from The Century Dictionary.
- noun One who is opposed to the making of physiologic and therapeutic experiments on living animals.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
- noun One opposed to vivisection.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- noun an individual opposed to the practice of
- adjective of or relating to such a person
- adjective characterized by opposition to vivisection
Sorry, no etymologies found.
The point at issue being plainly whether he is a rascal or not, he not only insists that the real point is whether some hotheaded antivivisectionist is a liar (which he proves by ridiculously unscientific assumptions as to the degree of accuracy attainable in human statement), but never dreams of offering any scientific evidence by his own methods.
It is open, of course, to an antivivisectionist to deny the right of science to profit by the exploitation of animals, but this is not the position of a large number who seek only to prevent the cruelty which has often accompanied it.
It is particularly valuable, because Dr. Bigelow was never an antivivisectionist, if by that term we mean one who is opposed to all experiments upon animals.
Abernethy was by no means an antivivisectionist; he insisted upon the utility of certain demonstrations, but he was profoundly opposed to those cruelties of research which, in our day, by the modern school of physiologists, are either forgotten or condoned. curiously enough, one of his strongest utterances against such cruelty was made in one of his lectures on physiology.
He cannot be regarded as an antivivisectionist, for he repeatedly states that to painless experiments upon animals no objection exists.
No harm can come, and I believe much good would come, from our perfect readiness to accede to, nay, to advocate, the antivivisectionist desire to limit all experimentations to chartered institutions or to such private investigators as might be selected by a properly chosen authority ....
Instead of taking the position of the antivivisectionist that ALL scientific investigations involving the use of animals, should be legally prohibited, it maintains that distinctions may, and should, be drawn, and that only the abuses of vivisection should be condemned by law.
How could Dr. Keen have dreamed for a moment that any antivivisectionist would have signed such a recantation?
No antivivisectionist would accept the suggestion of a single experiment.
In fact, it was an antivivisectionist sympathizer, British playwright George Bernard Shaw, who first introduced the term "human guinea pig" in the early twentieth century, to make clear the vivisector's equation of human and animal subjects (p. xiv).