WASHINGTON, February 25, 2003 ( – The animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has made grants totaling $300,000 to two research firms “to assist in the validation of non-animal test methods to replace existing animal tests,” according to a column by David Kupelian on WorldNetDaily. But only one of the two companies “has denied using human embryos for their testing,” raising the suggestion that PETA, world’s largest animal rights organization, boasting 600,000 members, prefers testing on human beings over animal testing.  PETA’s motive in making the donations, according to Kupelian, is to gain respectability and mainstream itself by showing “corporate citizenship in promoting alternative methods of testing.” The implication is that experimenting with human embryos is more respectable to mainstream researchers than animal testing.  PETA’s position is that it is easier to find consensus on animal rights because abortion rights involve a women’s personal decision. “Okay, let’s get this straight,” Kupelian writes. “No one has the right to tell another person that it’s wrong to kill the living, breathing, pain-feeling human baby living inside its mother. That’s her business alone if she wants to kill it, so butt out.” But animal testing is cruel and unnecessary, so everyone should become a vegetarian.  For the full column see:


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.