I moved no ‘goal post’, you brought up the medical side and seemed very confident that no one has a problem with the use of animals for medical reasons, which I have disproven’

Well I’d hope your pets and guide dogs aren’t bred and slaughtered for their organs

I said no one has a problem with the use of animals for medical reasons? :suspect: Quote where I said that please. What I said was :


In response to you saying that using a pigs heart to save a mans life will have the same stigma to killing animals for fashion (see your post below)

Here
You claim there will ‘definitely’ be (no stigma) against using animals for ‘medical reasons’

In other words

No one will have a problem against using animals for medical reasons
Or
Everyone will be fine with using animals for medical purposes 100%

I’m sorry if English isn’t your first language., stigma is not a common word..

https://i.redd.it/tcc6ekfcq5l01.jpg

yeah english is not neems native tongue :laugh:

Less of your cheek tyvm.

No no no sir, I don't want "in other words" or you deciding what I said, I want you to show me with my own words where I said "No one will have a problem with" or "Everyone will be 100% OK with"....... I said no such things. What I said was there will definitely not be THE SAME stigma attached to using animals for medical or life saving purposes as there is to using animals for fashion reasons.

PS Stigma is a pretty common word

I'll have to start speaking as Gaeilge in future then :laugh:

dont as the forum would run out of letters by june

I love animals, but if a pigs organ could have saved my mum, I’d have gone and caught one and taken it to the slaughterhouse myself, moral objections be damned

You’re the one that needs a heart, heartless

Incorrect, the word stigma implies disapproval from a significant number of people in a group or society. Disapproval from a small group (say, animal rights activists) is not a “stigma”.

There is a stigma to wearing furs these days because a large percentage of people are against it (perhaps the majority). Interestingly, the same doesn’t apply to leather :think:.

So it’s not going to apply to heart transplants.

The banning of animal testing refers to PRODUCTS, by the way. Make up, etc.

We still do medical research on animals.

Sorry to be the one to break the news.

Is it because leather is made from cows that have already been killed for meat where as animals that are killed and/or bred for their fur are usually traditionally wild animals and are only used for their fur?

**That's a guess I'm not 100% sure where or how they make leather but assume it's from cow hide

Parmy I cant reply as your inbox is full so i am replying here:


No i dont think they do that implant from Donkeys yet so dont bother calling 111

Bumping this after this has emerged

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60010155

The man receiving this heart STABBED a 22 year old multiple times leaving him paralysed for life
He died in 2007 as a result of complications from the stabbing

This was all because ‘his wife sat on the mans lap’

No wonder his body hasn’t rejected the heart, hes already a pig…

I don't honestly know how I feel about this.

I'm all for advancing in medical and surgical matters.
However I would agree with Kazanne on this.

doctors look for most medically suitable candidates, they arent interested in criminal past, and thats how it should be

USA: Man gets genetically-modified pig heart
 

Told you; we still do medical research on animals.

Ok, we let murderers live healthy lives whilst we mass slaughter pigs for them

It seems statistically unlikely that ALL of the genetically modified pig hearts will go to murderers. I mean... it's possible... but unlikely.

Think outside the box mate. Murder isn’t the only crime.