+578 Why test on animals when we've got pedophiles in prison? Amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because constitutional rights protect them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's dumb. They broke the law, so why does the law still apply to them? :/

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, because they're subject to the law more than anybody else in the country. They're under 24-hour supervision by people who will immediately reprimand them if they break one law, which is so much more intense than it would be anywhere else. If we subject them to the law constantly, then we need to obey it as well. While I can't say that their crimes were marginally good things to do, we can't turn around and feed them pills that will burn their intestines.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But apparently they don't want the law to apply to them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But that doesn't matter. As long as they're subject to the law, then we can't just do whatever we want to them. If we turn around and torture them, then how are we better? Granted, I don't think animals ought to be tested either.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because yeah, how will they ever survive if we make them wash their hair and lotion their hands with experimental shampoos and lotions?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, those lotions aren't FDA approved, or even approved in general. They could easily burn your ears off, if it's somewhat preliminary testing.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Aw, poor criminals gonna get hurt.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

who are you to declare when/who to deny constitutional rights? are we going back to the witch trials again? yeah they broke the law and should be accountable for their actions, but that doesn't give YOU a right to condem them. Their punishment is an accurate and proportional representation of their crimes (however contriversial). I originally voted this post up....but criminals are human too, however deformed. This post is basically saying it's ok to do wrong onto other humans. If they were in prison for "committing wrongful acts on others", what better are we for doing the same to them? This sense of "justice" .... ultimately dehumanizes you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm human too, and you're infringing on my right to have a different opinion without getting bitched at a year after saying it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't say you weren't allowed to have a different opinion, hell that's what this site is all about But why can't we discuss/argue perspectives? I'm just saying that it's wrong to violate human rights

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They gave up their rights.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

so that makes it ok to treat them as lab rats? Civil rights are universal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Tell that to the little boy he touched, the family of the person he murdered, the woman he raped... "Your rights were infringed upon, but don't worry, we'll make sure his rights are perfectly in tact."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

his rights shoud never be stripped, but he should be held accountable for his actions. To make them into lab rats? really? you're no better than the nazis who experimented on Jews. The results of these "experiements" could be extremely painful, and pain is something we don't use as an excuse for a punishment. Reminds me of some quote I found online. "This convict is a killer and to kill is wrong. Let's kill him" something along the lines of that at least.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're actually comparing millions of innocent Jews who were starved and tortured and killed to murderers and rapists who are well-fed and are watched over and would maybe get a rash at the worst, and in the same thought try to tell me that my line of thinking is misconstrued. Y'know what, fuck this. This argument was from a year ago, you didn't even kind of serve your purpose of convincing me I'm wrong, you just pissed me off and I'm tired of you trying and you're just being a prick at this point. You're irritating and I'm done with your silly ass.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I've always wondered that! Oh, if only I ran this country...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

guys im talking about shampoos and make up and lotions, not freaking medications and chemicals and stuff. Andf if you say they dont deserve it? They've raped and murdered, and they may be on death row anyway, at least they'll benefit the world that way. Id rather see him get an allergic reaction to a shampoo than a bunny under the same circumstances.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I love you. Except, I think it would still be okay to test new drugs or chemotherapy, etc. on rapists and murderers rather than animals. Gosh, we must sound so heartless. The way I see it is, those people obviously didn't have any qualms about violating another person's rights, or even taking away their life. As you said, at least they would benefit society in this way, rather than completely wasting our tax dollars by rotting in a jail cell.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

sense, you in fact are a girl, I'll look past the first part of that comment

by Anonymous 14 years ago

:)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The thing is there is always a chance that they are innocent. Imagine if you were wrongfully imprisoned and experimented on by a shampoo that caused you to lose your ears.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

who are you to say when it is ok to exploit/degrade another human to be "test subjects" they are still human, and this your justification of "oooh, if we use them, they can be useful" what you're saying is that there's an appromiate time it's ok to do harm onto others you'll be no better than than the convict him/herself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's some retarded logic you got there

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Your soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hot, i wana eff you in the butt <3

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why don't they just test stuff on people who are on death row? They're going to die anyway. xD

