Well said.

Artificial valves that don't come from nonhuman animals are more effective and last much longer. That's from the logic POV, it just so happens to support the AR one, too :-)

Actually, there was no assumption made in my comment, as I was merely stating a fact (pig-valves are used in weakened human hearts to great effect) and asking for your thoughts on the matter without any judgement, implied or explicit. 

I was going off the tone of the above articles, which seem to report that without exception, experimentation is done without any real end in mind. While I agree that many university-level projects are disgusting money-makers and resume boosters for people without an interest in furthering real, beneficial science, I am offering an example wherein a specific goal was set and reached, and in which there was undoubtedly an amount of suffering that alleviated another being's suffering. Do you feel that there is any value in that?

Anyway, I'll take what you say to mean the following:

Using any species (other than humans) for the good of (another species) is immoral, arrogant, and ignorant and should not be done under any circumstance, including to save the lives of members of another species.

I'd point out that the "Might is Right" argument is precisely what is used in defense of animals and their rights. Because of the specific food-chain heirarchy, our civilization is coming to realize a responsibility of stewardship over those who cannot defend themselves. Our 'might' to defend all 'rights,' if you will. It is a two-sided argument, with defenses based in religion and in modern secularism. This does not invite anarchy, but rather calls for compassion for those 'second-class citizens' and for the weak, elderly, infirm, impressionable, or otherwise presented with opportunitites that are not given by birth of modernity to healthy homo-sapien males of European descent. Science is growing and acknowledging these things as society advances.

If a human consents to give another human a needed kidney, no one questions that. Both beings indeed feel pain through the process, but wind up healthy and functional in the end. But if a viable kidney is not available from a human, and is instead taken by force from an unconsenting ape, say, and both beings feel pain, but wind up healthy and functional in the end, the ethical concern is over the nonconsent of the ape. However, if the human were to die without that kidney, given without consent, the ethical concern is to whom compassion should be allowed. Is the infirm human less pitiable, because of his supposed place on the food chain (now lost because of his illness) than the unconsenting but healthy ape? If they are to be treated with equality, as the animal rights position is, how can it be justifiable that the human is left to die painfully, when a viable non-fatal solution is available from the ape?

It is not a black-and-white argument, as your comment seems to indicate. Given scientific and moral advances in society, we've discovered a lot of gray between right and wrong.

I do agree that your original question was misconstrued here, Sarah, but I do also agree with what you assumed to be the answer: that, yes, animal rights advocates would take the position that it's inherently unethical to use, inflict suffering on, and kill an animal even when the benefit to humans is clear.

With regard to your ape-kidney scenario--would it be acceptable and ethical to force a human whose cognitive abilities match that of a nonhuman primate's or a pig's to supply a kidney without consent? A person living in a nursing home? A noncommunicative person? A person in a coma? If it would not be acceptable to force these individuals into an inherently risky surgery for the benefit of someone else--if it would not be acceptable to treat them as merely organ resources--then why would it be acceptable to treat nonhumans whose abilities, personalities, capacity for suffering, and self-awareness are equal to, or in some cases even greater than, these individuals'?

If we were truly treating humans and apes "with equality," as you say, and we felt like we had a right and duty to take an organ from a fellow animal without that animal's consent, our solution wouldn't be to take one from a nonhuman ape--it would be to take one from a fellow human, someone who would be a far more exact match.

In this hypothetical, if forcibly taking an organ from a disadvantaged human wouldn't be acceptable, forcibly taking one from a nonhuman wouldn't be ethical either.

Stephanie/Cerberus - just so we're clear: if an organ from an animal (heart valve/kidney/whatever) were the only thing that was capable of saving your life, you would turn it down?

@R.L: I can't speak for anyone else, but let me ask you a question: if the only thing that could save your life was a black market kidney (illegally obtained by force), would you choose to take it? I think a lot of people would - and that would be an organ from a human animal, obtained by force, without permission.

What you (R.L) may not be understanding is that many members of the AR community truly do see non-human animals in a very different way from the way other humans do. I have undergone a Gestalt shift in my views on non-human animals. It's hard to understand for many people, but suffice to say, I would feel the same about taking a kidney from a non-human animal as I would about taking the black market kidney obtained by force from a human animal. Would I do it in either case? I doubt it, but I don't know. I would like to say no, but I hope I'll never, ever reach that point. 

