Yes

by Dennis Krivda

Created on: August 08, 2009   Last Updated: August 09, 2009

Gruesome! Just gut-wrenching gruesome! They're the kind of images that make any compassionate human soul look away in horror - and sometimes vomit. Only the truly courageous, iron-stomached, or brutally insane should ever conduct an Internet image search of the word "vivisection". Indeed, no matter what the size of the animal enduring the pain, graphic depictions of vivisection are nothing less than horrifying!

Honestly! Responsible parents should never expose their children to the results from an Internet search of vivisection because such images are just too ghastly for tender eyes. In fact, many adults will also feel traumatized by the images generated by an Internet search of vivisection.

But what is vivisection?

In its most scientific form, vivisection is the immobilization of an anesthetized live animal to the point where researchers can surgically cut and peel back the skin in order to observe the animal's internal organs as they function.

In its most sadistic form, however, vivisection is just pure, unscientific torture inflicted by deranged individuals on living creatures ranging from tree frogs to horses.

Images of that sort of senseless cruelty are the most disturbing to witness.

But the history of vivisection is not only limited to modern scientists and bizarre sacrificial cults meeting in secret. On the contrary! Humanity actually has a long history with both legitimate and illegitimate vivisection. Approximately 2300 years ago, Aristotle was among the first persons to conduct a vivisection on a living thing.

No doubt, protests against such treatment of animals likely arose almost instantaneously.

So, while people who support the ethical treatment of animals (or otherwise fight for animals rights) might consider themselves ahead of some sort of compassion power curve, their cause really isn't all that contemporary. In fact, humanity has debated the role of animals since the dawn of reason.

Rather than debate the role of animals in humanity's realm, we should debate the role of humanity in the realm of animals since animals know no evil while humanity does. In the hands of madmen, vivisection defies rational explanation. In the hands of scientists, however, vivisection has lead to a more accurate understanding of how internal organs work.

The same holds true for cloning. In the hands of scientists, cloning promises miracles. In the hands of lunatics, however, cloning promises misery.

And while our history of cloning animals does not stretch as far back as vivisection does, cloning has been around a lot longer than most people realize. Scientists first unraveled the mysteries of non-mammalian cloning almost 60 years ago when researchers first cloned a tadpole in 1952. It wasn't until 1996 that laboratories cloned the first mammal - a sheep named Dolly.

Beyond the science of cloning, however, people tend to lump all cloning into one frightening vision of the future. They describe a sinister tomorrow where Satan's latest earthly spawn decides to clone massive armies of minions who march like mindless zombies over bucolic settings where children play innocently on swing sets and teeter-totters.

What most folks do not realize is that there are actually three types of cloning, and all three types have already benefited all of humanity - including the very groups that object to cloning. Even those most adamant in their fight for animals' rights already owe a debt of gratitude for public health improvements brought about through cloned bacterium and viruses.

Cloned bacterium and viruses are one thing. The debate over whether or not cloning is right or wrong, however, typically focuses on the quality of life for the more sophisticated animals. In other words, those interested in animal rights might not care as deeply about the rights of cloned bacterium as they might care about the rights of cloned chimpanzees.

And certainly, their concern for animal rights is not without merit. In fact, most rational humans would agree that we should not mistreat animals simply for our own amusement. (Even though we usually don't mind how circus animals lack sufficient freedom to roam.) Beyond our own amusement and the subtle cruelty of an animal circus act, the notion of creating cloned chimpanzees for any purpose makes most people feel uncomfortable.

Those ill feelings, however, typically evaporate whenever people realize that laboratory animals have always played a vital role in developing some of the most effective treatments for infectious disease and genetic afflictions. Animal rights groups would have to reconcile that even farm animals have benefited from the sacrifice other animals have made in the research laboratories of the world.

And perhaps that's where many well-intentioned people take a wrong turn when weighing the merits and negative aspects of cloning. They think that only humanity benefits from laboratory research when, in fact, household pets, farm animals, circus animals, wild animals, and working animals have all benefited from experiments conducted on other animals.

Humanity, through its research, has made the lives of billions of animals more enjoyable by vaccinating them against afflictions such as rabies and anthrax. Those more enjoyable animal lives were also made possible because laboratory specimens have sacrificed their lives so that other animals can live relatively free from flea infestations, heartworms, FMD, and mange.

Cloning of animals will likely yield similar breakthroughs for animals and humanity alike.

So, is it right to clone animals? Yes it is perfectly right to clone animals, but only when humanity conducts that cloning for the right reasons.

Learn more about this author, Dennis Krivda.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.