human experiments?

**bipper** · 08-13-2005, 09:41 AM

Ok, Cloud no. 9, if i may ask where human experimentation was talked about that you are refering to?

If it was in the stemcell thread - Gnostic was against it as were most on that thread.

Using that alone, I would argue that saying

on two threads now and by 3 people human experiments have been talked about positively. to inflict upon our undesirables.

is it just me or is this the end of morality? to say that such things practiced in auschwitz by mengle are a good thing?

is severly ... saturated? I am sure other people have apposed it else where, and by saying it like this - seems to take the controversial ideals as few and typecaste that on the public.
I for one am against the experimentations on humans period. No embryos, no 90 year old convicted lunataic. If they volentier in life or death fine, but for us to make that desision because they may be sick, or a lower level as far as human society goes - that seems ill minded to me.

What if a man is in jail for a terroristic act and he was falsely accused. The judge may think he is guilty and everyone else may think so. But that one man will be tested why? to cure cancer - possibly?

Bip

**Shlup** · 08-13-2005, 10:15 AM

Uhm, no. Not even on the most evil of people.

**ThroneofDravaris** · 08-13-2005, 10:27 AM

If someone was able to turn me into the Ultimate Weapon, I would let them.

*evil laughter*

**eestlinc** · 08-13-2005, 03:48 PM

I'm pretty sure doing medical experiments on inmates would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment".

**BloodyQueen** · 08-13-2005, 04:36 PM

There are actually experimental trials carried out on humans at the moment, but these involve people who consent to taking part. I really don't think I agree with people being forced to take part in such trials. As for the whole child-molestation thing, I believe there's a prison in Texas that forces these inmates to receive Depo-Provera injections. I think so, anyway.

**nik0tine** · 08-13-2005, 04:46 PM

Thankfully the United States constitution explicitly states that experimenting on criminals is illegal.

**Cloud No.9** · 08-13-2005, 08:01 PM

but the us constitution also forbids torture. yeah cos that's held up so highly nowadays.

i just don't get it. especially with suspected terrorists who are innocent (not been tried and so are innocent). with child molestors........ they are still human. every law still applies to them.

**DocFrance** · 08-13-2005, 08:05 PM

The utilitarian argument that "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one" has one glaring flaw - it assumes that all people are not unique, and that one life can easily be traded for another.

The only way human experimentation can be moral is if the people who are being experimented on volunteer. Many people agree to "donate their body to science" upon death, and many more take part in scientific experiements - experiments that won't have a detrimental effect on themselves, of course.

Out of curiosity, how do those of you who think human experimenting is bad think about stem cell research?

**lordblazer** · 08-13-2005, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but the us constitution also forbids torture. yeah cos that's held up so highly nowadays.

i just don't get it. especially with suspected terrorists who are innocent (not been tried and so are innocent). with child molestors........ they are still human. every law still applies to them.

The US relaly doesn't torture its prisoner's. They harrass them until they get what they need out of them. SOmetimes they give them this highly alcoholic drink and they start talking.

**Gnostic Yevon** · 08-13-2005, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by DocFrance

The utilitarian argument that "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one" has one glaring flaw - it assumes that all people are not unique, and that one life can easily be traded for another.

The only way human experimentation can be moral is if the people who are being experimented on volunteer. Many people agree to "donate their body to science" upon death, and many more take part in scientific experiements - experiments that won't have a detrimental effect on themselves, of course.

Out of curiosity, how do those of you who think human experimenting is bad think about stem cell research?

OK, I was against both stem cell research and human experimentation in that thread. The only way research on humans -- any humans is marginal is if the person being experimented on consents (and isn't coerced or bribed), and the experiment will not cause the person harm.

other than that, no experiments should be done on any humans.

**eestlinc** · 08-13-2005, 09:37 PM

stem cell research is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with experimenting on humans. The stem cells that would be used are extra cells created in fertility clinics that are currently just being thrown away. It's not like we're harvesting babies for body parts.

**jrgen** · 08-13-2005, 10:28 PM

I am indifferent in this question.

**black orb** · 08-13-2005, 10:42 PM

>>> There are lab rats for that, no need to use humans..

**Cloud No.9** · 08-13-2005, 10:56 PM

"The US relaly doesn't torture its prisoner's. They harrass them until they get what they need out of them. SOmetimes they give them this highly alcoholic drink and they start talking."

do not get me started on this argument. at the very least the US uses sleep depravation, water torture and fake drownings, stress positions and humilition on it's prisoners.

"You see... if you commit a crime and ended up in jail.. you choose that way. Here it would be you make the decision to risk such treatment(which would have to follow certian standards anyways) when you commited the crime. So therefore I do not see a lack of choice."

so why not for punishment crush the balls of criminals with bricks? why not strap them to an electrical out let? why not dip their feet in acid? why not remove a limb or too? we could blind them. remove their tongues. steal a lung and kidney. paralyze them. boil them alive.

their criminals and choose that way of life so lets just crucify them all.

no!

**ZeZipster** · 08-13-2005, 11:42 PM

You're going to have explain wth you're talking about. You're being extremely broad... If I asked if using narcotics was wrong, what would you say? It depends on the situation, right? What if ONE persons choice could save BILLIONS of lifes? Would it be immoral for that person not to? Would it be immoral if that decision involved taking 3 peoples lives? We can both be broad, but let's not.

Morals have held back science before, and this question has been asked before, the answer to it has made the society we live in. These scientists aren't doing it for

s and giggles, they're doing it for a valid cause. You can't deny an obvious positive outcome to all of this, can you? But then again I still have not idea what you're talking about.

Thread: human experiments?

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions