Quote Originally Posted by Hawkmom View Post
Several of our scientists would visit the picket lines and discuss with them several points. The best was this: "Would YOU -- Animal Rights Activist, REFUSE medical treatments because they were tested on animals?". Reminding the ARA activist that EVERYTHING we use medically has been tested on animals.

That is the best line I've heard to counteract their arguments, for they had no answer.

I would use this brilliant point and I add this when I confront them: "I certainly hope so, Then you would not be a political issue, because you would be DEAD!!!"
Kitty,

Several of them, including Ingrid, have publicly claimed that they would (and do) refuse to use any medical treatment derived from animals.

However, when the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, they either creatively define what "derived from animals" means (by refusing to acknowledge that advanced lab work done without animal models was invariably built off of research that used animals) or they turn full blown hypocrite with some logic like "The animals need me to fight for them, so their 'sacrifice' is noble and worth while". Linda McCarty was a noted example - she desperately reached for everything on the shelf when she was fighting cancer despite decades of fighting against medical research.

While I oppose everything they stand for, I do concede that it is a good thing that the ethics of how animals have been used for research (or in the food farms) is under scrutiny. It disgusts me that animals are frequently treated as inanimate objects by those who profit from them or use them.