The other day in school a kid submitted a video. It showed him with a dead squirrel, and he skinned it on the video and all sorts of vulgar things that you don't need to know about. We were forced to watch it, and my science teachers said it "was a great work". , to quote Merchant, in her article titled Saving the Animals.
She states that killing animals for the sake of science is cruel... but didn't she just say it was a kid with a dead squirrel? "It showed him with a dead squirrel." So wouldn't this mean that the animal was already dead, and would have been left out in the woods or in the middle of the highway to be ripped apart by predators?
Merchant's entire article is based on how it's wrong to kill poor innocent animals. Now I'm really curious, because before I write an article on what I believe, I'd like to know the facts. Was the squirrel alive and kicking, then brutally put to death by Merchant's fellow classmate? If it was already dead, then isn't that just like using human bodies for scientific study, once they have passed on? I mean, I can say it is wrong to take a life for the sake of a science grade, but is it wrong to use a deteriorating body for the sake of knowledge? The body would have been left to rot.
I know some of you eager environmentalists would argue that the squirrel should have been buried, left to rest in peace, and all that. I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it is arguing with a person like that. I mean, half of you don't mind that animals were slaughtered for your food -- then you come up with the vegetarian thing. But what you neglected to say about that was that you are missing out on valuable vitamins and protein when you do not eat meat, and have to take pills in order to keep those levels up and your body healthy.
After this argument, you branched off into extinction of other animals and depletion of the rain forest. Can we just look at this issue from another view? Merchant, was the squirrel dead, or did he kill it? Is this a case of animal cruelty, or not? Some of you think it's cruel to use the dead body no matter what, but what about the animals who actually are getting killed to feed, clothe and satisfy our curiosity? I think some folks need to get their priorities straight, because I'm sure they're not perfect and it's not right to preach. You can have your own beliefs on being a vegetarian and all that, but you don't need to bash other people down because they don't agree.
So in the end, I would appreciate if Merchant cleared up my question. Was it killed by the student or already dead? And if you're thinking about writing an article saying 'why does it matter', then I think you need to re-read my article. I think it does matter, because it changes the whole basis of the argument. Merchant may reply to say that the student killed the animal... but is that for leverage in her case after many articles have been written in reply to it, or did she somehow get confused and type the wrong thing in when she first wrote the article?
A 'confuzzled Liss22 investigates....
