Page:The moral aspects of vivisection (IA 101694999.nlm.nih.gov).pdf/13

 to the argument that it does not become people who eat animal flesh to demur to the torture of animals, it would have seemed as if no one with common sense could have employed it, had we not found it repeatedly brought forward by the pro-vivisectors as if it possessed withering force. The cattle we use for food exists on the condition that we shall take their lives when we need them; and in doing so in the ordinary, not unmerciful manner, we save them the far worse miseries of old age and starvation. To kill a creature quickly, is one thing. To cause it to suffer torture which shall make its existence a curse, is quite another matter.

Finally, for the tediously reiterated but more reasonable reproach, that the opponents of Vivisection make no efforts to put down Field Sports, und count among their number many fox-hunters, deer-stalkers, fowlers, and anglers— what shall be answered? My reply is that the parallel between Vivisection and Field Sports is about as just and accurate as if a tyrant, accused of racking his prisoners in his secret dungeons, were to turn round and open a discussion on the Lawfulness of War. That creatures who chase, and are chased all their days in fields and waters, should have an arch-enemy and pursuer in man, may be differently estimated as ill or well. But it is almost ludicrous to compare a fox-hunt (for example) with its free chances of escape, and its almost instantaneous termination in the annihilation of the poor fox when captured, with the slow, long-drawn agonies of an affectionate, trustful dog, fastened down limb by limb, and mangled on its torture trough. An old