, Paul Russell <prussell wrote:

>

> So which of the above options do you think that you would choose ?

>

> Paul

>

I would not accept a heart from a human or an animal. I would not

accept anything like that.

November 30, 2006

If it's human versus pig, I'd say the human's life was more valuable.

(As although pigs do less harm than humans, they have less potential to

do good.)

If it was ill human v incarcerated human, I'd say bad luck to the ill

human cos if I was incarcerated, I wouldn't be very pleased to hear I

was going to have my heart removed.

But if I was on death row, however, I'd have say have to say fair enough

as I was going to die anyway and it would help someone else live. And if

there was an added incentive (like staying alive for an extra year) then

all the better.

gothcatz wrote:

>

> How do you put a value

> on a life, and decide which life to save and which to sacrifice?

>

December 1, 2006

On 30 Nov 2006, at 22:01, veganseer wrote:

> , Paul Russell <prussell wrote:

>>

>

>>

>> So which of the above options do you think that you would choose ?

>>

>> Paul

>>

>

> I would not accept a heart from a human or an animal. I would not

> accept anything like that.

>

I wonder how many people would really have the courage and the

conviction to die so that a pig might live ?

Paul

December 1, 2006

But my point was, what gives *you* (or anyone else) the right to

decide? Sure, we could all make decisions on who deserves to live

more than another, if we were forced to. But who's to say it would be

the right decision? The decision would be subjective, based on our

own values and what we consider important or worthwhile. Another

person might make a different decision, equally valid, based on

*their* values. Which person is right? Which one is all-knowing and

has the infallible wisdom to make choices of life and death over

another? Or are we all the same, merely human?

, James H <james wrote:

>

> If it's human versus pig, I'd say the human's life was more

valuable.

> (As although pigs do less harm than humans, they have less

potential to

> do good.)

>

> If it was ill human v incarcerated human, I'd say bad luck to the

ill

> human cos if I was incarcerated, I wouldn't be very pleased to hear

I

> was going to have my heart removed.

>

> But if I was on death row, however, I'd have say have to say fair

enough

> as I was going to die anyway and it would help someone else live.

And if

> there was an added incentive (like staying alive for an extra year)

then

> all the better.

>

> gothcatz wrote:

> >

> > How do you put a value

> > on a life, and decide which life to save and which to sacrifice?

December 1, 2006

It seems like all this animal research debate is missing that main

point... Does anyone know of any organisations whose main lobby is to

use humans instead of animals in research?? (I'd happily put some money

behind them.)

gothcatz wrote:

>

> But my point was, what gives *you* (or anyone else) the right to

> decide? Sure, we could all make decisions on who deserves to live

> more than another, if we were forced to. But who's to say it would be

> the right decision? The decision would be subjective, based on our

> own values and what we consider important or worthwhile. Another

> person might make a different decision, equally valid, based on

> *their* values. Which person is right? Which one is all-knowing and

> has the infallible wisdom to make choices of life and death over

> another? Or are we all the same, merely human?

>

> <%40>,

> James H <james wrote:

> >

> > If it's human versus pig, I'd say the human's life was more

> valuable.

> > (As although pigs do less harm than humans, they have less

> potential to

> > do good.)

> >

> > If it was ill human v incarcerated human, I'd say bad luck to the

> ill

> > human cos if I was incarcerated, I wouldn't be very pleased to hear

> I

> > was going to have my heart removed.

> >

> > But if I was on death row, however, I'd have say have to say fair

> enough

> > as I was going to die anyway and it would help someone else live.

> And if

> > there was an added incentive (like staying alive for an extra year)

> then

> > all the better.

> >

> > gothcatz wrote:

> > >

> > > How do you put a value

> > > on a life, and decide which life to save and which to sacrifice?

>

December 1, 2006

I have the right to decide because I can decide, because I'm in the

superior position to decide - just like when I decide to drive my car

around all year killing x amount of flies.

It is a subjective decision, so it's down to the particular person - but

I can't see many people valuing a pig's life over their own.

To add another perspective to the argument, if there were superior

beings to us and they took our lives for their benefit, yes I would

object but I would understand it and, ultimately, would (somewhat

begrudgingly) have to accept it.