let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

A Treatise Against Vivisection

A Dissertation to Charities Supporting Animal Experimentation

By Punkerslut

Image by NiD
Image: "Fishing 2" by NiD

Start Date: April, 2002
Finish Date: April, 2002

     Charity: it is the revealed essence of a good heart, the revelation of humanity. Charity is the acceleration of human thought, the beautification of the soul, the memoirs of a person who believes in doing good -- an affectionate and curious smile, a warm welcome, all things which have been done by the heart. Those men on this planet who have offered their charity to the populations of cultures were more powerful than the greatest of kings and more inviting than the most hospitable widow. From their palms have come both the food that fed the hungry, medicine that cured the sick, and wisdom that aided the unknowledgable. On the crescents of civilization, from the bravest to the boldest and the most intelligent to the most enduring, men of charity have been to the lands of plague and the lands of war, all to offer the heart of humanity, all to give what can only be given in the name of compassion: charity.

     However, for a charity to support Vivisection and animal experimentation is more than just a blemish on the face of charity. It is the hand of kindness, its surface covered with thorns -- it is the thoughtful eye of a lover, storming with dark vengeance. Of all things that have been done that are careless and destructive, Vivisection is above all the worst. It has taken animals from their homes, taken them to laboratories, and mutilated their bodies. Animals, these conscious beings that are just short of being human; to be human, all that would be needed is the genes, the DNA, etc., all things indicating that a body would be needed. However, there is one part that they are equal with humans with: the capability to suffer. And just as it is a mark of solemn sadness on the heart of every Humanitarian to know that suffering exists, there is no mark big enough to express the sadness from the suffering of Vivisection. To neglect the fact that animals can suffer is of all things inhumane and cruel, not in the slightest charitable. These creatures, born of mothers like any human, nurtured and loved like any human, thoughtful and active like any human, these things which are merely us born in a different body -- they are given no respect and no rights. The Vivisectionists will take these creatures into their laboratory, and desecrate them. They will tear newborns from the arms of their mother, they will beat them to unconsciousness, they will burn their bodies, lash their backs with the flog, cut their arms and legs, decapitate their heads -- in all meanings of the word -- they will torture these creatures, all for the sake of understanding something that may forever be beyond them: suffering!

     One psychologist created an experiment where he tried to teach animals to be depressed. Dogs were placed in a room with two compartments, separated by a wall that could be jumped over. The Vivisectionist sent electric shocks into the floor of one compartment, shocking the dog, and forcing them to jump over the wall into the compartment without electric shocks. Shortly after, the Vivisectionist the sends shocks to both compartments, leaving no opportunity for release of pain to the pour, afflicted creature. In a short amount of time, the dog stops, demobilizes, shuts down, and then helplessly writhes in pain. The Vivisectionist watching ever so carefully, observing the trembling skin of the creature, as it suffers. Its short existence ends in this most horrid of experiments, in this cruel and heartless attempt to make them learn to be depressed. It becomes tired, weak, and injured. A time of pain, suffering, and harm. There is nothing more brutal than to make a living off of this. I could picture no conscionable person engaging in such heartless activities, in abusing animals, and in creating torment. It is the epitome of brutality and the end of humane thought -- to do this to a creature, be it human or non-human, is but of one of the worst crimes. [Animal Learning and Behavior.]

     Another experiment, involving a medical professor by the name of Robert J. White, includes the decapitation of monkeys. White wanted to observe a still-conscious head, apart from the body. He wanted to observe the slick knife quickly slicing the skin of the monkey, ending its life, and ending its existence. That is, to say, he wanted to observe cruelty and inhumanity. But no matter how long he gazed into the eyes of the decapitated head, no matter how many tears he saw or how much pain he caused -- no matter how many times his experiments trampled the ethic of compassion and destroyed the meaning of reverence -- no matter how many monkeys he killed, he still would not understand what he did. The actions he committed were but of the most heartless and brutal nature. De Quincey once said, "...the groans and screams of this poor persecuted race, if gathered into some great echoing hall of horrors, would melt the heart of the stoniest of our race." [Written concerning the brutality given to animalia. Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 2, 1894.] De Quincey, however, lived centuries ago and was not familiar with the Vivisectionist by the name of Robert J. White. If the stoniest of our race would offer mercy to animalia when hearing their screams, what can be said of the Vivisectionist, who lives and thrives on those same screams, whose day is brightened with the success of an experiment, -- or, whose happiness is elevated at the desecration of another being? One reporter writes that White's laboratory is "a rare and chilling glimpse into the cold, clinical world of the scientist, where the life of an animal has no meaning beyond the immediate purpose of experimentation." [Scope (Durban, South Africa), March 30, 1973.]

     There was another incident where scientists reared female monkeys in isolation with the hope that they would develop abnormally. (What would a humane person say to this hope? But the question I am asking you is, "What would a charity say to such a hope of Vivisectionists that it supports?") After the female monkeys had reached sexual maturity, they were impregnated by the scientists with a device they so eloquently label the "rape rack." These monkeys were the target of abuse and exploitation from the scientists. Their actions, their lives ruined and based on suffering -- their existence was limited to the neglect and pain offered to them from the Vivisectionists. But when these abused female monkey mothers gave birth, they neglected their infant's when they cried. The scientists had succeeded, but to what end? They had created monkey mothers who did not care for their children and they devilishly observed with bright eyes the actions of the other monkeys...

"The other monkeys were brutal or lethal. One of their favorite tricks was to crush the infant's skull with their teeth. But the really sickening behavior pattern was that of smashing the infant's face to the floor, and then rubbing it back and forth." [Engineering and Science 33:8 (1970)]

     In the New York City offices of United Action for Animals, they keep records of experiments conducted on non-human animals. The files are organized by the type of experiment with more than fifty of each type, and the titles speak for themselves: "Acceleration," "Aggression," "Asphyxiation," "Blinding," "Burning," "Centrifuge," "Compression," "Drug Tests," "Experimental Neurosis," "Freezing," "Heating," "Hemorrhage," "Hindleg Beating," "Immobilization," "Isolation," "Multiple Injuries," "Prey Killing," "Protein Deprivation," "Punishment," "Radiation," "Starvation," "Shock," "Spinal Cord Injuries," "Stress," "Thirst," among others.

     Some individuals may purport that animals cannot feel, that they are without emotion. Yet this is a fraud to cover up the inhumane and brutal fashion which scientists treat animals. To quote Charles Darwin...

"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals." [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.]

     When humans have inherited the world and hold dominance over the environment, it is one of the greatest injustices to mankind to deliver such abuse to animal kind. To rear animals for the sake of exploiting them, of filling their lives with fear, pain, and learned depression -- how sick mankind is to endeavor in such activities and how miserable is the life of those animals abused in such experiments! Robert Green Ingersoll notes on the inhumanity of Vivisection...

"We can excuse, in part, the crimes of passion. We take into consideration the fact that man is liable to be caught by the whirlwind, and that from a brain on fire the soul rushes to a crime. But what excuse can ingenuity form for a man who deliberately -- with an unaccelerated pulse -- with the calmness of John Calvin at the murder of Serviettes -- seeks, with curious and cunning knives, in the living, quivering flesh of a dog, for all the throbbing nerves of pain? The wretches who commit these infamous crimes pretend that they are working for the good of man; that they are actuated by philanthropy; and that their pity for the sufferings of the human race drives out all pity for the animals they slowly torture to death. But those who are incapable of pitying animals are, as a matter of fact, incapable of pitying men. A physician who would cut a living rabbit in pieces -- laying bare the nerves, denuding them with knives, pulling them out with forceps -- would not hesitate to try experiments with men and women for the gratification of his curiosity.

"To settle some theory, he would trifle with the life of any patient in his power. By the same reasoning he will justify the vivisection of animals and patients. He will say that it is better that a few animals should suffer than that one human being should die; and that it is far better that one patient should die, if through the sacrifice of that one, several may be saved.

"Brain without heart is far more dangerous than heart without brain.

"Have these scientific assassins discovered anything of value? They may have settled some disputes as to the action of some organ, but have they added to the useful knowledge of the race?" [Vivisection, by Robert Green Ingersoll, a letter written to Philip G. Peabody. May 27, 1890.]

     Does a man learn anything - except how to be inhumane - by being cruel to animals? Does society become anything less than revoltingly brutal when it consents to gross inhumanities? Do politicians and leaders become noble and virtuous by completely disregarding the interests of lower animals, when lower animals can feel as much suffering as any human? In the sentiment of humaneness and in the spirit of affection, I ask that your charity stops supporting these abominations of animal experimentation. A charity is a wonderful thing, offering goodness and compassion; but when a charity supports such awful experiments -- when a charity offers its donations to help scientists cause suffering to non-human animals -- it ceases to be a charity.


join the punkerslut.com
mailing list!

copyleft notice and
responsibility disclaimer