Wahrheit Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote]It becomes increasingly difficult to justify things like a "soul" and "morality" when you can model how much an animal is willing to sacrifice of itself to help another based on how much of their genome is shared.[/quote] If scientific human testing of medical formulas, serums etc. were allowed it is reasonable to assume the progress is researching said formulas would skyrocket, possibly leading to things like cures for cancer, growth serums, etc. Should human testing be allowed at all? To what extent? Under what conditions? [i]The uninformed need not post.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 [quote name='Wahrheit' timestamp='1314459991' post='5472424'] If scientific human testing of medical formulas, serums etc. were allowed it is reasonable to assume the progress is researching said formulas would skyrocket, possibly leading to things like cures for cancer, growth serums, etc. Should human testing be allowed at all? To what extent? Under what conditions? [i]The uninformed need not post.[/i] [/quote] I believe that human testing should be allowed as long as the person consents and is well aware of its possible consequences... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilhorus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Clones are possible. Use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 @Anthony: I agree, consensual testing and organ donors and other such people who volunteer, while alive or dead, should be allowed to be tested on(given they're in a proper mental state at the time). This is already done as far as I'm aware, though I don't know just how far they go with the test subjects. @HORUS: I disagree, if a clone is conceived it is now its own person and should have the rights of an ordinary human. @OP's Quote: The conclusion drawn in the quote and the reason given for it don't really match up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 Honestly as much as I hate this subject. I find it to be an inevitable path that we must take at some point, yes that's a must not a when and if. Because even if standardized governments has shown us anything, eventually there will be someone else who will do this for us and provide invaluable research and data for us to work with. *Points heavily to WW2 and the concentration camps etc*. Sure we will have human analogs, there are plenty for various purposes and aspects of the human body. Such as pigs for flesh and the like, but ultimately we have different bodies and stuff going on in us to just "recreate" a plausible situation, not everything with this will be anywhere near as accurate as testing it on the species it belongs and in this case it's us. So it's better to find as much of a humane solution or procedure as we can for this now in developed countries instead of waiting for something horrific to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 I say no because according to all movies with mad scientists it's never done with anesthesia. Screw you and your serious debates. But really, it's not like we don't test on humans. After drugs are tested on rats, pigs, apes, etc. drugs are focus-tested on larger and larger groups of people. Haven't you ever seen those ads? It's a little weird that I'm talking about my mom and both of the debate topics I've posted in, but she made a lot of money in college being a test subject for [s]zombie viruses[/s] [s]superhuman serums[/s] [s]miracle cancer-cures[/s] stuff. EDIT: [media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCt2nZF2nLk[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 [quote name='ＨORUS' timestamp='1314552115' post='5475013'] Clones are possible. Use them. [/quote] No. [quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1314552030' post='5475009'] I believe that human testing should be allowed as long as the person consents and is well aware of its possible consequences... [/quote] What if they're mentally unstable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Origins Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I do believe that we should allow it, although only on criminals who would have otherwise suffered the death penalty. BECAUSE I AM CRUEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 [quote name='Luna Lovegood' timestamp='1314651574' post='5477859'] What if they're mentally unstable? [/quote] Common Sense and Common Practice dictates that if the person is deemed mentally unstable based on the testing performed, then he or she is unfit to carry out said test and thus is invalidated and cannot take it. What in the world were you getting at? I swear, I should warn you for not contributing to a topic that has a plethora of information available on this subject. You and Anthony have done nothing but bicker and not properly debate. You didn't even make your stance clear and source experiences or details. Anthony is no exception either, he stated something that [b][u]we are already doing. [/u][/b] Not something new to the table based on the information HE has at hand. [color=#ff0000][u][b]Treat a debate's post requirement the same as you would an RP post, you are expected a certain degree of knowledge on the subject you are talking about, not just an opinion but prior knowledge as well, AND THEN YOU STATE OPINION. [/b][/u][/color] And don't tell me you don't have prior knowledge, there is loads all around you. From popular television shows like "1000 Ways to Die" and "Deadliest Warrior", which show you the fragility of the human body and what it is capable of handling, to most shows on Discovery Health, or possibly being aware of what goes on in your local Doctors Offices? Maybe some drama shows like House and Monk. [u][b]Whatever you watch, provides you with some degree of knowledge on this subject; EVEN IF YOU DONT WATCH TV, READ OR EVEN PAY ATTENTION. [/b][/u] Ugh... Post something productive. Soon. EDIT: Topic Spam Posts deleted at request of Topic Poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Colonel Remo Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 [color=#ff0000]I feel that human cloning might lead to the inflation of value of a human soul. In other words, humans end up being expendible[/color] [color=#ff0000]Might put the very question of what a soul is into question[/color] [color=#ff0000]Also, ice did mention the concentration camps. Although they weren't cloned, it still was endangering the few to save the many (though it probably could be well argued that this wasn't of the camps). Thanks to those camps we have been able to save lives from suffering the same fate as those totured within the camp. Does that mean that the camps were justified in their methods? No, it means they were willing to rewite their own rules to allow what they called "progress" of our species. Can't halp but draw parallels between eugenics and human testing when looking from that