Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
I am so embarrassed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 299627" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Heather, if you want the scientific arguments, let me know.</p><p></p><p>But in brief - humans are omnivores. We eat anything, including rubbish. Take her to see the freegans and dumpster divers if she doesn't believe you...</p><p></p><p>But seriously, humans don't have a caecum like herbivores do. Our appendix is the hangover of a caecum. She needs to look at the GI tract of herbivores. A rabbit caecum is at least 6" long (compared to the size of a rabbit). A horse caecum is feet long. The caecum is where symbiotic bacteria live, needed to help digest cellulose. Herbivores have to eat a great deal more in order to get enough calories. herbivores also are not terribly intelligent. They don't need to be as intelligent as a carnivore - a hunter has to have brains. How smart do you have to be, to outwit a blade of grass?</p><p></p><p>As for drugs being tested on animals - yes, a lot of them are. But far more of them go straight to human testing. Do I ever hear PETA protesting about that? Apparently to PETA, humans ae less important...</p><p></p><p>But these days increasingly, drugs are being manufactured via bacteria and we're getting drugs which can be the same human hormone, for example, produced via genetic engineering. Insulin, for example, used to be extracted from pancreases of dead animals. Pigs, from memory. Again, who protested? Because before insulin, diabetic kids died eventually, but suffered a great deal beforehand. It was horrible. I remember when human insulin came in - they took the human gene that produces insulin, and inserted it into a bacterium, then cultured the bugs until they had vats full of them, all pumping out human insulin in bulk. So much better to take. And because it's a human hormone, no need to test it.</p><p></p><p>The testing of medications is nowhere near as nasty as the testing of cosmetics. At least there is sound science in testing medication. Sometimes there is in cosmetics, but mostly it's people who have less of a good idea of how to do decdent research, just doing it by the numbers.</p><p></p><p>Research has improved vastly in recent decades. Ethics Committees now MUST include members of the public, ordinary folks like you and me to be the conscience of te team. It is easy for scientists to get caught up in the enthusiasm of "Wow! Look what I just found!" and we need the healthy shock-horror of the average person to pull on the labcoat sleeves and saw, "Hold on a minute, mate - think about this for a sec."</p><p></p><p>If she is so concerned, she should inform herself fully and work towards getting herself onto an Ethics Committee, so she can actually put her views to some good purpose, instead of simply driving other people nuts.</p><p></p><p>Kids her age see things in black and white. I was just talking over the phone to difficult child 1 a few minutes ago and he is still at this stage. I wanted to reach down the phone line and bang his heads together, except he only has one. Not that he really was doing/saying anything wrong other than, "I have a date for my court hearing. And I am confident I will win, because God is on my side. I am doingthis for thew eright reason, the oter party is doing it out of greed."</p><p>No, son, the other party is doing it because they believe you owe them money. It is up to the court to decide. And the other party's church could be praying just as hard for THEM. NEVER ASSUME!</p><p></p><p>Crikey, our kids can be frustrating...</p><p></p><p>You're right to use humour to cope. If we didn't laugh, we'd throttle someone. Cheerfully.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 299627, member: 1991"] Heather, if you want the scientific arguments, let me know. But in brief - humans are omnivores. We eat anything, including rubbish. Take her to see the freegans and dumpster divers if she doesn't believe you... But seriously, humans don't have a caecum like herbivores do. Our appendix is the hangover of a caecum. She needs to look at the GI tract of herbivores. A rabbit caecum is at least 6" long (compared to the size of a rabbit). A horse caecum is feet long. The caecum is where symbiotic bacteria live, needed to help digest cellulose. Herbivores have to eat a great deal more in order to get enough calories. herbivores also are not terribly intelligent. They don't need to be as intelligent as a carnivore - a hunter has to have brains. How smart do you have to be, to outwit a blade of grass? As for drugs being tested on animals - yes, a lot of them are. But far more of them go straight to human testing. Do I ever hear PETA protesting about that? Apparently to PETA, humans ae less important... But these days increasingly, drugs are being manufactured via bacteria and we're getting drugs which can be the same human hormone, for example, produced via genetic engineering. Insulin, for example, used to be extracted from pancreases of dead animals. Pigs, from memory. Again, who protested? Because before insulin, diabetic kids died eventually, but suffered a great deal beforehand. It was horrible. I remember when human insulin came in - they took the human gene that produces insulin, and inserted it into a bacterium, then cultured the bugs until they had vats full of them, all pumping out human insulin in bulk. So much better to take. And because it's a human hormone, no need to test it. The testing of medications is nowhere near as nasty as the testing of cosmetics. At least there is sound science in testing medication. Sometimes there is in cosmetics, but mostly it's people who have less of a good idea of how to do decdent research, just doing it by the numbers. Research has improved vastly in recent decades. Ethics Committees now MUST include members of the public, ordinary folks like you and me to be the conscience of te team. It is easy for scientists to get caught up in the enthusiasm of "Wow! Look what I just found!" and we need the healthy shock-horror of the average person to pull on the labcoat sleeves and saw, "Hold on a minute, mate - think about this for a sec." If she is so concerned, she should inform herself fully and work towards getting herself onto an Ethics Committee, so she can actually put her views to some good purpose, instead of simply driving other people nuts. Kids her age see things in black and white. I was just talking over the phone to difficult child 1 a few minutes ago and he is still at this stage. I wanted to reach down the phone line and bang his heads together, except he only has one. Not that he really was doing/saying anything wrong other than, "I have a date for my court hearing. And I am confident I will win, because God is on my side. I am doingthis for thew eright reason, the oter party is doing it out of greed." No, son, the other party is doing it because they believe you owe them money. It is up to the court to decide. And the other party's church could be praying just as hard for THEM. NEVER ASSUME! Crikey, our kids can be frustrating... You're right to use humour to cope. If we didn't laugh, we'd throttle someone. Cheerfully. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
I am so embarrassed
Top