Author Topic: Cut animal testing, and test convicts  (Read 10998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DiE HaRrD PuNk

  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,413
  • Gender: Female
  • 3 Am.
    • View Profile
    • http://
Cut animal testing, and test convicts
« on: June 29, 2008, 10:40:32 am »
I've been thinking, and honestly, the death penalty is now being turned around into a "cruel and unsual" punishment. If you went about and murdered someone, why should you get the grace of life? I find it hypocrytic that our country fights for people who abuse animals to go to jail and pay huge amounts of fines, yet we do testing on animals? Why not do tests on convicted murderers or serial killers? Why should innocent lives suffer, and be killed, while these prisoners sit and rot in their cells, and are completely good for nothing? I think we should do testing on them. Why do I think this? After they killed someone, and ruined many lives, they get away without any pain? Get fed every day, sleep , shower, watch tv, and play cards with their buddies? Sure it may not be a "glamorous" lifestyle, but it's better than they should get! What do you think about doing testing of products/lotions/sprays on convicts who have life in prison, or have the death penalty?  I personally think it would be a good idea. Not because I fancy torturing people, but why harm innocent animals who have done nothing? I've always heard "An eye for an eye", and I think this should be applied. My argument?

Defense attorney: Testing my client is cruel and unusal
Prosecuter: Was murdering an innocent life cruel and unusal?

Honestly, think about it. What are your opinions?
Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of (Dr. Seuss's) 'Hop on Pop.'
    --George w. Bush

Washington, DC
04/02/2002


 
Names Rachel....call me that or Rae...whichever.. :P

<33 Asian Guys Are Hawt<33


www.myspace.com/punkshorty

Patback399

  • Guest
Re: Cut animal testing, and test convicts
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2008, 01:06:05 pm »
Testing on humans? How can I avoid Godwin's law without using the word "Nazis"?

Taking an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. People have a right to defend themselves, but when you have someone in a maximum security prison, there really is not much more we can do that's still humane.

I do agree that testing on animals is wrong, but don't think animals are better than humans. I might sound pretentious, but humans are way smarter than any other animal.

Offline IceFox

  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,712
  • Jacked up on Red Bull
    • View Profile
    • http://Nothing.
Re: Cut animal testing, and test convicts
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2008, 04:37:31 pm »
Testing on humans? How can I avoid Godwin's law without using the word "Nazis"?




=P

Offline Roger

  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,530
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Cut animal testing, and test convicts
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2008, 09:11:19 pm »
I might sound pretentious, but humans are way smarter than any other animal.

Not really.  Humans are destroying the planet.  And humans seem to have more issues among their own species than other animals do.  Other animals don't kill each other for no reason (or at least not in the numbers we do...) or rape others or any of the number of ridiculous crimes humans do to others.

Humans may have intelligence but in no way are we smart.  >.<  So much of the stuff humans have discovered or created has been bent to be used in totally negative ways.  Other animals, while they seem to lack the capacity (I say seem because we can't really determine much about other animals...) that we do, are smarter than us because they're not so self-destructive as humans are.

This isn't to say that I think humans should be the test subjects.  Generally, the issue here is a population difference.  There are significantly more of the animals generally used for testing.  Rats, for instance; they outnumber humans by huge numbers. I know lots of illegal tests happen too on animals that don't have as big of populations...but we're going to ignore that for the sake of argument mostly because the number of these tests is actually quite low, probably enough to be completely negligible.

Also, another issue that comes into play when doing tests on human subjects on death row is the justice system itself.

It's long been known that the legal system is majorly flawed.  Many people are placed on death row for crimes they didn't commit or for political reasons (see this Wikipedia article about Mumia Abu-Jamal if you want an example...yes, I know...wikipedia...but its sources are cited and they check out so stfu lol). 

Basically the problem comes down to ethics.  And while I'm all for the fair treatment of animals and such, I do believe that with the few positives that the human race is trying to produce have to begin treatment on non-human subjects, if only for the issue of population control.  There are many factors which come into play here.  An animal subject can be placed under very strict control. 

For instance, if a test causes a small animal like a rat to exhibit extreme rage, then it poses no threat to humans, as it can be dealt with.  But if it was tested on a human and caused the same issue, then more lives are in danger.   Or perhaps a test causes the subject to get a contagious disease.  This could be a major issue in a prison environment.  One extremely contagious disease could manage to wipe out an entire prison population.  In a lab, under controlled conditions, the casualties would be the infected animal(s) and that's it.

There are reasons human testing is one of the final stages in development.  It's simply way more dangerous to our population if we start there.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 09:16:37 pm by Roger »

Patback399

  • Guest
Re: Cut animal testing, and test convicts
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2008, 05:24:26 pm »
Why do we need to test cosmetics anyway? What we've already discovered is sufficient, I think.