Human experimentation.

[Kalis]

Please, take this serious, if you are going to answer just to call me Hitler or some crazy stuff like that, don't bother

We dislike Hitler due to the abhorrent practices that were carried out under his orders, because if you take those away, he was just another person that wanted to conquer and is no different to the likes of Napoleon et al. - the British admire the genius of Napoleon, whereas we don't admire Hitler in the slightest, even though their basic goal and strategy was similar.

Asking people to not compare you, and claiming it is crazy to do so, without citing why the comparison isn't justified seems to be an attempt at trying to deflect valid criticism, as it appears the comparison is quite apt based on your desire to forcibly conduct experiments on humans based on how loathesome you find them to be. That's a pretty sick point of view you have on how we should treat people that are under our control.


tl;dr You may not like to be compared to Hitler, but you haven't given any reason why the comparison isn't a valid one.

[Jester Joe]

The moment you go that path , is the moment you are no better than those very people.

And this pains me to say really because there are indeed really big scumbags/mentally sick in the world but you cant justify it to use them as unwilling test subjects.

And to add to that, while it's a smaller chance now, realize there are still screw ups sometimes. Not every single person in jail is there because they actually did it. Like I said, not as common now, but is it really worth the risk of finding out afterwards "Wow, that person we just led to a horrifying death was completely innocent!"

It's already bad enough to see people released from jail after 20 years because they just found evidence that proved they were innocent.

[Deleted]

I don't want this to happen. It could happen to me or anybody else (who's innocent). Why? Well, there is no perfect justice system in the world we live in, accidents happen all the time. Also if we stoop so low, this opens doors to many worse things which could then be justified, because hey we already did x.

[Deleted]

Not a fan of the idea but it'd better than the idea of a 'death penalty'.

[Ragelicious]

They should experiment on religious people. Maybe one day they will find a cure for their mental disease.

[Infracted]

[Deleted]

They should experiment on religious people. Maybe one day they will find a cure for their mental disease.

Okay that right there would make a person exactly like the nazis.

[Revi]

They should experiment on religious people. Maybe one day they will find a cure for their mental disease.

Surprising level of stupidity coming from a Danish person, I'm used to you guys being more sensible :/

[Dendrek]

Some experiments are literally torture. Giving animals cancer. Removing limbs. Having them ingest or be injected with chemicals that corrode the inside. And nearly all animal experiments require biopsies and/or death to study the results.

So if you want to do this on a dead body: go ahead. But on a living human being. Nope. Never. That's morbid and inhumane as fuck.

[Khraine]

It's a really important ethical issue. Once you start testing on a certain group of people it isn't long before you start on others. it also dehumanises individuals.

They should experiment on Me. Maybe one day they will find a cure for my mental disease.

Fixed than for you, you may as well be saying it anyway. God bless.

[Deleted]

Some experiments are literally torture. Giving animals cancer. Removing limbs. Having them ingest or be injected with chemicals that corrode the inside. And nearly all animal experiments require biopsies and/or death to study the results.

So if you want to do this on a dead body: go ahead. But on a living human being. Nope. Never. That's morbid and inhumane as fuck.

See, I find this kind of argument completely inconsistent.

What you're saying is this: some forms of animal experimentation cause the animal great pain and/or death. But we do it because it's necessary for us to understand more about medicine etc.

However, we must never do it on humans, even those who have done others great harm.

The problem with this is that while you think you stand on a pedestal labelled 'ethics' you're actually doing the opposite. You're advocating - or at least ignoring - the suffering of completely innocent animals while actively opposing the suffering of guilty humans. If anything, it makes more sense to perform it on the humans so that fewer innocent animals suffer.

Literally the only, only reason why we can't use experimentation on prisoners is because we can never be sure that someone is 100% guilty. That's the ONLY problem. Anyone who argues based on ethics is simply wrong and terribly hypocritical.

- - - Updated - - -

Most evil person =/= the sweetest of animals

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. So you'd rather perform experimentation on a mouse, who's done nothing wrong, than on a child abuser/murderer? What kind of ethical code do you even live by?

[Mihalik]

Ahhah! Revi look.

I'm an Atheist and I completely oppose any sort of involuntary human experimentation. I don't specifically see how religions relate to this. Most supporters of capital punishment are also self professedly rabidly religious, does that mean they are all bloodthirsty savages?

[derpkitteh]

i've always said that we should use criminals for this. make the lives of the worthless benefit the the innocent that they would gladly kill.

people who think criminals are humans sicken me.

[Grym]

As long as it's guaranteed that they're not suffering or needlessly in pain; they're still humans after all, even if they have given up every right to be treated as one.

It is experiments, it will be painful, people are not complaining about animal testing if the animals in question weren't suffering.

But it is OK, it is not like they didn't make their victim suffer either, so the more painful the experiments the better it is.

Just use the "death roll" prisoners, they should be considered dead the moment their death sentence is announced, so using a "dead person" as test subject isn't so bad, if anything, think of it as "recycling".

[Dendrek]

See, I find this kind of argument completely inconsistent.

What you're saying is this: some forms of animal experimentation cause the animal great pain and/or death. But we do it because it's necessary for us to understand more about medicine etc.

However, we must never do it on humans, even those who have done others great harm.

The problem with this is that while you think you stand on a pedestal labelled 'ethics' you're actually doing the opposite. You're advocating - or at least ignoring - the suffering of completely innocent animals while actively opposing the suffering of guilty humans. If anything, it makes more sense to perform it on the humans so that fewer innocent animals suffer.

Literally the only, only reason why we can't use experimentation on prisoners is because we can never be sure that someone is 100% guilty. That's the ONLY problem. Anyone who argues based on ethics is simply wrong and terribly hypocritical.

Why stop there? Why only use prisoners for experimentation? You can use them for slave labor. Hell, you can use them for death matches. If they're guilty, then there's no reason not to TORTURE them.

I get your sympathy for animals; I truly do. But there are certain lines humans should not be willing to cross. Because once we do, there's no practical way to regulate how we proceed from there.

[Noradin]

A mouse is no human, next you will you ask not to kill innocent plants by eating them?

[Bathory]

I'm with you. Experiment with those lined up for the death penalty with absolute guilt. Put this "it makes you no better than they are/karma wordplay" on the fairy tale shelf and let's science.

[tiporispit]

I'm for it, as long as it's voluntary. We'll apply the "my body, my choice" principle they use in abortion.

[Muffinator]

Why are we not experimenting on Death Row inmates? Surely something good could come from their death instead of just lethal injection or electric chair.

Why not use them for the betterment of all?

Humanity has always survived by a priority system, where the minority suffers for the majority. Why is it different when we have Death Row?

[Noradin]

I'm with you. Experiment with those lined up for the death penalty with absolute guilt. Put this "it makes you no better than they are/karma wordplay" on the fairy tale shelf and let's science.

"Absolute guilt"? And you use the word "science" in the same paragraph?
Hopefull that never comes to pass, because with that kind or science which assumes "absolute guilt" countless innocents would die with no gain at all.

[AeneasBK]

No one wants to adress the whole "There aren't enough of them" argument? Seems to be above (or below moral) relativity...

About 4-5million animal tests in Us and Canada in 2013 alone.

So thats your prisons empty, what next?