The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-08
Niyisection.

To the Editor OF The Times:
/ A short time ago read an article stat
/ ing that the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. are cruel
| in wishing to deprive the human race of
the benefits resulting from the practice
| of vivisection. Many such articles have
appeared of late in the public press. and
the sub. oct, or a desire to mislead tn
general public.
The benefits resulting from the vivi-
section of beasts are wholly chimerical.
: They exist solely in the imagina ton Of
[ those who either receive large salaries
! for sncir researches. or have patent Sc
runs on the market which the abolition
of viviseetion would prevent them from
continuing to manufacture. The diseases
referred to as cured or relieved through
the viyisection of animals, are still with
US and are Just as destructive to human
life and happiness as they were fifty
years since.
AS for the old. worn-out question
How many guinea pigs would parent
sacriti.e for his child's iife?' it seems to
me quite as foolish as a demonstration
of the advantages of viyisection as il did
when l first heard it, many years ago:
and its constant repetition has in no way
added to il the honor which occasionally
accompanies extreme age. In the first
place it has never been proved that to
sacrifice the lives" of countless guinea
pigs. has cured or can or will cure a
dying child. In the second place 1t is
little amusing to see the extent to which
parental grief carries one where only
the sufferings of beasts is involved, when
the same anxious (9 parent has never
displayed sufficient concern for his Off
spring to manifest some slight daily sac
rifce which would have instructed the
child in many harmless hygieric precau-
lions. obyiating she necessity of such
treatment as is now supplied from the
eight of scientific research.
Probably the best answer to all these
merely sentimental inanities about the
presumed love of parents for their children
(which love by the way. seldom exists IN
fact) is that given by Canon Wherefore
He said that in cases OF real affection one
would do literally anything which was sup
posed to benefit a suffering loved one, ana
that therefore. in our rational moments II
was our duty to pass such laws as would
preyent US in time Of great excitement,
from taking human life. torturing beasts.
or committing any sort OF hiohslrous anu
inhuman act.
II has often been instanced in discus
sions of this nature that a woman would
take the life of human being If by so
doing she could prevent her child from
starving. Yet this does not keep US from
reprobating the crime of murder.
1t is, as the writer believes a crime 10
torture a sentient creature. whether that
creature be a cat or a man. although our
laws do not make it technically a crime
in the former, and do in the latter case.
The same men who fear to jump in and
try to rescue a drowning person are loud
est in their talk of the Importance of hui
man life. But is it not rather the old
question. Whose OK was gored?"
What will We do ourselves for the hu-
man race? How great is our self-sacrihc-
ing love for mankind? Let us show in our
daily lives that We love those who by ties
of blood are near to us. and then, although
we may lose them by death, we shall feel
that our love was a true one: that we did
what We honestly could for them without
thrusting upon lower race than our own
pain and suffering; that we would not
willingly share in an attempt, wholly use
less. to benefit those we protested TO love
and for whom We would ourselves do moth
ing. JOHN NEDI(hh tM- u
saugerties, y. Y. Aug. 81.