To the Editor:
We would like to make four points in response to the protest organized by the Oberlin Animal Rights group, their letter to the editor, and the Review's editorial on their demonstration. 1) The statement in OAR's letter to the editor that "...no end can ever justify the abuse of nonconsensual termination of a living being" is an ideological statement that has no basis in the lives of any human, including OAR members. For one, this statement suggests that even a vegan is violating OAR doctrinology by depriving a soy bean plant of its life for the end of food. Simply by refusing to commit suicide, we all ingest and squash millions of lower life forms daily. Secondly, the recent Day Without Art and the AIDS Quilt should let us all reflect on the importance of AIDS research. Would any member of OAR be ready to claim that AIDS research is not justified? 2) The proposed bioethics lecture for each biology and neuroscience class as proposed by Kim DeFeo is unnecessary for two reasons. For one, other classes outside of these sciences (in philosophy, for instance) approach the issues of bioethics. More importantly, a bioethics lecture simply belongs outside of a scientific discussion. Modern science has become wholly dependent on animal models and observation of animals in their natural habitats. Nothing can replace these. To question the validity of animal research in context of a biology class is self-defeating for the continuation of the class. Instead, the humane and correct handling of research animals should continue to be taught to students. 3) A campus mailing last week asked us to confirm our place in the human race by agreeing to a list of sarcastically written statements. One of these was that "Humans have the power to play god by unnaturally prolonging life through medicine." We would question why prolonging life is considered unnatural. When viewed from the perspective that all animals "naturally" try to maximize the propagation of themselves and their species, we are in fact acting quite naturally. Simply because we take a more intellectual approach than other species to lengthening our lifespan does not make it unnatural. 4) The Review's editors supported OAR last week because they were standing for what they believed in. We agree that activism is lacking at Oberlin, but that one cannot simply act without thinking fully about the issue. Activism must not be a reactionary process that leads to irrational statements or acts such as "...no end can ever justify the abuse and nonconsensual termination of a living being."
Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 125, Number 12; December 13, 1996
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.