InventorSpot

Uhhhh.. animal testing... that's bad!!!

Only bad for the animal.

If people are against animal testing, let them be the first to try something. When a new drug is invented, I say test it on an animal first. I would rather have rabbit go blind than a person.

for good sakes if that was implemented on people it would be great!|!!!!!

Bionic Bunnies will take over the world!!!

"against animal testing, let them be the first"

Just FYI I'm a computer analyst and a techie. And the idea of bionic contacts is way cool. But not at the suffering of a living thing.

I wish the government would give us the choice of human testing.

I'd rather a prisoner who's raped and killed a woman or tortured a family could be a choice for testing over an innocent animal that has no choice and reaps no benefits from the whole thing.

Man justifies his cruelty with his failings. It will alleviate human suffering, make it more convenient for humans, be a cool thing for humans.

So what? There is other life on the planet. We live in heated houses, get into our heated/air conditioned cars, drive comfortably to the one of 100000 coffeeshops and glide to our place of work.

There are homeless people and pets and wildlife being pushed out or slaughtered for coats that need help.

Really we need bionic contacts?

We are judged by how we treat our weakest member.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man"
-- Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)

Let all bear in mind that a society is judged not so much by the standards attained by its more affluent and privileged members as by the quality of life which it is able to assure for its weakest members.
~H.E. Javier Perez de Cuellar

The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.
~Hubert Humphrey

How then do you propose to check for teratogenic activity of a drug? You would have the convict test the drugs, but would you give the drug to a pregnant convict to see if mutations or birth defects result in the children? The babies did not commit the crimes, so now they pay the price? I don't think so. I do not believe that cosmetics and toiletries need to be tested on animals, because there are well established chemical profiles that can be modeled in computers, but drugs and devices should be evaluated prior to launching on humans. Even then, some drugs still sneak through animal and human testing and do harm.

Your PETA position is untenable: Humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. Responsible management should be practiced, but outright banning is preposterous.

My daughter, at the time 12 years old, said "There is a place on this earth for all God's animals...right next to the potatoes and gravy!"

(ok, kind of sick, but funny!)

You may think it's ok to test on prisoners, but being a prisoner, no matter how reprehensible does not negate their status as human. Testing on prisoners even if they volunteer can potentially be a situation where they are in fact manipulated or unduly pressured, and they don't have freedom of choice. Forcibly testing, is even more disgusting and is outright torture. Such subjects would also have motivation to lie about results for revenge, pressure to give the 'correct answer' or a desire to please by giving the 'correct' answer.

You say you want the choice of human testing, but the potential candidates you discuss would be unlikely to volunteer. Prisoners are pretty weak members of a society I must say, and they are more likely the intended sort of subject to a couple of the quotes you provide.

Also for what it's worth writing off prisoners completely undermines any rehabilitation, and the majority will eventually be released and have to re-integrate into society.