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I agree. It might sound cruel or against the law, but I don't care. If one of my relatives, friends, heck, even someone whom I have never met, could be saved by testing out medicine on pedo's, I'd say "Screw the laws! Let's put our tax dollars to work here!" Seriously, people who abuse kids don't deserve mercy. In my opinion, that is.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This is so stupid. I'd pick testing on the best animal over the worst human any day of the week. I guess you'd probably support waterboarding of pedophiles as well, right?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Pedophiles should be waterboarded multiple times per day, everyday for the rest of their miserable lives. As far as I'm concerned, they gave up all of their rights the day they decided to violate a child.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A lifetime sentence is enough punishment. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Apparently, the current justice system does not send a loud enough message to other would-be criminals. If they were subjected to harsher punishments, the crime rate would decline significantly, and I'm sure repeat offenders would become just about nonexistent.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you have any evidence of this? Do states with the death penalty have significantly lower crime rates? FTR, I'm against the against the death penalty as well.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The problem with the death penalty is that they rarely carry though with it. I'm just saying that if punishments for convicted felons where more severe, they could be made an example of why others should not commit crimes. For example: Let's say a person if convicted of grand theft, they are publicly given 30 lashes and then let go. In this case, state money does not have to go towards housing a criminal for the duration of the sentence, others can see why they should not be thieves, and chances are this individual will never steal again. Win-win as fas as I'm concerned.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That is one of the shittiest ideas I may have ever heard. Are we living in fucking medieval times? I think we've moved past violent and public punishments. Maybe it's more likely to work, but I don't think any one deserves to be tortured or killed, even if they are a pedophile / repeat offender. This view comes out of my trust in humanity, as well as my belief that the .01% of people who didn't commit the crime they're accused of (number is by no means accurate) shouldn't have to be subjected to physical torture.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well then, we must agree to disagree. I for one would rather run the risk of punishing the occasional innocent than allow a psycho to get away scott-free and harm again.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Better that a hundred criminals walk free than a single man be wrongly convicted

by Anonymous 13 years ago

really? HAS any crime decreased? why don't we just put death punishments for all crimes? certainly that will "subject them to harsher punishments" and "the crime rate would decline" It doesn't work like that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

but what if it turns out their innocent?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because humans can talk, therefore can sue

by Anonymous 14 years ago

While I agree for cosmetic purposes, as those really aren't very important, for medical reasons, you need to test on animals. People don't breed fast enough.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Have you seen how many people are on this Earth?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Mice are in the womb for three weeks. Nine months is a lot longer than 3 weeks.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No shit. But, animals work differently than humans. If people want to get accurate results for new medical treatments, they should try it on the species its meant for.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If it's such an obvious thing, why did you have to ask? We observe the animals' reactions to whatever we're testing on them. I know someone who works on mice studying alcoholism to find a way to prevent it (and to those who say "Don't drink then": that's like saying "Don't have sex" to those who have unwanted pregnancies. It's not going to happen), and they have to be able to see what happens across the generations. Our genomes are incredibly similar to those of the animals we test on. If you really care about the way animals are treated, go look at the meat industry. Those animals are not treated nearly as well as lab animals. They could be treated so much better, and the lab animals are helping find cures for diseases, not just being murdered and treated inhumanely for food (when being a vegetarian is fairly easy). Go stand up for those animals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I am standing up for those animals. Both my sister and myself are vegetarians because of the meat industry. But, I'm not only going to stand up for them only. I care about the fact that these people testing on animals are probably taking peoples lost pets. They don't only use mice and bunnies. They do also use cats and dogs. And personally, I much rather have a pedophile used as a lab rat and suffer than my cat. And I was implying that our planet is over populated with people and there is really no need to use the animals. Yes, we are similar to mice and what not, but, as I said, to get the most accurate results, test on the species its meant for. There are people out there who will volunteer.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Speaking from personal experience and having seen the scientific labs on the college campus in my town, they only test on the animals they intended to in the first place. If you're testing on mice for an experiment, why on earth would you test on a dog? Unless they were intending to try it on dogs in the first place (as that would require a different amount of supplies and such), they wouldn't do that because it would screw with the entire experiment. Okay, then you can go get the overpopulated countries and pedophiles to breed until we have people with certain traits that you want to test on. See how far that gets you. There might be, but they're not going to be the right people for the experiment. For many scientific experiments, you need lots of animals with certain genotypes and sometimes, you need to see the next generation. It would take much longer to do it on humans, and it would probably become too difficult and pointless.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't know. Ask the famous dead guy who made Insulin. Who ever said that we had to make them breed? Why not just use what we have now and let idiotic teenage girls continue making babies in this world. And why certain traits? They could test all of the medical things on people with that condition that they are trying to cure. Those people are bound to die someday soon(not saying that healthy people will live forever,) so why not use them to test on? Instead of them sitting around slowly dieing, they could help themselves and other people by trying to find the cure instead of using animals. Well, there aren't the 'right' animals either. And I don't want to say this again, but I will, If these medical tests are for humans, why not test it on us to get accurate results instead of a different species. -.- You can use lots of humans too. Using animals isn't the only option for these types of things on this planet.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Insulin was discovered in the early 1920's. Times have changed. You need certain traits because a lot of times, certain diseases are caused by genetics. Huntington's disease is caused by a certain gene, and without being able to code other genes, we wouldn't know that. They tested on mice by making them breed to find out that there's a way you can suppress genes, like the agouti gene in mice that makes them have a tendency towards obesity. And those are just two examples that came to mine at the moment. Because those will work for a lot of different species. We test it on mice to learn about whatever we're learning about in the first place, and then use it on humans to see how it'll work. Mice are simply the easiest. As I have said, it takes longer with humans because you need to be able to selectively breed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And explain to me how it would take longer on humans than mice. Just because they are tiny doesn't mean that they will always have fast reactions to it. Also, humans can tell you what feels like is going on. Mice can't.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

