1- The topic of the debate shall be whether euthanasia is an acceptable practice when dealing with liberated animals.
2- The participants of the debate shall be "Alex" and "Cheeseburger in Paradise". Posts in this thread by anyone else will be moved to Kibitzer's corner (see link below) or deleted.
3- The scope of the debate shall be limited to animals who are liberated or otherwise rescued.
4- The length of the debate shall be no more than 10 rounds.
5- Statements will be made in turns, beginning with Alex, who is taking the position that it is acceptable to euthanize liberated animals.
6- The maximum length of each statement shall be 200 words.
7- The time between statements shall not be longer than 48 hours
8- References shall be allowed from verifiable official sources and must be available online. Quotes are not allowed.
9- The debate shall begin May 11, 2006, 12-noon, GMT, England.
Robert Anton Wilson said our decisions in life are gambles...bets. I accept the practice of euthanizing liberated animals, because I am betting there are positive results that come out of euthanizing liberated animals.
Note: The word euthanasia was derived from the Greek terms eu meaning "good" and thanatos meaning "death." The killing of animals by use of the captive bolt, guns, electrocution, gas, and other methods likely does not meet the criteria of a "good death." Therefore, when I use the term
euthanasia, I mean a lethal injection administered with Art, Class, and Experience and performed Outdoors under the open sky when possible.
Positive Results of Euthanizing Animals Liberated from Labs:
a) causes the unethical companies economic damage to property (animals),
b) causes economic damage relative to set-backs in the companies' unethical experiments and data,
c) frees the euthanized animals from further torture,
d) frees up time and money to work on influencing mindsets, rather than spend time and money on vet care, sheltering and/or rehoming the animals.
Spending time and money on sheltering, rehoming, and vet care, means spending resources on treating the symptoms of a global problem
(Global Problem = Governments and Constituents Believe Animals "Are Property."").
The best way to solve this problem may be to kindly treat the symptoms of the problem (abundant euthanasia) and to spend the most time and money
1) influencing the mindsets, and
2) not only protesting,
3) not only educating and suggesting alternatives,
4) but learning to accept and contribute to euthanasia funds, and
5) learing to make money to invest large amounts of money in the alternatives (i.e. soy farming, i.e. alternatives to vivisection)
I concede that there are times when (true) euthanasia can be an appropriate choice. This applies only to animals that are suffering and cannot be saved by any other means.
In the context of Animal Rights discussions, euthanasia has also come to mean "putting down" perfectly healthy animals. The reason for this is mostly related to the cost of housing and feeding them.
In many cases, these animals are "rescued" or "liberated" from farming facilities that provide onsite
veterinary care, healthy diets and adequate housing.
Once they are liberated, they are either set loose in the wild, or placed into a shelter or refuge.
In the case of those released into the wild, most are either recaptured or die from stress.
Most of the animals placed into the trusted hands of shelters and refuges are either adopted out or
euthanized. Very few that are not adopted escape death by lethal injection.
It is my position that once an animal is rescued or liberated it should not be subjected to euthanasia except in cases of dire suffering and certain death.
Thank you Mr. Burger for your time. (I'm way over the limit in words here, but I believe I address each person's view who commented, and I ask for your forgiveness and acceptance)
I learned from you, Mr. Burger, that setting liberated animals loose in nature creates uncertain problems for animals. Letting animals loose and hoping they find a good home may be an understandable weakness of humans, bec. we understandably want to avoid dealing with death. At times, most of us have experienced cowardice and idealistic fantasies; this may explain why many people do not want to deal with the 2006 reality of AP, where allocating resources to treating the symptoms of this problem through abundant
euthanasia is a compromise between ignoring the symptoms all together and accepting defeatism.
Imagine below please a piece of pie divided vertically into four sections with the crust up top (insert the following words into the 4 sections, where "symptoms" is the crust and "mindsets" is at the tip):
Crash course in business problem solving including non-profits:
Symptoms = all of the unwanted liberated, tortured, &/or unwanted animals
Causes of the problem = greed, apathy
Root Causes of the problem = lack of incentive. lack of humane education (www.IIHED.org)
Mindsets that cause IT ALL = "animals are not important; they are property; there is no social pressure to care about animals, whether I care about animals or not does not effect my business, so why should I care? oh and by the way, how can I make money off of exploiting animals?" or ignorance (those who would care if they knew the consequences of their actions or lack thereof)
The point of the above diagram is this: if we spend all of our resources on treating the symptoms (animal welfare), we will never win. If we spend zero resources on treating the symptoms, this is very very very tough on us emotionally and on existing tortured animals (physically and emotionally). Abundant euthanasia offers us balance, an in-between.
An ALFmate clued me in to Joan Dunayer, and although her publications appear "fringe" in my view, I respect her passion to encourage us to be brave and ignore entirely all of the babies drowning in the river. What babies you ask?
There are 100 ALFmates picnicing on the river bank. Suddenly we see thousands and thousands of flailing babies floating and drowning down the river. We try to pull them out one by one. They need care. We don't have nearly enough resources. What do we do? We know the hike up river is safe, but we have no walkie talkies, and we don't know what to expect exactly. We suspect there are people up river throwing the babies in the river! How do we allocate resources with so little guarantee? Do we keep working on treating the symptoms aka the welfare projects saving what babies we can OR do we listen to Joan and ignore all the flailing babies and all 100 of us bet on going upstream as being most effective?
Or do we train all 100 of our soldiers to not criticize, to accept failure, to learn to fail forward, to be brave enough to euthanize suffering babies to reallocate resources from welfare to changing mindsets, to forgive ourselves and each other, to be brave enough to ignore or euthanize suffering babies so that others may live. Do all 100 of us learn to learn faster than our opponents and work harder than our opponents, and never point the finger. Do we focus soley on problem solving and learning as fast as possible so that we may beat our opponents? Do we each learn to work 25% on welfare, 25% on root causes, 25% on causes, and 25% treating symptoms? I don't know the anwser to this. I do know that Miss Joan points her finger, and she should not, mainly because she herself is breaking the greatest rule of all!!!! Joan is so fringe it hurts. So when Joan points her finger at welfare projects, she has three fingers pointing back at her!
I maintain my stance that euthanasia is acceptable. I would like to add the disadvantages are risky:
#1) potential for bad press is increased (bad press for AP is a horrible horrible outcome) it's better to be able to say "all of the abused animals are placed in homes, especially foster networks, where the opportunity to influence the mindsets of more voting human families is there." To me, home can mean "euthanasia."
2) increased jail time for liberator(s) for destroying property (animals)
3) in the case of lab animals, new animals may replace the euthanized animals, but this may take years to rebuild a burned down lab or not.