It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“Killing ...in the name of (research)...It...sets a horrific precedent for future research"

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
"The decision to euthanize .... so it can be studied as a “scientific specimen” has divided both the scientific community and the public on when and if researchers should kill ....

The incident led University of Colorado ecology professor Marc Bekoff to write in an op-ed for the Huffington Post: “Killing .... ‘in the name of whatever’ simply needs to stop. It is wrong and sets a horrific precedent for future research and for children.”

www.takepart.com...

Interesting how these scientists are so interested in the ethics
of killing for research purposes. The Huffington Post is the source
of the actual piece written by a scientist angry at killing
done in the name of research.

Kind of, sort of links to a photo in the news today.



I saw great irony in the article in the news today juxtaposed
with the picture in the news today.

I just wanted to share the weird juxtaposition
with all of you as it really struck me
since the two are both in the news at the same time.




posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Kind of, sort of links to a photo in the news today.


I don't see how... People don't have abortions "in the name of" anything... And what business is it of Kelsey Grammer what a woman does with her body? Hey, Mr. Grammer:




posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Maybe it's not the women's body he's concerned about.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I can't tell if this is an anti-abortion thread or an anti-research thread.

Do I think it's okay to kill simply in the name of research? I can't think of any instance where I would.

Do I think it's okay for a woman to remove a fetus from her body if she feels that is the best decision for her (she can't take adequate care of it/the fetus has catastrophic abnormalities/her life is in danger if she carries it to term)? Yeah, I do.

Do I think it's okay for that woman to donate that fetus to science rather than burying or burning it? Yep.

I don't see how the two are related at all.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
This thread is not anti-research.

I just found the two articles found on the same day to be a great irony.

The first is written, it appears to me, to be by liberals.

The photo, well it speaks for itself.

I suggest that you guys actually read the article.

While both appear to be against killing for research purposes,
one is from a very liberal source
and the other from a very conservative source.

The articles each represent who they think make
a more valuable contribution to the world
by simply existing.

Once you read the article you may see
the irony and juxtaposition of the two.


It just hit me as extremely ironic.

My request as the OP
is that you do NOT speak of one
WITHOUT also referring to the other
and comparing the two.

That is the entire point of the thread.

To speak of one without the other
is missing the point entirely.



edit on 9Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:37:26 -0500am101010amk106 by grandmakdw because: format addition



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Your reply missed the entire point of the thread.

Please read the article, then re-contribute
comparing the two mindsets
as seen in both items.





edit on 9Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:32:42 -0500am101010amk106 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Nope, not falling for your bait.

An abortion is terminating a pregnancy before it is completed. It has nothing to do with killing a live animal in the name of research. Not the same thing - can't be compared.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Nope, not falling for your bait.

An abortion is terminating a pregnancy before it is completed. It has nothing to do with killing a live animal in the name of research. Not the same thing - can't be compared.


Terminating a pregnancy, is killing a fetus, do you deny that?
It is killing living cells and organisms that grow into a human being, do you deny that?
Is it then ok for the bird people to gather the eggs of this rare bird and study the DNA for research?

What about the tens of thousands of over 24 week old
fetuses that are cut up each year for research,
when they have a decent chance of living outside the womb?

Are they worth less than a bird?

I guess you think so.

That is the point who is worth more?
A bird
or
A tiny person or potential person dismembered for research?
Maybe we should suggest the bird people gather the eggs for their research.
Are you ok with that?

Ok, I respect your stand that the bird is worth far more.



edit on 9Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:49:38 -0500am101010amk106 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Christ on a pony - women don't have abortions for research purposes! They have abortions because they have no money or no job or no support system, or because they have mental or emotional issues, or they have too many other mouths to feed with existing children, or for health reasons, or a myriad of other reasons.

If a bird is already dead because of a predator or disease or the mother abandoned it, I don't have a problem with using its body for research. Same thing with a person.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Do you have a problem with the researchers
gathering the birds eggs for research purposes?



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I support euthanasia (or people or animals) only when:

1) There is no hope of recovery, suffering is likely or ongoing, and consent is given (by the individual or someone with power of attorney.)
or
2) The patient chooses it for themselves due to unbearable suffering in the case of terminal illness.

I support the right to abortion when:

1) The woman decides it is what is necessary.

I have no internal conflict about holding these two positions. They are not ethically or logically equivalent to my thinking, and I therefore do not consider them mutually exclusive or contradictory.

My opinion.

Peace.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Kayluluv

I'll actually make it easier on you:

Mommy bird has flown away to eat a worm.

The eggs are in the nest.

Mommy birds don't have feelings either way
about their eggs or their offspring.
They are operating strictly on instinct.
They don't care about their offspring and
only do what instinct drives them to do.
That is the reality of a bird's life, especially
one this small.

So Mom is out, the eggs are in,
Mom won't really know at all if you
take a few eggs and crack them open
for research. It doesn't matter to her
in the least.

So now do you support researchers
gathering the eggs of this species of bird
for research.




edit on 10Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:33:03 -0500am101010amk106 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AceWombat04
...
I have no internal conflict about holding these two positions. They are not ethically or logically equivalent to my thinking, and I therefore do not consider them mutually exclusive or contradictory.

My opinion.

Peace.


I'm glad you hold no conflict.

I do feel the two are related in that
both are killing a living organism
and using the remains for research.
When the remains are used for research.

There is where I see the two connected.


edit on 10Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:30:34 -0500am101010amk106 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The first is written, it appears to me, to be by liberals.


Simple question... Why do you say that? What is "liberal" about the writer of the article?

I read the article. I just think the two topics have nothing to do with each other.



While both appear to be against killing for research purposes,


Abortion is not "Killing for Research Purposes"!!! And there is only one article!



My request as the OP is that you do NOT speak of one WITHOUT also referring to the other and comparing the two.


There is NO comparison, except in your head.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Do I have a problem with a bird losing an egg or two? Not really. It happens in nature all the time. Spontaneous abortion happens to people all the time too. God, or nature, or whatever you want to call it, takes eggs all the time.

What does that have to do with the price of tomatoes on a Sunday or abortion strictly for research purposes?



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Even when abortion remains are used for research, abortion isn't killing FOR THE PURPOSE of research.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I disagree with both of you.

I think that there is an irony here.

The Huffington Post is a very very liberal publication.
The entire article is based on how it is unethical to kill a bird for research purposes, that it is wrong.

I just found it quite the irony. That the same publication supports the killing of little humans and using their remains for research purposes.

Just as the liberals want gun control to save lives.
And support the taking of lives if they are unwanted.

There is extreme irony here.

Anywhoo, got to run, sorry but I have a lovely grandchild having a terrific party today.

I'll leave you guys in your fantasy land that there is no irony here and to pat yourselves on the
back and to have a good old time saying nasty things about me to each other, as usual with you guys!
Have fun and enjoy!



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The Huffington Post is a very very liberal publication.


You did not link to the Huffington Post.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

You are just getting all kinds of things mixed up here.

The Huffington Post has never supported the killing of little babies just for research purposes. Ever.

Sorry, your correlation just doesn't work here.

And do I really need to remind you of the difference between a living being who is here and knows what it is to be alive verses a zygote that has no concept of what life is? That is why when the woman's life is in danger (hint: she is the living being who is here and knows what it is to be alive) if she carries a fetus to term, the woman's life is chosen over the fetus.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Made this thread last night...



Killing in the Name Of... Science????

Although you may have added a twist for comparison, you've linked the same story. It wasn't very far up on the list of new stories. You might do a search or at least link another posted story if you need to use it as an example, rather than throwing out the same story.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join