go take a biology class.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@1098612 (SgtPeppers): First of all, all sorts of animals are tested on. Cats, dogs, mice, rats, rabbits, monkeys, and many more. but that shouldn't even matter because all animals can feel pain, terror, grief, loss, etc whether it is a human,a dog or a mouse. Animal testing does not provide accurate results. For example, we have found hundreds of cures for aids in chimps, but none of these apply to humans. For cosmetic testing there are way more accurate results with skin tube testing then on animals, and it is mostly just done for the government funding money the companies receive. The animals are treated absolutely horrible. For cosmetic testing they take every ingredient and give the animals extremely high doses of that ingredient to see how much it can take before it dies. Rabbits eyes are pinned open and necks clamped in place and chemicals dropped in their eyes and no painkillers. They will break their own necks trying to escape the pain.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

First of all, I do not support testing on animals for cosmetics whatsoever. Cosmetics don't help humans or animals in any real way. It is cruel, and much less humane than the testing for medical purposes. Second, my knowledge of animal testing is from mainly what I've learned in biology (at a science academy) and my personal experiences from being in a scientific lab that tests on mice while learning about alcoholism. Maybe it's not everywhere, maybe this university is a crazy exception, but the mice at UT aren't mistreated. They live in cages with their family/friends where they are provided with food, water/alcohol (depending on the mouse for the experiments), and they are humanely killed while knocked out by a drug. Maybe some animals are mistreated, and I can't say the same for all animals. Third, now that they've found a cute for SIV in chimps, they know the basics of how the cures will work, which will in turn help against HIV. HIV evolves too quickly though

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And about my first point: Labs that are meant for mice or rats aren't going to have a place to keep those dogs/cats. Can I see where you got your information from on this issue?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Banting tested on dogs when trying to find a way to help people with Diabetes (Insulin).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

but what if it turns out the person was innocent?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why pick just one? You can have both with pedobear!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

WIN!!!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

i think this needs to go in the "most debated" category.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ever heard of human rights? Just because they're criminals doesn't mean they should be treated in a less-than-human way. The government would never approve of it, and we won't be any better than those criminals for doing that - I'd rather they'd test it on animals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because innocent animals are less alive than people who are being punished already for hurting another person in some way, obviously.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

then what the fuck are you doing? you're proposing to hurt another human being. TEST EXPERIEMENTS? that is unhumane, prisoners are put in prisons to rehabitulate them and assimulate them back into society. seriously... what the fuck? you might as well join the kkk and go "test" your experiments with your victims because they are "inferior"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

guys did i ever say the gov't would approve? no. is this what the post is about? no. the post is saying defensless animals deserve to continue their innocent lives eating lettuce and digging holes and shit. Child molesters chose their life, and it would be of benefit to the world if they had a purpose in society rather that raping little children. they aren't people. they're monsters.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Amen to that !