Yes, taking an organ from a human match would be the (obvious) best solution.

However, you wouldn't use an organ from an elderly person in a nursing home on an infant, nor would you use one from anyone with the potential to eventually communicate their consent or nonconsent (the person in a coma). You want as close a match as possible. For example: If an human infant is dying and there is no immediately matchable human organ to help him/her, the case is in fact that the infant has no more the capacity to accept the tissue than does the animal that gives it.

Better than R.L.'s question (because it speaks to our ability as humans to assist/defend those who cannot do so for themselves, and how we prioritize life):

If your child was dying, and the only thing capable of saving his/her life was tissue from an animal, how would that effect your decision?

This and another thread both today are fast becoming tangential "gotcha" threads where non-AR folks keep trying to present new hypothetical scenarios to challenge or "catch" AR advocates. I ask that we try to find a way to return to the specific issues presented in this post or end the subthread. And please remember that regardless of the direction some took this thread, the reality is that most animal research/use does not have the clear (or in many cases any) potential to reliably help humans.

This is not a forum for discussion of vivisection in general, but there are indeed websites with such forums out there, and they would be the appropriate place to have this conversation.

For the record, Sarah, I wasn't referring to the elderly in nursing homes. I was referring to those with permanent or irreversible disabilities or impairments--as I said, people who may have the same or even less cognitive abilities than the animals you propose we forcibly take organs from. Neither situation is ethical.

Sorry, don't mind me, I was just curious.

No need for apologies, from anyone. I just wanted to redirect this before it went any further. Thanks for understanding.

Xenotransplantation should also be addressed as something that NEVER works from nonhuman animal to human. EVERYONE that has had a xenotransplanted organ has died. Some scientists will claim a success on one or two because the person lived 72 hours after the transplant.

On top of that, xenotransplantation opens the door for extreme disease and bacteria mutations across species (you know, like how aids came about). There are things in a pig's bloodstream that are toxic to humans and vice versa.

Xenotransplantation is not the answer and never will be. Organ donation, prevention, and so on are the solutions.

Sarah,

Your use of "might-makes-right" isn't intelligible.

The concept is derived from the proposition that the ability to do something -- or "can" -- determines the ought -- or "right." Your use of it merely illuminates how the "can" is useful for implementing the ought; however, the ought or "right" doesn't follow from the ability to do something, it is independently determined.  

Sarah and R.L.,

Your questions are quite beside the point. Whatever I would do under X and Y extreme circumstances doesn't answer the question: Is the argument for "animal rights" valid?

My biased or personal-oriented decision in the matter of killing ten strangers to save my mother, for example, or killing ten strangers to save my beloved dog, doesn't negate nor prove the argument for "animal rights" (or for "human rights"). It simply gets at some flaw (perhaps?) of my own.

In the end, these are definitionally "gotcha questions" that are without any real reasoned merit.  

Please let this go--on both sides--so that it doesn't spiral out of control, as we all know it easily could. I can't ask one participant or set of participants in a tangential thread to stop posting if the other side is going to keep responding. I definitely appreciate the points that have been made since I made the request, particularly about xenotransplantation, but I'd still like to repeat the request at this point.

I'm not going to argue any further, I'm sick of the conversation myself. I want to thank you all for your responses to my initial query, particularly Jen and Stephanie.

I am not trying to 'get' anyone to rescind their  fundamental beliefs, only to question them, because I believe it is a challenging and useful exercise to fully examine all the implications of these very strongly held worldviews. Bringing the process out into this forum can help others really understand where it all comes from and perhaps encourage them to see that AR Advocates aren't the 'nutjobs' they are frequently accused of being.

Neither do I consider myself one of these "non-AR folk." I may fall more in the animal welfare camp for now, but that's why I (and many others) read this blog and participate in the conversation. We are examining our own perspectives and those of similar (if not exactly the same) ilk, to find weaknesses and strengths in both and to reconcile our (sometimes admittedly implausible) ideas with reality.

Thanks for allowing our participation.