Animal Rights

Article metrics

Abstract

MR. ROMANES's parallel is as unsound as amusing. If a physiologist claimed to vivisect his children “on the plea that it was for this purpose that he had begotten them,” we should tell him that the legal admission of such pleas would undermine human society. But in the killing of pigs for food no undermining of human society is involved. Moreover, we know that men breed pigs only to kill them, but that men breed children from entirely different motives; we should answer the physiologist that his plea was impossible of proof, that all human experience negatived its probability, and that consequently it could not be admitted to overrule his children's presumptive right of life.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

NICHOLSON, E. Animal Rights. Nature 20, 427 (1879) doi:10.1038/020427a0

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.