1.
“The dog was submitted under profound anaesthesia to a very
slight operation in the interests of science. In two or three days it was
healed, and remained perfectly well and free of all pain. Two months later it
was again placed under profound anaesthesia for further experiment, and was
killed under the anaesthetic.” (page 850)
My emotions went from relaxed and
happy to jaw-dropped and shocked within two sentences. How is it at all okay to
do this? Killing an animal is one thing, but hurting it and healing it only to
do it again is a different affair entirely. This is further enhanced by my
second quote, how Carroll doesn’t believe that death is cruel, but prolonged
and superfluous torturing is.
In the Alice books and the 2010
movie, we see animals all over the place being mistreated as lower creatures to
human beings. With the exception of the Red Queen beheading anyone who
displeases her, the animals are treated like objects instead of living things.
I will then bring up a question: Is it worse to kill an animal or to have it
alive and have it be a slave?
2.
“Again I would like to emphasize Carroll’s belief that death
is not cruel, but it is the prolonged and superfluous torturing, which Alice
ignores is unable to recognize in the poem.” (page 377)
This sort of reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings. In addition to many
medieval fantasy characters saying they do not fear death, the novel/film
included a line of what they *do* fear, which is “a cage.” I definitely agree
with Carroll’s statement here.
In addition to the specific quote, it is contained in a
passage concerning The Walrus and the Carpenter, where the author talks about
how Alice felt no sympathy for the oysters but instead thought about the Walrus
and Carpenter instead. This is odd because I did the same thing when I was a
child –I failed to relate to the oysters. Granted, I didn’t feel bad in my
earliest years because I was too stupid to realize that they were actually
eaten. But once I learned that, I still didn’t feel as bad as I should. Maybe
because they were just food? But… every meat I eat today is an animal too… so…
hmm…
This reminds me of my best friend, who was vegetarian for
3.5 years because he was morally against the idea of eating animals or
supporting the killing of animals by eating them.
3.
“That the pain inflicted on an individual animal in
vivisection is not greater than in sport.” (page 352)
Um no this is where I step in and disagree with that
statement, and I’m not even that fond towards hunting in general. Hunting is
where animals die by being shot. Most of the time that means they die a sudden
clean death –the animals themselves don’t even know what happened. Compare that
to vivisection, where humans will practice their painful doings on animals
*while they’re alive*
There is no need to argue here.
4.
“That the practice of vivisection will never be extended so
as to include human subjects.” (page 356)
Uh-huh, I wish. If only the Japanese people believed in
that. Two of the most horrifying things the human race has ever done in history
were done by the Japanese, rivaling even the Germans. I will only talk about
one that the Japanese has done because only one concerns the quote I chose.
Unit 731 was a biological and chemical research program that the Japanese Army
formed during World War II. It involved the vivisection, experimentation, and
killing of 200,000+ Chinese men, women, and children. The worst part about all
this is that Japan *to this day* has not apologized for it. These crimes were
the reason why my grandfather on my mother’s side refused to have any
involvement with anything Japanese. That included TV programs, clothes, and
food.
I question vivisection as a whole, since I already have
concern over vivisection being done on animals, but I beg that this world will
never have to see another incident where something this cruel is done on
humans.
No comments:
Post a Comment