I never said, they SHOULD do it, just that I'm not morally opposed to it. I also draw a line between humans and lower species.
I never said, they SHOULD do it, just that I'm not morally opposed to it. I also draw a line between humans and lower species.
I have no problem doing it with humans... humans who are being put to death for horrendous crimes. An animal on the other hand, is completely innocent.
I could 'maybe' see this being done for premed students, but in a high school? That's just unecessary.
oogabooga
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 7,807
- 3
- 81
Dissectoin of living animals isn't as prudent an education tool as it was x years ago. you would figure that they'd have an alternative means to do this. in Bio AP when i was in high school (it feels wierd saying that) we were shown a video of a live frog being cut into to demonstrate the power of his heart,etcetc. We dissected worms that were already dead etc. I just think that there are other ways now to get the point accross that don't involve direct interaction.
I don't think a dog is a person so equating it to death row inmates or whatnot right away is a far fetched. But it does make you wonder where it would stop? would we do it to dolphins? apes? etc? Would human eventually be that far off in the name of 'education'?
I don't think a dog is a person so equating it to death row inmates or whatnot right away is a far fetched. But it does make you wonder where it would stop? would we do it to dolphins? apes? etc? Would human eventually be that far off in the name of 'education'?
I agree it was unecessary, but not that it was immoral. By the way, there's no such thing as an "innocent" animal or a "guilty" animal: they're just animals. That's the dividing lines between animals and humans.
Note: I don't advocate this on humans.
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
Your argument employs usage of the fallacy of a slippery slope. Just because other things may happen does not make this item wrong. Judge it based on what it is.
May happen? It has happened.
There are scientists, even today, that would probably love this to be an accepted practice on human beings.
Sedating something is easy. Sedating them so that they wake up afterward is pretty difficult. That's why anesthesiologists are paid so much. The euthanisia was probably performed by giving it too much anesthesia which takes some time to occur, which is probably when the disection was performed.
Comparing a dog is is going to be killed, and a human with AIDs is a dumb comparison. The human will die, but not on purpose, and not tomorrow. The dog is going to be killed no matter what, so why not get some educational use out of it. I personally would opt out of that section of the class, and not watch it, but I wouldn't protest it.
BTW: In my HS we had a live frog, which the teacher gave a frontal labotomy too, then she cut it open in front of us so we could see the hear/lungs/organs working.
BTW: In my HS we had a live frog, which the teacher gave a frontal labotomy too, then she cut it open in front of us so we could see the hear/lungs/organs working.
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
So, because a handful of sick scientists might want to do similar experiments on humans, it makes it wrong to do it on a dog. Bad analogy.
But see, most of us can understand the distinction between humans & animals, so that just isn't going to happen.
I never said it doesn't make them suffer, or feel pain. I think you're an evil person if you needlessly torture an animal. However, if you have a decent reason, and the pain is a side effect, why is it bad?
Yes, so can I.
But I fail to see why and how, if this is for the sake of science, you feel it is that much different between a person that will die (100% absolutely) that will feel absolutely no pain, and an animal in the same position.
If it's for the sake of science, why should the distinction matter?
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
You seem to be implying that you think it's very similar. So you are saying that it's the *same* thing to dissect a live dog and a live person? If so, you are seriously messed up.
I think people's religion gets into this debate because in Christianity, there is a distinct difference between a human and an animal. I'm not religious, and in my mind there isn't much of a distinction. Yes, a human is a differenct species than an ape, a dolphin, or a frog. But we are still technically animals, there's nothing in the classification of the animal kingdom that makes humans special. We're just a highly evolved form of primate.
There are also a lot of people that I'd rather euthanise than a dog.
There are also a lot of people that I'd rather euthanise than a dog.
All I have to say is that you can't compare animals to humans. Does that mean they should be killed or harmed unnecessarily? No. But I don't think it's wrong for medical testing or for educational purposes, but maybe it's not appropriate for elementary school.
why, when i can get the intellectual juggernaut that is atot to point out the details for me? not like a care all that much what they do out in utah.
if the teacher and school thinks its a valid exercise, and the parents were notified before hand, i dont see the problem. they dont like it, opt the kid out.
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
People are quite far removed from animals. Even assuming evolution, the fact that people are able to have a state of conscious being is enough to seperate us from animals by a great amount.
I didn't read the article, but I want to weigh in with my uneducated opinion anyway.
1. This would have been acceptable back when there was a chance of someone actually learning something new from it. Like in 1860. Of course, they wouldn't have bothered with anaesthesia then, but still - we've progressed, haven't we?
2. The primary shock is the setting. I would have no problem believing this happens to tens of thousands of animals annualy in government or private labs. That doesn't mean I like it, but the fact of the matter is that when weighed out in a relative fashion, this really doesn't deserve any more attention than someone wearing a fur coat.
3. Morally, I think that the primary crime is split between the intent of killing the animal, and the fact that the purpose is spectacle.
[*]If you want to sedate and totally dismantle a dog, I think you have an obligation to try and put him back together when you are done, regardless of the probablility of success. At least then, you are learning a generative process. There is little skill, little art and little practical use in destroying things.
1. This would have been acceptable back when there was a chance of someone actually learning something new from it. Like in 1860. Of course, they wouldn't have bothered with anaesthesia then, but still - we've progressed, haven't we?
2. The primary shock is the setting. I would have no problem believing this happens to tens of thousands of animals annualy in government or private labs. That doesn't mean I like it, but the fact of the matter is that when weighed out in a relative fashion, this really doesn't deserve any more attention than someone wearing a fur coat.
3. Morally, I think that the primary crime is split between the intent of killing the animal, and the fact that the purpose is spectacle.
[*]If you want to sedate and totally dismantle a dog, I think you have an obligation to try and put him back together when you are done, regardless of the probablility of success. At least then, you are learning a generative process. There is little skill, little art and little practical use in destroying things.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter