This kind of behavior bears a strong resemblance to that of the zealots who have made it their passion to terrorize abortion clinics, doesn't it?

Ma'am; I am sure there are people far more able than myself who have noted that where animals are abused, people are abused as well. Can we justify the level of cruelty to animals on the basis of medical advancements unevenly shared, for profit, and meant to prolong life beyond every sense of meaning or purpose? What did we do before we had the health care industry? What did we do before we had the health industry justifying huge profits, and good health as a commodity. This society has it all backwards. We should not encourage poor health, and profitize health care. We should pay people to stay well and keep fit, and face their futures, their deaths, or their diseases with courage. There is no substitute for humans behaving humanely toward each other and to the animals under our charge. I support individuals expressing their outrage at inhumanity, because those people, even behaving as fascists, have the betterment of humanity as their cause. We have too much medicine and not enough health, and more technology is not the cure we need; but more common sense.... Thanks... Sweeney

Mr. Sweeney: "pay people to stay healthy?" Please give details. a) pay whom, b) how much, c) from whose pocket? And what are the recipients to do with the money? <> To answer your question: before we had modern healthcare, we got sick more, and we died younger. Think polio, small pox, rheumatic fever, typhoid, tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, mumps, measles (rubela), to name a few. We may have survived some of those, but often at great cost: male fertility with mumps after puberty, and birth defects with rubela during pregnancy. <> BTW, animal testing is mandated by law. To comply with FDA regulations, all new drugs and surgical procedures have to be tested on animals before they can be used on humans.

Re: davd w pennington. If you took every cent of taxes earned from cigarettes, and gave it to people who did not smoke; do you think people would ever start to quit? I'm 55, a little over weight, active, and about as beat up as any retired ironworker can be. I have had bad Asthma for most of twenty years, though out of the dust and smoke, heat and cold I need little medication. The thing is that for capital, we all live these short miserable lives full of worry from one end to the next, always wishing for vacation, or payday, or retirement, and finally we wish for sudden death so that a doctor or a hospital won't own our life's savings. Do we live longer. Sure; but how long would we live if we were not harried, or if we got medical care when we most needed it, in youth? We suffer from less communicable diseases, and from more insect borne diseases, chemical diseases, or public health failures like Mad Cow, or food poisoning. Now; I am glad you mentioned Polio. I learned to become a beast of burden for a brother with polio. I know that far more was spent treating polio than was ever spent seeking a vaccine. The same is true of many genetically spread illnesses, or even aides. We treat it and it spreads, or we do not treat it at all, and it spreds. People with aides are living longer. Aides as a disease continues to grow. People with diabetes live longer with treatment, and have more children on average, so the disease grows. We do not have a rational approach to the problem, one that would encourage less risky behavior, more responsible behavior, and a life long relationship between employers and employees that would help to encourage a safe work place ethic. There are some diseases we should treat with kindness and intelligence, and not with heroics, or drugs. In any event, much of what is tested on animals does not need testing, but does need a good reason to be marketed. Come on! Make-up on rabbit eyes? Why don't you just admit that not one part of the chemistry we deal with and that our bodies are subjected to have ever been tested for anything. We are a nation of test subjects, and the objection to vivisection, and animal testing ultimately has a human purpose. We are no less abused for profit than are animals. Ask my aching back for a testimonial. Thanks; ...Sweeney

Re: Masako; You can pick and choose your type of fascist if you want; and we have lots. What most people are missing, I think is obvious. By the time people have begun to resort to violence, which, at its extremes might be considered a form of communication; it is not the time for more violence, and less talk, but more talk, real talk, exchanges of meaning. and visions of ultimate truth. I don't like what the fascists do; but I don't blame one of them if it is the only way they will be heard. I don't think abortion is a crime. Surely, to some it is a sin. Can that single moral question be raised and all the rest left lying? I don't think so. I have the heart and soul of a moralist. And everything is a potential moral question. And the answer is not to just deprive some women of their rights within their bodies. It does not make the moral environment one bit more sane, or clean. The thing no one should do is expect that when some are so put out of society that they take the law into their own hands, that everything is just Okay. It isn't Okay. It is time for all of us to start talking, and not this verbal bomb throwing of these so called journalists; but real conversations, about the role of government, and whether anyone should have to endure the sight of an obvious immorality under their noses. Abortion, or animal cruelty have this in common. Each might be injustices in their own right, along with their reactions; but they are a part of a whole climate of injustice that we each endure and often benefit from that ends up in abortions and animal cruelty and violence. We need to talk about what we expect form our government, our society, and from our neighbors. We have to agree that all that is sin is not necessarily a crime; but also to agree that no government of all the people can take taxes from each, and do with them what some find morally offensive. The Object of government is good; and not by the scenic route, but straightaway; if you believe Aristotle. Our goverment supports too much immorality to ever be counted on for justice. It is done, and time will not save it. Thanks, and best wishes... Sweeney

Sweeney: Thanks for your lengthy reply. Check back in a day or so. I need to give some thought to what you've said, before I respond. <> I'm sorry about your back. Some careers really take a physical toll. I've a bad back, too, but I got mine genetically. <> All the best. David

Sweeney: Responding to just one of your points. Let's suppose, taking the "animal cruelty" issue, that we have the following sequence of events. a) the FDA calls for a moratorium on all animal testing; b) the FDA organizes a series of conferences to discuss animal testing issues, inviting all interested parties to the table; c) at the conclusion of the conferences, and a complete review of all relevant material, an overwhelming majority of all conference participants, except for the "animal rights" groups, reaches a consensus that animal research has been of enormous benefit to humanity, and that it should continue, d) the FDA ends the moratorium on animal testing. OK, what then? Can the majority of us then reasonably expect that the "animal rights" groups will abide by the decision and cease their terrorist violence? The only alternative I can see, is that the peaceful majority would allow itself to be ruled by the wishes of a violent minority. <> All the best. David

I do think it's time to move past cruel animal tests and find humane ways to test medicines and procedures. I think there has to be a way to save human lives without killing innocent animals in the process.

The one other point of the original post I took issue to is the idea that rejecting Darwinism is anti-science. It's definately not. A person can accept science and still realize this theory has been proven wrong again and again and that science doesn't actually support it. That's why I also say it's time we who have doubts about Darwinism speak up and refuse to be quiet until people stop calling us anti-science and ignorant.

Re one of the repliers points: unfortunately the extremists have caused more problems for the prolife movement than progress. Most of us realize that using bombs and violence will get us nowhere. But a person is *not* a 'zealot' for caring about the rights of unborn children and wanting society to quit living in the dark ages about the fact that human beings are human beings, reguardless of their stage of conception. Please don't infer insulting things about all of us from a few extremists.

I do think it's time to move past cruel animal tests and find humane ways to test medicines and procedures. I think there has to be a way to save human lives without killing innocent animals in the process. The main objection I have is that time and again drugs have been thought safe after animal tests only to go wrong once on the market. Animal bodies are not like ours and should not be used as a litmus test for how something will affect us as humans. I also think we need to have more respect for the fact animals do feel fear and pain and should be free from abuse.

The one other point of the original post I took issue to is the idea that rejecting Darwinism is anti-science. It's definately not. A person can accept science and still realize this theory has been proven wrong again and again and that science doesn't actually support it. That's why I also say it's time we who have doubts about Darwinism speak up and refuse to be quiet until people stop calling us anti-science and ignorant.

Re one of the repliers points: unfortunately the extremists have caused more problems for the prolife movement than progress. Most of us realize that using bombs and violence will get us nowhere. But a person is *not* a 'zealot' for caring about the rights of unborn children and wanting society to quit living in the dark ages about the fact that human beings are human beings, reguardless of their stage of conception. Please don't infer insulting things about all of us from a few extremists.

I do think it's time to move past cruel animal tests and find humane ways to test medicines and procedures. I think there has to be a way to save human lives without killing innocent animals in the process.

