Opposing Viewpoints

     Hanlon and Garner have a slightly different view on animal experimentation, they both think its cruel, they both think its disgusting, the only thing that they don't agree on is that its "necessary".

     Garner is completely against animal experimentation. he believes that we are guilty of speciesism, which is the assumption that the human species is superior which leads to animal experimentation. He says that although we are aware of the suffering caused by animal experimentation, but because they are being used to benefit the human race it should be allowed, and he says that isn't right.

     Hanlon on the other hand believes that animal experimentation is both disgusting and cruel, but he also believes that it is a necessity. He says that although there are experiments that shouldn't be done, there are those that are needed. He says that without vivisection, another term for animal experimentation, we wouldn't have the advances is today's modern medicine. 

     I think that animal experimentation should not exist, I don't think that it is fair to the animals that they get used to test things for the well being of a more superior species. I think that Garner is 100% right, like Garner, I believe we are guilty of speciesism. And now I think it is time to find an alternative to animal experimentation. 

full citations:

Garner, Robert. "Animal Experimentation Is Unethical." Animal Experimentation. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Animal Rights and Wrongs. “Chemistry and Industry (4 Jan. 1999). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Hanlon, Michael. "Vivisection Is Right, But It Is Nasty—And We Must Be Brave Enough to Admit This." Daily Mail 24 July 2012. Rpt. in Animal Rights. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.