You can see it in Newkirk's rat-equals-boy statement. She also told The New Yorker that the world would be a better place without people.
Singer, the bioethicist, is even more cold-blooded. He advocates infanticide. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all," Singer wrote. What's a "defective" infant? Let the parent decide.
Singer later explained to Reason magazine how his philosophy related to hemophiliac children or other disabled children who can be helped with medical technology: "If the consequences of keeping the baby alive are that you have to go to enormous trouble and spend hundreds of thou sands of dollars to keep it alive, then that's a morally different choice from if all you have to do is spend $20 a week, or whatever."
This is Singer's view of advanced morality: Thousands of human lives aren't worth hundreds of thousands of lab animals' lives, but one sick child isn't inherently worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Stanford University Medical Center neurobiologist William Newsome was not happy to hear about the Gallup Poll answers. "If such a ban on research with animals had been put in place, for example, in the year 1903, rather than 2003, everyone that any American knows with Type 1 diabetes would be dead now, every one that any American knows who has had open-heart surgery would not have had open-heart surgery, that many kinds of cancer, many common infections that are treated with antibiotics, would be deadly now."
Indeed, Trull's group has been under such fire for supporting research that saves human lives that it has launched a campaign to advertise how animal research is saving animals' lives.
Why? Because when Trull's association conducted research, it found that more people supported animal research to help animals than supported animal research to help humans.
It has come to this.