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.

 

Is Murdering Another Human Wrong?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.


Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

Yes, which started at the moment of conception. Killing me then would be killing the person I am now. It's ending a human life.

His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human. He took the DNA angle too far. His premise is still spot on.

I'd love to know where these insta-human memory banks are located in these very limited number of early cells.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I went back in time and aborted you, did I not kill the you of today?




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human.


It's not. A white cell has human DNA, is living, is an organism, and yet isn't a human.

The important thing to understand is that human are cellular colonies. They become something more than the sum of cells when a critical mass is reached.

Tricky question is, what is that critical mass...

False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.


Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

Yes, which started at the moment of conception. Killing me then would be killing the person I am now. It's ending a human life.

His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human. He took the DNA angle too far. His premise is still spot on.

I'd love to know where these insta-human memory banks are located in these very limited number of early cells.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I went back in time and aborted you, did I not kill the you of today?



You cannot kill something that never existed in the first place.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.


Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

Yes, which started at the moment of conception. Killing me then would be killing the person I am now. It's ending a human life.

His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human. He took the DNA angle too far. His premise is still spot on.

I'd love to know where these insta-human memory banks are located in these very limited number of early cells.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I went back in time and aborted you, did I not kill the you of today?



You cannot kill something that never existed in the first place.

Except you did exist. I waited until conception, I waited until you existed, and then killed you.

From a moral standpoint. Should a person who discovers the ability to go back in time and abort anyone they do not like in the past be guilty of a crime?
edit on 30-11-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.


OK, then when does the dividing egg becomes an organism? No one can tell.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except you did exist.


Only according to your personal definition.

Personally I did not exist until I started to have consciousness of myself.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.


Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

Yes, which started at the moment of conception. Killing me then would be killing the person I am now. It's ending a human life.

His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human. He took the DNA angle too far. His premise is still spot on.

I'd love to know where these insta-human memory banks are located in these very limited number of early cells.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I went back in time and aborted you, did I not kill the you of today?


Sure, but if you kill the caterpillar before it settles in to it's cocoon, you're still not yet killing a butterfly, either.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.


OK, then when does the dividing egg becomes an organism? No one can tell.

That's a lie. As I already explained, it's an organism at the moment of conception. There is no dispute about that. None. Zero. The waters are muddied by saying "yes it is a living organism but we arbitrarily decide it's not human based on criteria we pull from out behinds".



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JackReyes

It depends on the circumstance.

If my wife was raped and fell pregnant as a consequence, and wished to terminate the pregnancy because she did not want a rapists baby, she would have my blessing to terminate, or murder as you put it.

Under those circumstances my wifes choice trumps all others - whether the fetus is classified as a human being or a bunch of cells is irrelevant - take that how you please.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It's an arbitrary label with no scientific basis done solely for the purpose to muddy the waters and allow the killing of unique human organisms.


That's a strong accusations and it kind of imply that you believe there is some kind of cabal of evil people trying to kill babies instead of people like you and me with different life experiences and struggling to define what constitutes a baby and when it is acceptable to accept abortions (which like it or not, are an improvement in the lives of women worldwide).



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except you did exist.


Only according to your personal definition.

Personally I did not exist until I started to have consciousness of myself.

My personal definition is you still don't exist. So I can kill you now without consequence right?

Let's skip this whole "personal definition" nonsense.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It's an arbitrary label with no scientific basis done solely for the purpose to muddy the waters and allow the killing of unique human organisms.


That's a strong accusations and it kind of imply that you believe there is some kind of cabal of evil people trying to kill babies instead of people like you and me with different life experiences and struggling to define what constitutes a baby and when it is acceptable to accept abortions (which like it or not, are an improvement in the lives of women worldwide).

No, the whole cabal part is your making stuff up. Let's stick to what I actually say without adding words in my mouth I did not use.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.


OK, then when does the dividing egg becomes an organism? No one can tell.

That's a lie. As I already explained, it's an organism at the moment of conception. There is no dispute about that. None. Zero. The waters are muddied by saying "yes it is a living organism but we arbitrarily decide it's not human based on criteria we pull from out behinds".


You already decided that by saying sperm weren't human. It has human DNA, thus is human by your own argument. Unless you arbitrarily decide it's not.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except you did exist.


Only according to your personal definition.

Personally I did not exist until I started to have consciousness of myself.

My personal definition is you still don't exist. So I can kill you now without consequence right?


You can try, and then you can face a jury trying to explain if your personal definition of my not existing is shared by enough people to become accepted.

Like it or not most things are subject to definitions and these definitions can change based on our understanding of the world, and what matters at any given time is the commonly accepted definitions shared by most people.

This is how societies roll and if you don't like it you can still leave it like an hermit. No one forces you to support abortions but since enough people thought it was acceptable under certain circumstances, your personal opinion about it is irrelevant on a global scale.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No, the whole cabal part is your making stuff up.


If anything, you are the one bringing absolute definition to the table that you made up. I'm saying it's a complex topic.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.


OK, then when does the dividing egg becomes an organism? No one can tell.

That's a lie. As I already explained, it's an organism at the moment of conception. There is no dispute about that. None. Zero. The waters are muddied by saying "yes it is a living organism but we arbitrarily decide it's not human based on criteria we pull from out behinds".


You already decided that by saying sperm weren't human. It has human DNA, thus is human by your own argument. Unless you arbitrarily decide it's not.

False. It's quite easy to prove. How many chromosomes does sperm have? What about a human?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No, the whole cabal part is your making stuff up.


If anything, you are the one bringing absolute definition to the table that you made up. I'm saying it's a complex topic.

I never stated it was not. Whether the fertilized egg is alive is not complex. It's not even part of the debate as everyone recognizes that it is.

The argument is that while alive it's not "human" ... and then a set of arbitrary definitions are used to support the argument.

The only scientific facts are that it's alive, and it has a full complement of human DNA.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JackReyes

if i understand your opening post you want to know if abortion is murder?

legally speaking.... no it's not. in the united states it is legal for a woman to have a procedure done that terminates a pregnancy.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Except you did exist.


Only according to your personal definition.

Personally I did not exist until I started to have consciousness of myself.

My personal definition is you still don't exist. So I can kill you now without consequence right?


You can try, and then you can face a jury trying to explain if your personal definition of my not existing is shared by enough people to become accepted.

Like it or not most things are subject to definitions and these definitions can change based on our understanding of the world, and what matters at any given time is the commonly accepted definitions shared by most people.

This is how societies roll and if you don't like it you can still leave it like an hermit. No one forces you to support abortions but since enough people thought it was acceptable under certain circumstances, your personal opinion about it is irrelevant on a global scale.

So now you are saying that right and wrong should not be based on the facts, but on who can use emotion to persuade the most people to their side.

Either way, your post recognizes that the whole "my personal definition" argument is flawed.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The argument is that while alive it's not "human" ... and then a set of arbitrary definitions are used to support the argument.


Just like you set arbitrary definitions to say a fertilized egg is a human being.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join