SENATE BILL: Animal Protection Act (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the point of a if you're going to include b?

This amendment seems to just repeat a lot of previous legislation, which also happened to be named the Animal Protection Act.

Both provisions are already law. We could repeal section B though.

[Napoleon]

I would appreciate an explanation on why we should support this. Thanks.

[Napoleon]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

[Napoleon]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

[Napoleon]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

That is a good point, before proceeding we should find out how Senator Nix's definition of cruel.  As for examples, how would such a hypothetical drug as the one I described be able to be tested, if not on primates?  I'd be fine with both this and The Primate Protection Act if you could let point out some other ways it could be tested without risking human lives.

you test it on volunteer humans and the like. Keep in mind, our research capabilities allow us to understand what combinations will and will not be lethal, so usually the risks are not that severe, but humans and primates don't always even operate or react the same when being tested with various things. Primate research isn't necessarily our most effective tool and if we can protect the animals, we must.

[Napoleon]

Here is an act that we might want to consider giving federal support to: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=151886.msg3257219#msg3257219

[Napoleon]

And as I haven't provided much of a case for that ban here, I'll see what I can do to convince you on it.

Any thoughts on my proposed definition of "animal," by the way? I'm wondering whether its worth including cephalopods in addition to vertebrates.

I would support that,

[Napoleon]

Compromise shouldn't supersede doing the right thing. I stand in support of the growth hormone ban.

[Napoleon]

I object.

[Napoleon]

Here's an article worth reading, and here is another one. The increased risks of cancer and the harmful effects on infants and children are noted. The EU refuses to accept Atlasian meat because of this, and if we clean up our act we can increase our trade output. Atlasia is still the agricultural capital of the world.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

No one else wants to be able to market our agricultural products overseas? Why not?

[Napoleon]

No one else wants to be able to market our agricultural products overseas? Why not?

Ahem. Can we not even debate a bill anymore?

[Napoleon]

Nay