Pro-Test for Science (formerly UCLA Pro-Test) are coordinating a gathering of like minded people this Saturday on the edge of the UCLA campus. Building on previous successes they aim to address many of the spurious claims made by animal rights activists. Speaking of Research urge anyone in the area to go and support them in this endeavour.
Press release below:
Members of the UCLA Community to Gather to Endorse the Value and Humane Nature of Biomedical Research involving Animals
On October 24, 2009 at 5 PM, members of the UCLA and Los Angeles communities will gather on the UCLA campus to show their strong support for humane, regulated biomedical research, including that involving laboratory animals, and to directly rebut the increasingly misleading claims made by animal rights activists and extremists regarding the crucial work being undertaken on our campus. The event is coordinated by Pro-Test for Science, a group founded at UCLA, whose mission includes supporting the regulated use of animals in research and assisting researchers who are harassed for their work. Professors David Jentsch and Dario Ringach, themselves targets of animal rights extremists, will be on hand to set the record straight about the exceptional benefits to human and animal welfare that stem from research at UCLA and to address pernicious mistruths about the conduct of researchers and research on our campus.
At the same time, a group of anti-animal research activists and extremists is expected to congregate nearby. False claims by anti-animal research groups about UCLA research have led to costly investigations by the National Institutes of Health and US Department of Agriculture, conducted at taxpayer expense, that have found the campus was conducting research appropriately and humanely. Nevertheless, these groups continue to spread lies in order to disrupt crucial research. On the evening of October 24, their continuing lies and deceptions will not go un-answered.
Saturday, October 24 2009; 5-8 PM
UCLA Campus – Northwest Corner of Le Conte and Westwood Blvd.
Media contacts to David Jentsch or Dario Ringach at pro.test.for.science@gmail.com (or at 310-825-8258).
Speaking of Research 
Um, because they’re not humans. Where do you draw the line on animal rights? Would it be illegal in your world for me to exterminate termites in my home? What about a wasps nest in my garage? If I build a house and displace a family of groundhogs or kill them in the process am I a held liable for their deaths? If I get mice in my house can I but out bait to get rid of them or am I just stuck living with them?
So long as the animal rights groups continue to condone violence, in my opinion, they don’t deserve to be listened to. Many people I know have had enough of those antics and are finally willing to stand up and say, “Enough!”
So is it women or African Americans that are “nonhuman” here Will? Both?
My comment below was meant for Will, not you. After posting I realized someone might think I was saying African Americans aren’t human. I wanted to clarify that before my posting ends up on some lunatic animal rights web site.
Jack –
You can ask that question about human rights too…who says women have rights…what if I disagree? Of course, you can disagree. You can disagree with any proposition one puts forward. But your inclination to disagree does not change the fact of the matter.
This doesn’t just have to be about rights – you could disagree with any moral claim. Who says torturing babies for fun is wrong? Well, what if I disagree and think that it is fine…who are you to tell me otherwise.
Assuming that you think humans have rights in some sense – it would be incumbent on you to differentiate humans and nonhumans in a morally relevant (non-arbitrary) way. What makes the case of humans different than the case of nonhumans?
Who decided what moral rights are? Who’s definition are we going by? What if I disagree that animals have moral rights? Who are you to say I’m wrong?
Jack –
The decision to grant legal rights to African-Americans and women was decided by a vote.
The decision to grant legal rights is distinct from whether that individual has moral rights or not.
Moral rights are not something that can be granted; they can only be recognized or ignored. There existence does not depend on what anyone thinks.
Actually the rights of African-Americans were decided by a vote seeing as the 13th Amendment had to be ratified by a vote within the states. the 15th Amendment too was put before a vote as was the 19th. So technically speaking, both women and African Americans were ONLY granted rights after voting. At least here in the US, no idea where you’re from though.
Agreed – there is no logical reason animals should have rights based on their lack of understanding of the concept.
Again – you act like the rights of animals are subject to a vote.
They are no more subject to a vote than are the rights of women, African-Americans, or anyone else for that matter.
I heard you outnumbered the anti-vivs 2 to 1 on Saturday, nice work!