instead of doing animal testings on animal why not murderers who will be sentanced to death anyway? instead of animals who never did anything
2007-03-10 01:40:26 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
no, i do not agree because a human life is always more important then an animal's life. no human deserves to be "tested on"
2007-03-10 01:45:08 · answer #1 · answered by -- 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a sweet theory. However, animals are smaller, less costly to care for, a more "controlled" group.
I think certain criminals should be immediately executed as soon as they are convicted.
Child molesters (who are in one of the few groups of criminals that no matter rehab, time, etc., rehabilitate themselves very successfully) certain murderers, habitual offenders who offer little to society or their families.
We don't need 'em. I agree. But it would be a logistical nightmare to try to do studies on them.
I agree with animal testing though it turns my stomach to think about it in detail. I agree with it for medical advances. But I don't agree with it for shampoo making or food dye production or other unimportant things like that.
2007-03-10 09:47:37 · answer #2 · answered by ssssss 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i definitely agree...criminals should be treated like the crap they are...cold blooded killers would make great test recipients instead of all the people who obey the law and work hard.. paying for the scum that kills and steals and rape..maybe that would be one way they could pay for their own crimes...im sick of having to work my a.s.s of to pay for the lazy people who don't want to work to support themselves
2007-03-10 10:04:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you whole heartily.
2007-03-10 09:45:13 · answer #4 · answered by MUSHMAN 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