Re: The Harms to Humans from Animal Experimentation

"Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > I have not advocated using innocent people.
>
> Not intentionally (I hope) but if you're going to start torturing convicts
> then eventually it's going to happen, because of three reasons:
>
> 1. False conviction
Possible, it's happened before and no doubt will again. But remember these
people have been convicted and already face death or a life sentence. The
fallibility of the legal system is another issue.
>
> I covered this one in my last post. Basically an innocent man or woman
gets
> charged with murder or some other crime that most people would consider to
> be dehumanizing (like the stories you mentioned). They get tortured even
> though they did nothing wrong.
>
> 2. Definition of "Innocent"
>
> As in my analogies, different people have different ideas about what would
> constitute someone who would deserve these kinds of things. Is someone who
> wishes the President or Queen a gruesome bloody death and says so
publically
> worthy of this kind of treatment? Would members of ALF and ELF be worthy
of
> this treatment were they to continue in their terrorism of blowing up
> property and endangering people's lives? Is someone who rapes worthy of
this
> kind of treatment? What about people who sell illegal drugs, and would
those
> illegal drugs include marijuana? What about a parent who gives their child
> beatings that leave marks? What about that lady who almost got stoned to
> death for having sex outside of marriage? Where do we draw the line? Some
of
> these cases are clearly bad and some may not seem as bad but do they
justify
> torture?

We draw the line at people who have been convicted and face death or a life
sentence -as above.
>
> 3. Severe Mental Illness
>
> Some people can't help their erratic behaviors and these people aren't
> always given the benefit of being able to plead insane. Lawyers spar with
> each other while the mental patient may or may not get protection they
need.
>
> What about Andrea Yates? She was said to have felt horrible for the deaths
> of her children, which she drowned one by one in the bathtub, despite
their
> screaming: "No Mommy No" but she had killed them in a horrible mental
state
> where she thought God was talking to her and telling her to do it or they
> would burn in hell. The jury gave her life instead of death because they
> knew that it would've been cruel to kill her for something she had little
> control over, her mental state
>
> It was quite possible that the jury could've voted the other way, and
she'd
> be on death row now for something over which she had little control.
>
> Would you have had painful experiments done on her?

Certainly. Let us assume that some maniac breaks into your home, rapes you
and kills the rest of your family. Are you going to advocate remedial
therapy for such a person? Sane or insane the act has been committed and
they must be punished.

There is far too much time wasted trying to find what is the cause of
peoples actions. A killer is a killer period.
>
> <snip>
> > I say these guys are neighbours of mine, no I do not live in a rough
area,
> I
> > live two miles from a category (A) high security prison.
>
> I was about to say, better move somewhere else. ;)
>
> > Now honestly, can you say that either of these 'things' have rights?
>
> They had the right to a fair trial, they had the right to a mental
> evaluation, and they had the right to be executed humanely. Not for their
> sake so much, but for the dehumanizing effect it would have on those
> carrying out tortures and other punishments that are a throwback to
ancient
> times.

They do not have the rights for mental evaluation, they have killed, we are
going round in circles.
I take the hard line, you opt for the soft option.
>
> It drags us all down if we become the very demons we're trying to
eradicate.

Not really, such people should be eradicated from the face of the earth. It
is the only *certain* way to ensure that they do not re-offend.
>
> Just because they were uncivilized, brutal, and evil, doesn't mean we have
> to be the same way.

No get rid of them, lethal injection is the most civilized manner OR use
them for medical experimentation.
There - we have gone the full circle!
>
> > These are the type of people I advocate for experimental use. *Not
> innocent
> > people or petty offenders*
>
> If you allow experiments to be carried out on anyone, regardless of how
> "Guilty" they seem, innocent people will fall through the cracks. Maybe
even
> you, Ray. Let's say one of your neighbors did what those other people did,
> hopped the fence and buried his grim leftovers in your back yard, then
> called the police stating something fishy was going on at your house. How
do
> you think you'd get out of that one?

I would have to rely on the judicail system and the police. As I stated
previously innocent people have been conviced and executed, but we can not
stop punishment of the guilty on the grounds of these very rare instances.
>
> Just something to think about.
>
> Also you forgot to reply to this part:
>
> 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.

You use the same arguments as a vivisectionist, you have me worried!
>
> 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, surgeries, medicines,
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.)

You are now clutching at straws.

The link provided 'ipse dixit' later on in this thread clearly states my
case.

I think you will find that most people on 'Death Row' are in solitary
confinement, or in this country sex abusers are on 'Rule 43' - solitary.
They are kept this way to protect them from other offenders who would save
the state a job, or in the case of the UK save the taxpayers a hell of a lot
of money.

I mentioned earlier that I live close to high security prison, I have
several friends who work there, indeed I am a member of the prison social
club. Good company and cheap drinks. I have toured the prison - including
the high security area. The condition these psychotic  killers live in is
far superior to that experienced many normal working people. Good food,
heated swimming pools, satellite TV. Something is clearly wrong. Too many
'do gooders'.

I take on board all you have said about remedial therapy, and many people
share your views.
That is the prime reason why it is not safe for women to walk the streets on
a night without fear of molestation or even worse.

I'm not hard or uncaring, just practical.

Think about that one.


>
>Ray
>
>