The one other point of the original post I took issue to is the idea that rejecting Darwinism is anti-science. It's definately not. A person can accept science and still realize this theory has been proven wrong again and again and that science doesn't actually support it. That's why I also say it's time we who have doubts about Darwinism speak up and refuse to be quiet until people stop calling us anti-science and ignorant. And it's not just a bunch of backwards idiots, it's also scientists, qualified, credentialed, eminent scientsits, who are questioning it.

Re one of the repliers points: unfortunately the extremists have caused more problems for the prolife movement than progress. Most of us realize that using bombs and violence will get us nowhere. But a person is *not* a 'zealot' for caring about the rights of unborn children and wanting society to quit living in the dark ages about the fact that human beings are human beings, reguardless of their stage of conception. Please don't infer insulting things about all of us from a few extremists.

Re: davd w pennington; Sir.... You know, or must know that it is not just about the FDA. It is a whole culture that puts a price tag on every thing imaginable. And if good health is taken for granted and can be counted on there will be a price tag on it. Look at what we once had in abundence: Fresh water, fresh air, and sunshine. Some one or ones have made a buck turning each of these into a commodity. Most large communities measure the amount of solid waste they dump into the nearest river in millions of tons. Does no one think it might be time to quit? We put a premium on world trade, but do not regulate it. We have West Nile Virus, Zebra Mussels, and two sorts of prolific chinese carp that are heading for the great lakes. These are but a fraction of the problems we import, because capital throws off the police, and does as it pleases. Can it begin to clean up the problems it has made? No. And the same is true of illnesses, like West Nile Virus. These problems are loaded onto the public account, and taken off the private account. We imported terrorism to this country. We imported MS 13. We imported a lot of our criminals, a lot of our diseases, and a lot of invasive species. When is the first capitalist who makes a buck making social problems for us going to see the inside of prison? I believe in better living through chemistry, but the extremes of chemical saturation in our bodies is remarkable. Do we need a cure? Well sure, but can we trust the society that made us sick to make us well? I doubt it. And I want to tell you something. There are some smart people in my family. One is a PHD micro biologist. She bought an education instead of a mansion. But when she goes to work she sees she must compete with Indian Nationals working for a fraction of what an American needs to survive and pay their debts. The high profits of drug companies are often bought at the expense of wage slavery that is all the more oppressive because it is happening to our brightest minds during their most creative years. If the flip side is that down river of the drug company the fish are all females, or that chemistry is killing more of us than chemistry can cure; what would be the point? .... Sir; the ideal in a society is not one where industry and commerce are free to make problems they cannot fix. Ultimately such people will calculate the value of each and every one of us like the S.S. did to the Jews. The alternative is not a government more hamstrung, and broken by debt. The alternative is a government acting as the mind of the nation, and helping the nation as the mind helps the body to do what is sensible and right. Today, you are not free, and peta is not free, and I am not free -so that enterprise can be free. In fact, we have economic anarchy. It is not rational decisions on any ones part that are creating larger and larger problems with health, medicine, society and the environment. If the government would do what it says it was established to do, for example, in regard to the general welfare then it would earn its keep. We cannot expect good to come, with so much evidence to the contrary, from every one doing as they damned well please out of a view of self interest. Thanks... Sweeney

Sweeney: I finally got enough time to read through your post and (at least partially) digest it. <> Was my question so hard to answer? <> You have listed a number of difficulties we have, and identified a number of interdependencies, as well. <> I agree that unregulated capitalism gave us 72-hour work weeks, child labor, and the company store, not to mention "what the market will bear" freight rates, seasonally adjusted for the wheat harvest. We are far from anarchy, but still suffer from the short-sighted 90-day time horizon that is common in business. <> However, lofty notions aside, we have a real, practical problem of violence against persons by organized groups who can't "get their way" by legal means. You suggested they need to "have their voice heard". OK, I replied, what if we do that, but they don't like the result? <> To me, they are worse than 'common criminals', because they are more sinister. <> Peace.