Can I stick a needle in your eye?
Cut out your teeth?
Drop you in scalding hot water?
Remove your skin?
Stick you with an electric prod?
Drill a hole in your head?
Infect you with diseases?
Cut off your toes?
Stick a hook in your mouth?
Slit your throat?
Put chemicals in your eyes?
Stomp on your head?
Transport you across country in extreme temperatures?
Shoot you with a bolt gun?
Shove a stick up your rectum?
Dismember you while you’re alive?
Jab you with a bullhook under your neck?
Slam you against a wall?
Beat you over the head with a hammer?
Cram you in a gestation crate?
Kick you in the face when you can’t walk?
Stop you from ever lifting your arms?
Artificially impregnate you the rest of your life?
Force you to sleep in your feces when you’re sick?
Shred you into pieces in a grinder?
Drag you to your death?
Hang you upside down and drain your blood?
Sear off your nose?
Anally electrocute you?
Keep you in a cage your entire life?
Force feed you?
Steal your children?
Keep you from ever turning around?
Make you inhale toxic gases?
Genetically alter you?
Deprive you of contact with anyone?
Let you starve to death?
Shoot you up with steroids?
Abuse you while you scream for mercy?
Deprive you of everything that is natural to you?
Make you suffer?
End your life early?
These inhumane practices are performed routinely on animals used for food, testing, clothing, shows, product development, and experiments. The scientific community agrees that animals feel pain and suffer like humans. They are not impervious to a needle, scalding water, or a blade. If you don’t want these things done to you, you should follow the cardinal rule and not support others doing them to animals. If you didn’t know it happens, now you know. Pretending like you don’t know about it or trying to forget that it happens doesn’t stop it from happening. Please consider making these simple changes in your life.
You don’t need to eat animals to survive.
You don’t need to see animals perform to survive.
You don’t need to buy products made of animals to survive.
You don’t need to buy items tested on animals to survive.
You can change right now.
This isn’t about survival.
It’s about common sense.
It’s about human decency.
It’s about thinking about the impact of your actions.
It’s about showing mercy.
It’s about living a compassionate life.
It’s about animals.
And, it’s about you.
34 thoughts on “How Much Pain Can You Stand?”
*clap clap claping my hands*
Andrew….so glad that you came back to FB. I have missed you over the months. I have missed the profound wisdom that you speak and so happy that you started this blog. My hat is off to you, sir!! There is something very special about you and I know that a lot of people are better off by knowing you!! I know I am!! Take care and never stop fighting for the animals….I won’t!!!
That’s a beautiful thing to say Dee. I am deeply touched and grateful for your support. Thank you for your activism. I know you’re making a big difference.
Thank you – shared.
So very profound and poignant, and excruciatingly true. Thank you…sharing! Love your writings…you’re an incredibly effective activist. So glad to have you back 🙂
Thank you Kathy. I appreciate your support.
Beautifully written, though it pained me to do so. I die a little bit each day knowing the horrors that await for billions of animals, the empathy is not spreading fast enough, more hearts need to be touched. For the record though it is spreading like wild fire around FB, thanks for wrtiting it!
Thank you Mary-Anne. I understand how you feel.
Thanks Andrew! This list sums it up perfectly. Simple and to the point. Have shared this on my own animal advocates page, as it is a valuable tool. Really look forward to your blog and enjoy the honesty and writing style. Please keep it coming.
Thank you Tracey. I appreciate your support, feedback, and advocacy.
Poignant, powerful and beautifully written! Shared on FB too. Keep up the fantastic work Andrew. 🙂 I will never stop signing petitions in regards to animal welfare & rights, ending factory farming & animal experimentation and many other worthy causes around the world! From a passionate & concerned vegetarian, on the way fast to becoming Vegan.
You are just my hero, Andrew!!! Thank you for sharing your kind words of wisdom!!
Thank you Jenny. I appreciate your support.
Thank you for this post!
Thank you for sharing it.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I take issue with this “don’t need to buy items tested on animals”
Human observational studies can only take you so far – in the testing of new possible medical compounds (in which there is no observational data) animal testing must take place before it is deemed safe to test on humans – this is an FDA requirement. Many of the medicines people commonly take today have already been bloodied by already having been tested on animals – a dilemma, isn’t it? To quote Lady Macbeth, “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red.”
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. That is false. Animal testing is unnecessary and has already been replaced in many labs with humane methods. I I encourage you to read about non-animal testing at http://www.pcrm.org/ and http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx
In addition, many of the health ailments people suffer that require these medicines are caused by eating animals and other inappropriate foods. Animals should never have to suffer because of man’s lack of responsibility and bad decision-making. I do not support testing on animals under any circumstances, especially considering the results have been determined non-transferrable time and time again. Human simulators, in vitro, and other cruelty-free options as embraced by many university and other labs are more effective and humane.
I understand that there are alternatives to animal testing – the problem lies with the legal system imposed by the FDA and many other regulatory bodies (this specifically regards pharmaceuticals): under current laws, before human testing for new drug candidates, animal testing must take place.
