# data[].attributes.body
A quote I do agree with is, "The greatest obstacle to success lies in the secrecy with which such experiments are conducted;" (Appendix 4). Although unfortunate, I do believe that many legitimate scientific discoveries came from practices that would now be strictly prohibited. In no way should these methods be excused, however there are some things that we would not know had it not been for former medical practices. However, though many discoveries have been made through unethical methods, it is in the best interests of all beings involved to remove the secrecy this quote describes and move science towards a more ethical, and rewarding direction of experimentation.

# data[].attributes.body
A quote I find to be very problematic is, "No hesitation is possible; the science of life can be established only through experiment, and we can save living beings from death only after sacrificing others" (Appendix 3). This claim assumes that scientific exploration can only be achieved through extreme measures like vivisection, and discounts other notable methods like observation. Furthermore, to assert that advancements to protect other beings can only be achieved by killing others minimizes the value of the lives of the sacrificed beings.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the assertion that "and it is impossible to satisfy everybody, a man of science should attend only to the opinions of men of science." I agree with this since vivisection is an extremely controversial topic and people who are not "men of science" will most certainly incorporate emotions into the debate instead of the facts of the matter. Therefore, it is most rational to not try and satisfy everybody and listen to people with similar knowledge so more can be accomplished.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the assertion that "Have we the right the make experiments on animals and vivisect them? As for me, I think we have this right, wholly and absolutely." to be be problematic. I believe that operating on a living animal is morally wrong and extremely painful/traumatizing. It is only necessary to do so when the animal is in dire need of help and there is no other way.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the idea of animal testing, I somewhat agree with, I also do find the idea of it to be very problematic. I think some abuse this power and tend to do some horrific things. For example, the things described in the novel thus far are quite disturbing. This is not for good more so a game or a thing to manipulate which is very wrong. After “their torture comes to an end” it is only an end “brought by death” (Hoggan 259). There is a big difference between doing something for the good of humanity or using mass cruelty. I think there should be a restriction and rules when it comes to vivisection.

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing I found myself agreeing with was in selection 3. This passage defended the vivisection of animals. The idea stressed throughout these few pages included the importance of a living organism. A “living organism is nothing but a wonderful machine endowed with the most marvelous properties.” (Bernard, 254). Any living organism has so much to offer to society. By looking at others we can learn new things that are beneficiary. That is one thing I find myself agreeing with regarding vivisection. In terms of science, testing on animals can be beneficial for both animals and humans. This relates to the idea of Unitarianism and saving the majority instead of the few.

# data[].attributes.body
Something I agreed with was that Bernard explains how it is impossible for “men, judging facts by such different ideas, ever to agree”. I agree with this statement because this topic is so controversial that people are not going to be “in the middle” but have a strong opinion whether this is ethical or not. Claude explains how there is no point in trying to satisfy everyone with this topic and to only worry about the “men of science who understand him”. Essentially, he is saying to only worry about the opinions of the people who have the same ideas, so there is no controversy. 

# data[].attributes.body
I almost agree that “it is impossible to satisfy everybody, a man of science should attend only to the options of men of science who understand him, an should derive ruled of conduct only from his own conscience.” (p256) This quote helps me better understand the scientist’s point of view. He does not say that the death toll is good or excusable. Rather, he simply defends that if he is to listen to anyone, it should be to his peers in his field, because they are who understands both the cost and goal. This quote helps explain the fact that they are simply valuing science and knowledge over animal ethics, because of its greater service and for the greater good. He describes that you can never please everyone by perfectly and ethically while making scientific discoveries. If they listen to man to better treat the animals, they would not have the same scientific knowledge. Although I do not agree that that the maltreatment of dogs is excusable, I understand his value system.

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with Hoggan's beliefs in section 4. He says, "Often when convulsed by the pain of their torture this would be renewed, and they would be soothed instantly on receiving a few gentle pats." He states that this was his only way of trying to comfort the subjects and he would also do it frequently throughout the experiments. Hoggan's view is much different from Bernard's views from section 3 and his opinion on the use of anesthetics as being a curse can be understood from a vivisector's viewpoint since it can lead to misleading results. Another view of his that I agree with is that private vivisection should be criminalized and instead all experiments should have government supervision to ensure that there is no abuse happening to the subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the bluntness and irresponsibility in section three’s statement that in order “to learn how man and animals live, we cannot avoid seeing great numbers of them die.” (p254) This is problematic, because his blunt words seem to discount the unethical and high number of deaths while condoning the possibility of a way to lessen the death count.

