Extreme I know, but the more I try to search for reasons not to, the more it seems like not such a bad idea. What do you think of my mottos?-
Save an animal, test a criminal.
Save a primate, test an inmate.
Can you think of any good ones? ;-)
2006-12-15 19:07:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Some good points, I was arguing the whole innocent thing with my friend, but if DNA is rectifying that then we don't have much of a dilemma anymore....now do we?
2006-12-15 19:22:36 · update #1
James, I have a hard time connecting the phrase "Mass murderer and serial rapist" with the phrase "poor unsuspecting people".
2006-12-15 19:36:34 · update #2
Until the bill of rights is repealed, death row inmates still are human beings, and possibly US citizens. They are not deprived of any rights, beyond the fact they are jailed and promised to execution. Subjecting them to such experimentation would go against any number of texts protecting human rights, not to mention the 8th amendment, unless they volunteered.
Additionally, that kind of experimentation has quite a Nazi flavor to it, not that I would put bush the younger, his cronies, or his neocon rightwing Republican and fundy christian supporters above using such means if they could.
2006-12-15 19:24:34 · answer #1 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well let me put it this way not all death-row inmates are guilty. No one has the right to force chemical abuse on anyone that would be against the law. So if this is happening than those that are performing these testings must believe that they are above the law.
Fear those whom believe they are above the law ! If people support these testings? I pray that what ever chemical testing they are doing is not used against us some day! So I would let it be known to others that regardless of one mans fate we need to stop the hate & pay attention to the big picture. Last I heard of this type of testing was going on was wwII by the nazis in the concentration camps. Think About It!
2006-12-15 20:39:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of them volunteer for medical experiments. Doing it by force is another matter. Also, it seems that a large number of people on death row were falsely convicted, and DNA evidence is proving it. Do you test toxic chemicals on somebody who is innocent? Sorry, but this is a bad idea. Also, sometimes you need to use animals for the testing because the testing is to benefit that particular animal. Ebola virus kills gorillas, so do you test a vaccine on a human being or on the gorilla? Obviously, if you want to know if it works on gorillas you MUST try it out on a gorilla as the biochemistry of a human being and a gorilla, although similar, are not the same.
2006-12-15 19:13:15 · answer #3 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
German's did this in World War 2, it was called the Genocide. They " tested" all kinds of things on poor unsuspecting people. They even filmed alot of it. Next it will be.....well criminals are a good source of Organs...we just take em out...shoot them in a area where there is no damage to the " wanted " part...and a surgeon removes said Organ right there ( Main Land China already did / doing this ) ...where do we/ you draw the line ? I don't agree with testing on animals but to just experiment on people?
2006-12-15 19:23:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have lots of opinions on death-row inmates. I actually love a quote from comic Sean Morey:
"We should make inmates run 12 hours per day on a treadmill to generate electricity. And if they don't want to run, they can sit in the chair that's hooked up to the generator."
I know that's extreme, but really, since when did a convicted murderer get and/or have more rights than free citizens?
I say... test on them.
2006-12-15 19:15:52 · answer #5 · answered by T S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not support animal product testing in any form.
That includes the human animal.
Humans that commit crimes are due the punishment that their crime deserves. But we do have a fundamental prohibition in this country against "cruel and unusual punishment."
I do not consider torture in the name of cosmetics or pharmaceuticals on an inmate any more valid than I would consider torture on simians, dogs, cats, or any other animals appropriate for similar reasons.
2006-12-15 19:27:38 · answer #6 · answered by Bael 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a bit extreme but if they agreed I wouldn't have a moral problem with it. It could be their way of "repaying" for the sin they committed. They are there because they took lives they had no right to. So if they wanted to give something back then sure, why not.
2006-12-15 19:21:48 · answer #7 · answered by patti duke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, isn't this what Hitler and the Nazi's did too?
Wait until they test it on unsuspecting Americans in their everyday lives.
It will happen and you will get what they get too.
The way a person treats animals is the exact same way they treat other people.
So beware.
2006-12-16 05:05:52 · answer #8 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a bad idea but Only if they volunteer to be tested
2006-12-15 19:12:22 · answer #9 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you not heard of cruel and unusual punishment? Go read the Constitution.
2006-12-15 20:15:22 · answer #10 · answered by His Angel 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