“At the preclinical stage, the FDA will generally ask, at a minimum, that sponsors: (1) develop a pharmacological profile of the drug; (2) determine the acute toxicity of the drug in at least TWO SPECIES OF ANIMALS…” sourced from the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/InvestigationalNewDrugINDApplication/ucm176522.htm
Toxicity tests by definition require that the animal must be given the drug until it is lethal – to estimate what the lethal dose must be in humans. This requirement is to ensure the safety of participants in human trials.
So no Andrew, this is not false – under current laws, all new medical compounds require testing on animals before clinical trials can begin. This is the ethical dilemma – without animal testing, we are potentially endangering the lives of human participants.
Unfortunately, you have twisted my words to suit your argument. I’m assuming you work in the industry.
I stated in my original piece that we don’t need to buy products tested on animals to survive. The FDA is in bed with the drug industry. Simply because the FDA requires a procedure is not justification for torturing animals.
Further, from a moral standpoint, I don’t support torturing a monkey to save a human, especially when in many cases, the human has brought his or her medical condition upon himself or herself and when it is medically unneccessary given humane testing options.
Sorry if you feel I have twisted your words, that was not my intention.
While the FDA and drug industry are undoubtedly in collusion, the requirement that products must be tested on animals before humans is not for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies – it costs them more time and money. This is a genuine measure to ensure the safety of humans.
Your morality is admirable but also arbitrary – it is your point of view that animals should not be harmed to potentially save human lives – this is not a universal moral code.
You mean to say until we can artificially recreate the human organ system in vitro (which we DEFINITELY do not have the technology for currently, there are still many facets of the human body we are not close to understanding), we should not develop drugs if it means testing on animals? You are favouring the ethical treatment of animals over the safety of humans, which again is an arbitrary ethical distinction.
Finally, indeed many modern medical conditions are the result of poor lifestyle choices, but to say people (in many cases you say, but you apply it almost like a blanket statement) brought it upon themselves is disrespectful. Are you implying people who suffer from Huntington’s disease have only themselves to blame? Familial cancers? In many cases the “poor lifestyle” choices which lead to disease are imposed on people by socio-economic conditions. What you are saying is animals should not be killed even if it means you are potentially saving the lives of these people – I am not disagreeing with your sentiment or morality. I take issue with how you promote this issue as black and white, with good guys and bad guys, when in reality it is a complex conflict of morality and should be handled with due delicacy.
Thank you for your reply Pedro. Yes, you twisted my initial statement by only using a portion of it. I stated that “We don’t need to test products on animals *to survive*.” Your argument is based on regulatory requirements which can be changed. Simply because the government requires testing on animals in some cases to bring a product to market doesn’t justify the testing.
Regarding your second point, I apologize if you misconstrued it. I take responsibility for not being more clear. No, as I said, in *many* cases (definitely not all), health ailments are caused by humans and of course, by the people who work in industry (i.e. factory farmers who inject growth hormones, antibiotics, etc. in animals that people ingest and cause disease or the prevention of disease).
I agree that many illnesses are *not* the fault of humans (i.e. hereditary) or the origins are unknown (i.e. caused by toxins, fracking, pollution, etc.) for which society bears responsibility.
We agree that how people get sick is not black and white. We respectfully disagree on the use of animals to solve the problem. It is a moral and philosophical difference that we may not resolve. Yes, you are correct that I do not support torturing animals to save humans as I would not support torturing humans to save animals. Animals are here to live their lives freely, unfettered by the human hand, not to be subjects in our laboratories. This is not an “arbitrary” decision, it is a moral one.
Ah, but your morality is not universal – to select one subset of morals over the other is by definition an arbitrary distinction. Thank you for your conversation, Andrew – I appreciate that while we disagree, our opinions have been respected. I hope that one day technology perfects an in vitro system for testing drugs without the use of animals, so both our respective interests can be met.
by the way, I am not in the “industry” nor do I intend to be – just a high school student 🙂
We disagree again on the semantics of arbitrary. I don’t consider it arbitrary to support animals’ right to live an unencumbered existence. Humans do not have a right to torture animals to suit their needs. Siding against it is not arbitrary; it is humane and sensible.
You’re very well written for a high school student. I appreciate the discussion as well. I especially appreciate your support for non-animal testing. Hopefully, we will accomplish both objectives soon — improvement and cures for human health and respect for animals.
Have you considered exploring plant-based eating?
I came upon this because the admin. of an FB group that I’m in shared it. I’m very glad she did; as I’m glad to have found your blog.
I thank you for writing this; it’s poignant and powerful, and I think people need to see it. Would it be ok for me to print it, and hand it out? Giving you credit of course.
Thank you very much. Yes, you have permission to print and distribute it.
I appreciate your support.
Thank you very much, Andrew. I appreciate what you do; so thank you for that as well.
Glad to share it !!! Great piece Andrew!
I have to wonder if the people who protest your words have only just read the “words”. I would suggest that Pedro Google “Covance PETA” and there shouldn’t be anything left to argue about..Some things defy description..Even by someone as eloquent as you Andrew.
You said it straight to the point and summed exactly what I’ve been wanting to say but couldn’t put into words. My heart thanks you ❤