Response to "vivisection"

Vivisection falls under one of the categories of questions that I will never know how to answer. It fits right in line with abortion and gun control. For me, it is far too easy to be swayed by an argument from either side. They re all topics that I think have valid reasons that all truly need to be considered on a case to case basis. This excerpt proved that to me. As I was reading nodding along to each of the authors points on the matter, regardless of which side the argument would be coming from.

One of the points that really struck a cord with me was when the author referred to the arguments of Darwinists and those who believe in natural selection. He states "The very same people who will lost contemptuously brush aside any consideration of animal suffering if it stands in the way of 'research' will also, on another context, most vehemently deny that there is any radical difference between man and any other animal." That is something that I never thought to consider, and though I'm not convinced that pointing that fact out to anyone that supported that point of view would change their opinion, I do think that it's worthy of noting. 

What is alarming to me is the parallel the author draws between animals and other human beings that some one society co slider inferior. It's frightening to me that anyone could use that argument in good conscience.  I suppose that because I feel that way I must be of the opinion that vivisection, assuming it would be used to avoid human suffering and was completed in a manner that would inflict the least amount of pain possible, is reasonable.