Re: The Harms to Humans from Animal Experimentation

"Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <snip>
> >
> > Nothing mimics the human body so well as the body of an animal.
> Not so, the human body is 100% accurate.
> >
> > What the article fails to mention are all the successes of medicine: the
> > drugs, surgeries, information about nutrition, psychological insights,
> etc.
> > that came through animal use.
> >
> > I don't think that using humans as test subjects is ethical because
people
> > have rights under the laws even if they have committed crimes, and using
> > human beings as subjects for such experiments would be cruel and
unusual,
> > putting the researchers as being as morally wrong as the Chinese
> communists
> > and Nazis.
>
> The people convicted of serial killing of people or children have no
ethical
> rights. In law you are correct. However the law and reason do not run side
> by side.

I'm an American and maybe that's why I think everyone has rights, even
violent criminals, not to be tortured. If we start torturing people, we may
as well just go back to Medeival, Ancient, or Prehistoric times. It's not
morally acceptable to torture people (certain interrogative pressures such
as bright lights, maybe, but not cruel and painful torture)  no matter who
those people are.


> Final analysis, ask yourself this question:-
>
> (a) A serial killer and child abuser can be used for experiments with 100%
> certainty that the results obtained can be guaranteed correct.

This is wrong.

For one thing, you can't be100% certain that the serial killer or child
abuser is guilty. There is the due process of  law, which requires evidence,
and that I believe is usually correct. However, sometimes it's wrong and
people have been exonerated by new evidence and released from prison. Are
you willing to start torturing innocent people right along with the evil
ones just to save a RAT?

Also, serial killers can't be bred with specific genes knocked out, or have
another nearly identical person be used as a control, or a lot of things
that scientists can do with other animals that can't be done with humans.

The results also can't be guaranteed correct for other reasons. The prisoner
might have been taking drugs or alcohol that were smuggled into the prison,
may have pre-existing medical conditions, and a lot of other things that
could throw off the test results. (This is also a good argument, in similar
form, against pound seizure.)

> (b) An innocent animal can be used with no objective conclusion.

Many objective conclusions have been found through animal use, and a great
deal of the medicines, surgeries and therapies available to us today are
there to show for it.

> Which one do you chose?

The animal.

> Your analogy with the Chinese communists or Nazis does not hold water,
these
> excuses for humans used *innocent* people. Morals do not come into the
> equation.

Your scenario would also involve harming innocent people, as noted above.
Also, just because someone has committed a crime does not mean they give up
all rights to be treated as a human being. I'm sure the Communists didn't
always think of those against the party as "innocent" for example.

-Rubystars