persepctive[/color] [color=#ff0000]Also, ginger clones would have negative souls [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Sorry Icy! I thought that by forcing whathisname to go into further detail about his argument, and by pointing out flaws in his argument, I was helping him as well as debating with him. In future, I'll remember that we shouldn't simply argue with one part of someone's argument, but instead attack the bases of their argument. Thanks for the information! In future, though, that post you made, yeah, it's technically spam. PMS are good for that. kthxbie (I'll PM you so we can talk more ) Anyways... Just gonna calm down after how wrong you are... Okay. Here I go. The idea of testing drugs and such not on humans is a very tantalizing one. It would instantly speed up the process of creating new drugs. It would help advance human technology at an exponential rate. However, it poses problems. Human testing is inherently impossible in a civilized, moral society because of coercion, mental instabilities, and morality. The first problem is that there would, naturally, be incentive to have a monetary compensation to participating in a human trial, a basic form of coercion. Imagine, if you will, a man who is desperately poor and cannot even feed himself. He will, quite likely, be drawn to these studies as 'easy money'. The flaw here being, he is practically forced to partake in the study, ie he did not measure the risks and such not. Here in lies the first fatal flaw of human testing, not everyone will make informed, proper, decisions. The next problem that human testing would face would be people with mental instabilities, ie mental illness. Although they may seem perfectly okay on the outside, on the inside they could be making decisions that, were they healthy, they would not even consider. The only solution to this would be a full mental evaluation prior to the acceptance of the patient into the trial. This would not only be cost ineffective but also not a perfect system. It would be easy to pay a psychologist to say all of the applicants are sane, even if they are not. Finally there is the morality of the situation is mind boggling. Subjecting people to possible side effects that are more gruesome than the disease the drug would be fighting is morally wrong. It becomes worse if you do it to prisoners against there will. Such is what the Nazi's did to Jews and POWs in WWII. Imagine a modern society like that. Absolutely horrendous. Now I'm ready for a good debate so lets see the replies coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 You're still laboring under the delusion that we don't already test on humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidDJ11 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 unfortunately we do test on humans; just not like the mad scientists in tv. arguement posted soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I assumed he meant relaxing the regulations. ie skipping animal testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 We do already test on consenting humans, and yes, they are tested on for the benefit of mankind. Human testing resulted in the realization that stomach ulcers were bacterial rather than a bodily condition. This resulted in better medicines and better diagnostic processes being developed. If a human consents (and they are paid quite a lot, remember), then testing is fine. It's currently legal if the person is consenting. And obviously they don't do it on the mentally disabled or unstable - those who are tested will be subject to a thorough medical examination as procedure anyway (this probably includes independent psychiatric testing and/or old psychiatric medical records being examined). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 [quote name='Dт. Михаи́л Ботви́нник PчD' timestamp='1314978812' post='5486615'] We do already test on consenting humans, and yes, they are tested on for the benefit of mankind. Human testing resulted in the realization that stomach ulcers were bacterial rather than a bodily condition. This resulted in better medicines and better diagnostic processes being developed. If a human consents (and they are paid quite a lot, remember), then testing is fine. It's currently legal if the person is consenting. And obviously they don't do it on the mentally disabled or unstable - those who are tested will be subject to a thorough medical examination as procedure anyway (this probably includes independent psychiatric testing and/or old psychiatric medical records being examined). [/quote] One would assume he meant human testing without so many other tests being required before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingParadox Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 No, but it'll happen. We're humans. And we play with toys 'till they break. We take advantage of something until it does us in. Yeah, we'll do it, but we shouldn't. For our sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 So, this is a debate wherein nobody actually knows what the other guy is talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilhorus Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 [quote name='Luna Lovegood' timestamp='1314651574' post='5477859'] No. [/quote] Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted September 3, 2011 Report Share Posted September 3, 2011 [quote name='Ｈorus' timestamp='1315076093' post='5489332'] Explain. [/quote] Clones are people. Why not use the actual person and just keep the clone? There isn't a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agro Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 People here actually understand how we clone things, right? [spoiler='Quick summary for those who don't, here's the dumbed down version:'] Egg is fused with the nucleus of another person's cell. Egg with fused cell is placed in a mother Egg grows Mother gives birth to almost complete replica of the owner of the original cell ^^this is how we clone livestock, is how we'd clone humans. Isn't ethical because many women wouldn't consent to this. [/spoiler] A clone would have to grow. In doing so, would gain its own emotions and experiences. THAT is what makes it unethical to just test on them. They grow up like any other human, they are humans, but their genetical make-up is the same as another human. I support human testing because we do it already and it doesn't cause too much harm. All we're doing is taking advantage of the poor and homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Dralcax Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 I don't know about you guys, but I'm not getting a job as a human lab rat. Maybe instead, every last bit of a human's DNA and physiology, along with the properties of whatever is being tested and physics and chemistry could be loaded into a very advanced computer to virtually simulate testing on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.