# data[].attributes.headline
An assertion from section 4 that I agreed with was, “I hope that we shall soon have a government inquiry into the subject, in which experimental physiologists shall only be witnesses, not judges. Let all private vivisection be made criminal, and all experiments be placed under government inspection, and…(260).” I agree with this because I think vivisection is wrong if it is going to take place without government regulation and should be a crime if done privately. That way animals are not treated with so much cruelty.

# data[].attributes.subject
An assertion from section 4 that I agreed with was, “I hope that we shall soon have a government inquiry into the subject, in which experimental physiologists shall only be witnesses, not judges. Let all private vivisection be made criminal, and all experiments be placed under government inspection, and…(260).” I agree with this because I think vivisection is wrong if it is going to take place without government regulation and should be a crime if done privately. That way animals are not treated with so much cruelty.

# data[].attributes.headline
An assertion from section 3 that I found problematic was that “we shall succeed in learning the laws and properties of living matter only by displacing living organs in order to get into their inner environment. After dissecting cadavers, then, we must necessarily dissect living beings…(254).” I found this to be problematic because I think mechanisms of life can be explored not on living people and that you do not have the right to do vivisection on the living for medicine. There are other ways to develop medicine that could benefit humanity. 

# data[].attributes.subject
An assertion from section 3 that I found problematic was that “we shall succeed in learning the laws and properties of living matter only by displacing living organs in order to get into their inner environment. After dissecting cadavers, then, we must necessarily dissect living beings…(254).” I found this to be problematic because I think mechanisms of life can be explored not on living people and that you do not have the right to do vivisection on the living for medicine. There are other ways to develop medicine that could benefit humanity. 

# data[].attributes.body
I find this quote from section 3 from Bernard to be problematic. He completely undermines an animal's autonomy to an extent. An animal can choose between paths in their environments but cannot decide to make free moral judgements. Of course there are some animals that exceed these capabilities but the ones I have mentioned are a general basis to object Bernard's belief. I agree with the fact that these animals can experience pleasure and pain and these physical stimuli can have an effect on their emotions

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Dr. Hoggan's opinion that private vivisection should be made criminal. The torture described in his previous descriptions should not be allowed to happen freely without punishment. For example animals already experiencing immense pain would "receive a slap and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself" (page 259). As I mentioned in my disagreement paragraph, inaccurate results occur due to the use of anesthetics. Hoggan's describes them as a curse that "alter too much of the normal conditions of life to give accurate results, and therefore little depended upon".

# data[].attributes.body
In section 3, I disagree with Bernard's justifications on the vivisection and experimentation of animals. On page 255, he states that physicians have "already made dangerous experiments on man, before carefully studying them on animals". This reasoning is problematic because animals do not have the same anatomy as humans. Therefore, if the tested method was replicated on a human, they would likely have a different reaction than the one witnessed on an animal. In other words, experimentation on an animal may not provide accurate results beneficial to helping man. In addition, I find the following quote significant: "If it is immoral, then, to make an experiment on a man when it is dangerous to him, even though the result may be useful to others, it is essentially moral to make experiments on an animal, even though painful and dangerous to him, if it may be useful to man". I don't think that animal cruelty used for the benefit of mankind is morally correct. Innocent animals who have alternative purposes also beneficial to humans in natural ways should not be disturbed by conducting inhumane experiments.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that “ in the midst of the functional disturbances which they produce, they may one to see some unexpected phenomena emerge which give direction to their research.” Although mostly believing that vivisections are immoral, this argument is a sound rational argument, that we might discover something completely new that we had not known about before.

# data[].attributes.body
I found that “we shall succeed in learning the laws and properties of living matter only by displacing living organs in order to get into their inner environment” as a problematic assertion. Although this may be true in some sense, the vivisection of animals still alive seems like a very painful and inhumane way of going about this.

# data[].attributes.body
I found that “we shall succeed in learning the laws and properties of living matter only by displacing living organs in order to get into their inner environment” as a problematic assertion. Although this may be true in some sense, the vivisection of animals still alive seems like a very painful and inhumane way of going about this. The logic that an animal must be alive and the organs must be living as a requirement to get into an inner environment is not completely sound.

# data[].attributes.body
“It would be strange indeed if we recognized man’s right to make use of animals in every walk of life, for domestic service, for food, and then forbade him to make use of them for his own instruction in one of the sciences most useful to humanity.”

I don't know if I agree with the entire statement but it made me realize, in a sense, humans are hypocritical in certain aspects of this vivisection debate.  We do “torture” animals when they are raised to be killed in order for us to eat them for example. I agree that it's not logical to disagree with vivisection, yet agree to inhumanely killing animals because it benefits me. Creating this parallel has made me question my morals because I read these passages about criminalizing vivisection and I was so for it, but then reading this assertion I could not help but agree that modern day torturing of animals is happening as I type this yet I'm not as active in disagreeing with the practice because it is benefitting me.

# data[].attributes.body
I disgree with the statements in section 3 because of how horrible it is to use animals as just a means for science when in reality they are so much more. They can be used to help people with celiac disease or anxiety disorders and serve such a joyful purpse. They are so much more than just a means for science and I find it very disturbing to think that they are just to improve human advancement.

# data[].attributes.body
As Adriole mentioned, the author's argument does not take into account that living things have non physical characteristics that differentiate them from just "machines." They are able to feel pain, experience pleasure, react with feelings to whatever is happening to them. I cannot agree that these living things are just machines because they are autonomous creatures. They are able to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves unlike machines which are programmed to make decisions and do not have the ability to know what pain is. We cannot subject these living creatures to torture without agreeing to the fact that they're not oblivious to what's going on, for example pain being inflicted on them.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the statemnts in section 4 because of the importance of how horrible it is to abuse animals just for the sake of science. Animals did not deserve to be tortured or abused for the sake of more knowledge but at that time there were not many regulations set so it was different, and anesthesia is important.

# data[].attributes.body
I agreed with the author in Appendix 6 when he said, “I am not at all prepared to say that the mere desire to attain so much more knowledge is a good condition of mind for a man.” This holds a lot of truth in it because the desire to attain more knowledge can lead to obsessions. These obsessions can cause people to undergo extreme lengths to achieve what they’re looking for. In addition, it is hard to know when that person will be satisfied with the knowledge they have attained. This could result in a never ending, destructive venture.

# data[].attributes.body
A quote that struck me as problematic was, “A man of science should attend only to the opinions of men of science who understand him, and should derive rules of conduct only from his own conscience” (Appendix 3). This was extremely problematic because it is unjust for one specific group to judge their decisions off of the opinions from people within their own like minded group. If a group of scientists practicing vivisection only took approval from each other, it is likely that the cruelty done to animals would get worse and worse (or just never improve in general).  In regards to the malpractices of vivisection as described in Appendix 4, this assertion strikes me as exceedingly disturbing.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Hoggan’s assertion on page 260 that demands private vivisection be criminalized and to have all experiments be conducted under government inspection. Vivisection is an awful practice and people who do it should be penalized. The description Hoggan gives throughout the passage about vivisection is appalling. Thinking about those poor, helpless dogs meeting their horrible fate is so disheartening. Animals’ rights deserve to be respected just as much as the rights of any other being. Those who disrespect the lives of living creatures in such inhumane ways should be stopped and punished.

# data[].attributes.body
I find the assertion on page 255 that states “If it is immoral, then, to make an experiment on man when it is dangerous to him, even though the result may be useful to others, it is essentially moral to make experiments on an animal, even though painful and dangerous to him, if it may be useful to man” to be very problematic. Bernard sees animals as test subjects, rather than living, breathing beings. His blatant disrespect of living creatures is appalling and claiming that vivisecting them is the moral thing to do is absurd. No creature deserves to be cut open and experimented on while they are alive, and especially not without their permission. Animals are helpless creatures and are not able to defend themselves against this horrendous treatment. It seems so cruel to take their lives to further our selfish desires and uncover scientific mysteries. 

# data[].attributes.body
In section 3, I believe it is a scary though to think of animals as just a means of experimentation for science. Obviously, most people in the world do not value animals lives over human lives but they are still of importance. Animals have uses such as service dogs and to bring the world joy, which is why I strongly believe they should have been valued more in the story.

# data[].attributes.body
“The idea of the good of humanity was simply out of the question.”-

I agree that working on higher level animals like dogs and cats is inhumane. Just because we have dominance over other species does not permit us to use them just for our benefits. My beliefs tell me that humans were given the responsibility over the earth and everything that walks on it. Most scientist points to our failure in our charge so why should we continue to hurt animals just for our gain. Pop culture often contains stories of aliens abducting humans and experimenting on humans simply because the aliens are superior beings. Often showing little or no regard for the welfare of a single human. What makes these stories scary is the lack of humanity that the aliens show towards our kind.

“After dissecting cadavers, then, we must necessarily dissect living beings, to uncover the inner or hidden parts of the the organism and see them work….”

This statement is one of laziness. For now science has improved where we can artificial create organs to observe rather than cutting open a living organism. To simply stop asking questions and to stop searching for a new way is unscientific. Unethical experiments are also unscientific.

# data[].attributes.body
Claude Bernard, known for practicing vivisection, said the following: “without this mode of investigation (vivisection), neither physiology nor scientific medicine is possible; to learn how man and animals live, we cannot avoid seeing great numbers of them die…” (254). This statement is unsettling to me. It suggests that death is essential to life. This statement is partially true, however Bernard views it differently than I do. I believe that humans can learn medicine from deceased persons who have had diseases that should be studied. I also believe that medical students should be able to examine cadavers so that they may know the anatomy of the human body before they become doctors. However, Bernard suggests that experiments on living beings are eligible for this research, specifically in vivisection. I believe medical experiments on living beings such as vivisection (excluding medical research for certain disease fighting drugs) should not be used. Vivisection should never be used on live humans or animals. Bernard views casualties as worthy sacrifices to his cause. I cannot agree with his mindset.

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. George Hoggan writes, “I am of the opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was justified or necessary” (258). I agree with this statement. Bernard did not realize that animals do not have the same anatomy as humans. Although similar, a dog does not have the same makeup as a human. Therefore, why would a dissection of a living animal be necessary for research? The answer is simple, it would not. Vivisection is a cruel dissection of a living animal that will never be necessary for any purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Dr. George Hoggan's opinion in Section 4. This letter was written in 1875 when animal abuse regulations were not really set. Because of this, vivisectors would give "an animal... which still had some life left, to the assistants to practice the finding of arteries" and possibly conduct their own experiments on these tortured animals(259). He brings up the interesting point that anesthetics is a curse when in the world we live in, it is considered one of the most important tools for surgery. The reason for this is because scientists would lie about the use of anesthetics to gain the support of the people when it fact they were putting these animals through the most excruciating pain.

# data[].attributes.body
In Section 3, Claude Bernard makes a polarizing statement: "Now, a living organism is nothing but a wonderful machine endowed with the most marvellous properties"(254). This view point does not seem to value the non-physical properties that humans possess. Our leadership, courage, humor, sociability, love, honor, and so many other characteristics are thrown to the wind in the viewpoint of Claude. While animals may not possess all of the same traits that humans have, I do believe that animals are more than just machines used for science. They provide comfort and can serve many roles in society. Both animals and humans should not be treated the same as a robot.

# data[].attributes.body
When Claude Bernard explains how a physiologist is not phased by the painful screams and copious amounts of blood coming from this live creature because all they can think about is their “ideas” and “goals”, I found this very problematic. These physiologists are so consumed by their ideas that they are not realizing the repercussions of their experiments. This mindset has made them emotionless towards living beings suffering. This is a problem because this way of thinking can be extremely dangerous and can lead to the unnecessary death of many animals, while these physiologists think nothing is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Meanwhile, I found Bernard’s terminology troubling, for he views animals as exploitable test subjects to expand knowledge. Bernard, a man of science, describes organisms as a “machine” that scientists can dismantle to “give direction to their research” (254). In this sense, researchers are tearing apart animals, not to apply the information to humans, but to keep up with the science community and earn the title of "the best." While doing so, they do not feel remorse because they see their actions as studying the components of a machine, which implies living organisms has no value, feelings, or rights. Bernard’s word choice troubled me, for it demonstrated proponents of vivisection's heartless nature.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Hutton's warning statements of anesthesia. In Hutton's testimony against vivisection, he reveals that scientists claimed they used anesthetics to numb the pain of experimental subjects only to "lull public feeling” (260). Therefore, the commons were inclined to view this torture as morally justified. Even today, I found myself thinking if the animals cannot feel the pain, maybe vivisection would be beneficial to discover information for human health. However, Hutton makes the point that these scientist’s main use of anesthesia was falsely asserting its application in the lab; anesthesia’s main job was to lie to the public. Therefore, I agree with the author’s view that anesthesia is a dangerous weapon for gathering support, for it revealed another instance of humans lying to society to satisfy their own curiosities and greed.