Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by nerdponx on Sunday July 04, 2021 @02:22AM
(#27727631)
It's not that at all. The question is whether the cruelty can be justified in service of a greater good, or if it's just plain cruelty to satisfy aimless curiosity.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by goatlover on Sunday July 04, 2021 @02:35AM
(#27727682)
Why would that reasoning apply only to certain animals and not others? If it's okay to be cruel to rats for the service of the greater good, then why not dogs, apes or dolphins? Why not humans? Where and how do you draw the line?
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by throwaway675309 on Sunday July 04, 2021 @03:57PM
(#27732160)
I'm not going to defend this study, but we already have a line between humans and nonhumans, particularly when legally speaking. For example, the sentences handed down for killing another human are far more severe than killing an animal. These lines already exist.
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by cm2187 on Sunday July 04, 2021 @02:51AM
(#27727755)
Well there is a line. I don't think twice using insecticide when confronted to a mosquito.
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by paopoi on Sunday July 04, 2021 @04:30AM
(#27728126)
Killing a mosquito is an act of self preservation, as valid now as it was 10.000 years ago.
Many of us live an existence pretty removed from the threats of the wild, but we we’re not totally detached from the need to “protect” ourselves. :)
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by sploitable on Sunday July 04, 2021 @02:39AM
(#27727702)
The greater good is the slipperiest slope in the history of slippery slopes. Plus, this only "applies" if you are a utilitarian. The same rationale was used by the Nazi Scientists and the Japanese Unit 751 during WWII to justify psychopathically sadistic human experiements on POWs.
Sentient beings do not want to be brutally experimented on. This self-selecting industry of sociopaths belongs in the 19th century.
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by perl4ever on Sunday July 04, 2021 @02:47AM
(#27727741)
>Sentient beings do not want to be brutally experimented on
This is obviously false, because transplanting a uterus to a genetic male was done on a human, voluntarily, long before this experiment.
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by DangitBobby on Sunday July 04, 2021 @03:03AM
(#27727811)
Well, they were capable of consent and consented. I also doubt that they had their circulatory system fused with another female human by surgically splicing them together. I imagine they would have declined if that were the case.
Re:Study That Impregnated Male Rats Stirs Controversy
by perl4ever on Sunday July 04, 2021 @03:38AM
(#27727940)
How her suffering and death (in 1931) compared with the rats is irrelevant to my point which is just about the value of the research to humans.
I can't argue whether someone should be concerned about humans or rats and how much and what experiments are worth it. How you balance one creature's suffering with another. Nobody can or has ever answered that.
I meant to counter the idea that transplanting a uterus has to be without purpose and can only be attributed to idle cruelty.