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think we go too easy on criminals in this country.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And Canada.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, we go too easy on Canada! They should be our slave country!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

-.-

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'd agree if you hadn't specified pedophiles, as opposed to all the other types of criminals. Also, *technically*, a pedophile is someone who feels a sexual attraction to children, they don't have to act on it. The ones who *do* act on it are the ones being illegal, and we could probably just call them child-molesters/rapists, right?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I can't believe people diasgree with this. How can we justify harming innocent creatures JUST for our cosmetic benefits. Criminals, rapists etc. should contribute something to humankind after what they have put people through. If you feel that we should treat them as superior to animals with rights and voice then you probably haven't known any victims of these people and experienced their impact first-hand. They didnt ask for the victims opinion or acknowledge their rights so why should they deserve to get what they didnt give?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I must say to those YYA'ing and the poster, you are coming off as quite retardedly stuck up. If you can deem one crime worthy of extreme violation of rights then whats to stop further crimes being worthy. It is a thin thin line that anyone with a brain will not wish to cross! I agree a stronger punishment is needed but using them as lab rats? Do you honestly view human life as lesser then animals? Certain animal testing is NEEDED, the current cutting pieces of baby mice or fish's hearts out to find out why they grow back to CURE heart diesease in humans is a good example. Cosmetics is redundant and can use volunteering humans. While breaking the law voids certain rights, you cannot subject them to a complete lack of rights or YOU are as bad as them, OP do you wish to be on the level of a pedo?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Kids under the age of 18 caught sexting are now sexual predators because of their distribution of pornographic material containing a minor. Same kind of deal I guess...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't care what the person has done, it is cruel to wish that on people. Human rights can't be violated just because they did something that they did was wrong or against the law. that doesn't make them any less of a person. I understand people's disdain or hatred towards pedophiles, But I also feel that people need to be more informed about the mental illness behind it before they start making judgement calls. yes they have done something wrong, but that doesn't mean you can strip them of their human rights and put them on the same level as animals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because although they are in prison for doing something illegal, torture is also illegal. There's a reason that stuff needs to be tested. It can have some nasty side affects. It's cruel and unusual punishment. Just because they're in prison doesn't make them any less of a human being.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah but I much rather have a criminal suffer that horrible side effect than a innocent little animal. I really couldn't give a shit about people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I bet the kid was asking where were their civil rights when they were being felt up by the pedophile... now the pedophile is asking where their civil rights are when they're being used as lab rats. Kinda ironic.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

does that mean it's ok to take it away then? no it doesn't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

On the previous arguments: Many cosmetics/medicines have been tested on animals, and proven safe, while whenced used on people caused major issues. Most new drugs today have no long-term history to back them up. Are these safe to use? Know one knows for sure. However, the system allows them to be distributed. Many prescription medicines can be worse for you than the illness they are treating. Also, just as some people may be allergic to grass while most people are not, specific people can have bad reactions to medicines. So testing on people not always helps. Testing on animals {all types}, which in some cases are mistreated, as well gives no definite answer. Finally, a method of bypassing putting humans and animals in danger has been discovered. Testing any products on human cells on which the medicine will actually effect. A small sample is all that is needed. We don't know for sure how this will work, but is seems the best answer for now.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

sounds good:)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What! Pedophiles may be criminals of a vile offence but they are still human beings!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And animals are alive.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Your point? Animals aren't human beings...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But they live and breathe, and they've likely done next to nothing to hurt somebody except to survive, whereas prisoners have hurt somebody in the interest of greed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Holy **** there are some harsh people on here. But it's the internet. What else did I expect? But seriously, I don't care whether they use rapists/murderers/death row/etc. or animals, because either a huge bunch of people will make a group about how it's wrong, or we'd all just forget about the problem in a few weeks time, and this whole point would be moot. So if I don't care about the issue, then why am I posting this? Because I'm bored, and it's fun to see people argue over the internet.

by Anonymous 14 years ago