---

Quote: from I never forget at 1:44 pm on Mar. 14, 2008

---

I'm very upset by this thread....I mean seriously people why do you think we invented convicts?

---

That was probably one of the most idiotic statements in this while thread.

FP

---

why not test chemicals on convicts?

---

I believe that testing should only be carried out on humans willing to face the side effects. I dont give a shit what gets tested, as long as it can give consent. It is you who must get off his high horse
-CS

---

When death is a common side effect? No one will do it, and all progress, both medical and otherwise, will halt. We use cloned rats, made in laboratories. I see no issue here.

Quote: from I never forget at 1:48 pm on Mar. 14, 2008

---

why not test chemicals on convicts?

---

Because they are still people, regardless. Most aren't deserving of a death sentence. And this isn't Nazi Germany.

FP

-------
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

---

well I'm all for testing on certain convicts.

---

I like how you completely avoided responding to what I said.

FP

-------
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

---

There's nothing wrong with testing on people are going to be killed anyways in prison. they might as well be used. Animal testing can be useful, but it'd be much more accurate to use people.

---

Two words:  slippery slope.

Anyway, you cant possibly be serious.  Even if death is the ultimate result, many of these chemicals result in slow, painful deaths.  That's something called cruel and unusual punishment which is, I hope you know, illegal.

The bottom line is that animals occupy a lower rung on the ladder of moral rights.  For medical and scientific progress in the world of chemical development, its either us, them, or nothing.  The first and the third options are unacceptable.

-------
As I walk through the valley of death, I fear no one, for I am the meanest mother fu*ker in the valley. -Gen. Patton

---

As sad and/or cruel it is, the products need to be tested on something, and FDA regulations require this before it is human tested (for pharmaceuticals at least).

---

ya better an animal than a person even tho it's sad to say

-------
Bittersweetoxox is my lw beau =p ;)
Young Deezy Homie 4 Lyfe!
Votes:43632
Penalties:10370   you do that math :)

There seem to be no other options, testing on dishes of cells won't give the whole picture of what effects a substance may have, and as far as I know, there are no computerised models of a whole animal that can be used to replace testing on animals, and even if there was, it could be subtly wrong in a way that might end up having very bad effects.