death row vs. animal testing? plz read this...?

Question

i don't believe in the death penalty due to the fact that it usually no better than the crime commited. i am also against using animals to do scientific research. i do know that in some cases both of the things i have mentioned are nesscary, but...maybe instead of using animals for lab work, why not use humans sentenced to death row? the animals won't die and the people who were gonna die anyway will die doing something that could help change the world. animals dna is not excatly the same as a humans so using a humans dna might make scientific research more accurate. please leave me honest answers & no bull$#!t.

IT IS CRUEL TO TREAT ANIMALS LIKE THEY ARE NOTHING JUST BECAUSE THE U.S. IS AFARID TO USE PEOPLE SENTENCED TO DEATH PENALTY!!!

God is the only person that can judge someone. (remember that)

Answer 1

that is very true ..... i think that you are VERY right that is a great idea mabey u can talk to some people and start a protest !!! i would love for that to the world .......GOOD LUCK♥

Answer 2

I do not agree with the death penalty either. I don't think anyone other than God himself has a right to judge a person's life, no matter how hanius the crime. Rotting away in a jail cell for the rest of your life sucks more anyway. As for the animal testing, I don't really have an opinon on it, never thought about it. Using those sentenced to death for testing though is cruel and unusual, plus confined lab animals have less variables that could affect lab results. A 60 year old black male and a 30 year old white female could respond very differently to tesing. Just a thought!

Answer 3

There are a number of tests involving animals that are useless and cruel. There are also tests done on animals that have saved countless lives and suffering. We need to look at how we use them but we can never I think altogether eliminate the practice. Needs of the many and all that.

As far as using people sentenced to death row....whats wrong with you? That is not a logical exchange or a very valuable one, studies produce meaningful data only when many subjects are studied, I guess you rule out the possibility that an appeal might overturn a guilty verdict....happens all the time. The numbers of people needed for testing...those under death penalty, fall far short of what would be needed in any event. In order to eliminate unnecessary animal suffering should we also rule out all diets but vegetarian? Maybe make roadways and cars illegal because they cause great loss of animal life? How about electrical lines or hydroelectric dams?
Eliminate the unneeded testing certainly, but we just can't give them equal rights...ya know? Be well.

Answer 4

well the brand name iams or something tests on animals but they fixed that
but i think the death penalty is sensable because if peopel killed someone they deserve the same but thats just my opinion but the downside is no ones never exsactly sure they got the right person so when they arrest someone
it might not be that person yes i see your trying to make a difference but
you know what no matter what you do or try wihtout law there is always going to be animal abuse and that you cannot stop compleatly whitch is very sad.

Answer 5

No. i'm a hundred% against enforced testing on human beings, whoever they are. i come across the advice chilling. i'm vegan to minimise my contribution to animal suffering and exploitation, yet I cost human existence excess of animal existence. besides, there's a pragmatic subject; it would shrink drug testing (and that i'm assuming we are speaking approximately testing drugs) to those countries that even have the loss of life penalty. many countries do no longer, i'm satisfied to assert. So what - testing on long-term prisoners? All and any prisoners?

Answer 6

Laboratory testing, as a general rule, is inhumane...sure, they treat the specimens well AFTER they've made them sick...but to make someone suffer, animal OR human, is just cruel.

Answer 7

That would be cruel and unusual punishment.