PETA attempted to respond to an article written by Steven Milloy called, PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research. It seemed that Sadhana Dhruvakumar did a decent job rebutting Milloy’s attacks, until I actually visited PETA’s website – by using the link that was posted.

The basis of PETA’s argument against Milloy is that they have no “official” position on embryonic stem cell research, only that they support adult and fetal (i.e., cord blood) research. However, at the end of their factsheet, PETA states:

“What You Can Do:
The current presidential administration has placed strong limitations on the types of stem cell research that can receive federal funding. Oppose these limitations by writing letters to the administration and to your local representatives. In addition, contact the FDA and the National Institutes of Health and voice your support for non-animal testing methods.”

Now, considering the fact that the current restrictions of which PETA speaks are associated only with embryonic stem cell research, does it not stand to reason that PETA is here saying that they are – and want their supporters to be – in favor of embryonic stem cell research? Additionally, when PETA encourages supporters to “contact the FDA and the National Institutes of Health and voice your support for non-animal testing methods,” does it not seem that they are stating that their support for stem cell research – of all sorts – is because they are looking for ways to save animals (over people)?

Nice try, Dhruvakumar, but the same ideas that Milloy gleaned from the PETA website are the very ones that any reasonable person would gather from the site. Despite the fact that PETA has no “official” position on embryonic stem cell research, it’s obvious that their support runs deep enough to encourage supporters to write letters to push for federal funding.

Advertisements