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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It's a tough question, no doubt.

Until science proves otherwise, we must assume that the fetus has freedom of thought and therefore it is murder.

But whatever. No one will care about these things.

I say we should allow abortion but, if you get an abortion, you must be sterilized.

If you get an abortion and do not get sterilized, you face life in prison as a mandatory minimum punishment.

Then maybe someday scientists will have some answers as to what freedoms the fetus' mind has so we can adequately judge whether or not it is a conscious human being.




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OhOkYeah
I say we should allow abortion but, if you get an abortion, you must be sterilized.

Or how about if you vote against abortion, you must take an unwanted child as your own?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: OhOkYeah
I say we should allow abortion but, if you get an abortion, you must be sterilized.

Or how about if you vote against abortion, you must take an unwanted child as your own?


There are many policies that would seem correct

Most importantly is we must control reproduction. Too many people are reproducing for no reason. Those who would abort a child (in a non-rape situation) are clearly irresponsible. Start by sterilizing these people.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: JackReyes
It can't be murder if, without outside help you die naturally.


Very good! Same with a fetus. Without "outside help" (like the protection and feeding from the host), a fetus would naturally die. Leave it on the table, without outside help, and it dies. Can't be murder, even according to you.

Besides, "Murder" is a legal term and is an illegal act. Abortion is legal, and is NOT "murder".


No, I was referring to a fully functioning human adult. Don't be ridiculous with your arguments.

The human child at birth is one of the most, if not THE MOST defenseless of all newborns on the face of the planet. It literally cannot do anything for itself, except cry and poop and pee. It is reliant on its parents, or guardians, for exactly everything. It cannot walk, it cannot feed itself, it cannot talk, nothing.

And if you left that new-born baby to die, you would be committing murder.

Murder is NOT a legal term. It is the unjustified act of taking another human's life. Just because a legal system may make murder "legal" it does not change the injustice, and immoral act of it. Take for example Hitler and his legal Holocaust to destroy whole ethic and racial groups, which was well underway at the end of WWII.

Even though he may got some people to stupidly believe like you, that if it is "legal" than it is not murder, and okay, it still does not change the nature of justice, and the wrongness of murdering innocent people.

In fact the world eventually stood up to the injustice, to a certain point. Justice will always win out over injustice, in the end.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

Agreed, there are varying degrees of murder. For example their is murder in the heat of passion, which the government will lean less heavily on, then premeditated murder. I do get that.

And you didn't realize in your illustration that the person given the options to murder, could choose a third option: Choose to NOT murder anyone to begin with.

I myself, if given the option to chose which one would die, would refuse to take the option. And if I was threatened with my life, then I would freely give my life to save the remaining innocent people, and thus remain guiltless, and keep my integrity. The person who is guilty is the one making you take the option, and thinking you have to take either one is stupid.

And using Hitler isn't really a good example either. Hitler was guilty of murder, and there would have been no problem if a government exercised their authority and took his life as a form of justice on his horrible deeds. Done by the proper authorities his execution would NOT have been murder. Although he did commit suicide and never gave the existing governmental authorities time to exercise justice on him. What a coward.
edit on 30-11-2015 by JackReyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: gggilll

So you are not your human genome? It started at conception, and every cell in you until you die is human.

Your complete human being from conception to death can be found in every living cell. Including your hair.

Or do you imagine a hair follicle will show you are not human?


Until your brain and heart is formed and starts beating you are not present inside the body. No you arent there at conception.

As to your Question. Murdering IS illegal,but KILLING SOMEONE isnt wrong(in some cases)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: gggilll

So you are not your human genome? It started at conception, and every cell in you until you die is human.

Your complete human being from conception to death can be found in every living cell. Including your hair.

Or do you imagine a hair follicle will show you are not human?


Until your brain and heart is formed and starts beating you are not present inside the body. No you arent there at conception.

As to your Question. Murdering IS illegal,but KILLING SOMEONE isnt wrong(in some cases)


I could argue that the heart and brain, while not fully formed at conception, are already there, in the fact that all of the information about your human body is formed at that time, and the blueprint for them certainly does exist, and the zygote, based upon the pre-programmed genetic code, from the "book of life" (your DNA) begins forming into the body it was coded to create.

In fact the DNA at birth has all of who you are going to be as a human, physically, even what color hair you will eventually have, the color of your eyes, how tall you will be when you are 1 years old, 2 years old, 10 years old, 20 years old,etc. etc. Although rare genetic mutations can change that early on, or even later on, and of course the outside environment may change us physically to a certain extent, but it is all there at the very beginning.

So why do you say you only "become present" when those two organs develop? If you are a human, were you not present already when you were conceived?

The human being will eventually develop a heart and lungs, and will even eventually develop language, if taught, and become the most intelligent, and formidable physical life-form we know that exists in the universe.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: OhOkYeah
I say we should allow abortion but, if you get an abortion, you must be sterilized.

Or maybe this...



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I think the guy who is pro life, but killed people at the abortion clinic needs to answer this question. I also just want to say it is so refreshing to see never before seen post such has this on about pro life post...lol



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: OhOkYeah
I say we should allow abortion but, if you get an abortion, you must be sterilized.

Or maybe this...


No this would work, she aims here gun at her partner until he puts on protection...win win...



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think the guy who is pro life, but killed people at the abortion clinic needs to answer this question. I also just want to say it is so refreshing to see never before seen post such has this on about pro life post...lol


Agreed.

Just as the person who mentioned earlier about Hitler. I responded that if the proper governmental authorities exercised justice on him and executed him, it would not have been murder, because he indeed was guilty of crimes on humanity, which any form or semblance of justice would deem him worthy of death.

But certainly a person, such as myself, that has no governmental authority to execute laws, takes it into their own hands to do so, they are certainly guilty. That man who murdered those people, and all the others who do so, taking the "law into their own hands" as the saying goes, are just as guilty, if not more so of the wrongful taking of human life.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My internet has been iffy, and it went out last night while we were engaging in discussion. So sorry about not responding to a lot of your posts. But I did want to take the time to let you know I appreciated your reasoning a lot in this thread. Much respect.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
You know what I find funny? The people who always babble about how "there is no right and wrong". I've heard it so many times, and it's worse than a platitude. Platitudes at least have some truth to them.

I've known people who think like that, but funny enough, it never applies to themselves. They still expect to be treated rightly, despite all their puffed-up preaching about the "real" nature of morality.

I can't tell you how many people I've known who thought this way, and then when they really get put into heat, real heat, you see them praying and begging to be treated as befits a human being.

Anyone who volunteers on this website, I'll be happy to shove a gun in your face while you preach to me that there is no right and wrong. Truly, anyone who wants to meet with me, I'd be happy to do it. I enjoy a good show, especially when there's a lesson to be learned.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: JackReyes
It can't be murder if, without outside help you die naturally.


Very good! Same with a fetus. Without "outside help" (like the protection and feeding from the host), a fetus would naturally die. Leave it on the table, without outside help, and it dies. Can't be murder, even according to you.

Besides, "Murder" is a legal term and is an illegal act. Abortion is legal, and is NOT "murder".


You need to work on your logic. Start with false equivalence. There's nothing natural about ripping a fetus from the womb and placing it on a table. It's not comparable at all with someone who can't survive without medical machinery.

Also, nice work, that "host" bit, rather than simply saying it's mother. Brings to mind parasites.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JackReyes

Yes, unless its self defense. To protect one's self or family from death, rape, loss of limb or psychological abuse.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Conception is the beginning of life.
But is it murder to kill that life
Before it is born

I think it is



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
The OP has asked when is murdering another human wrong and has veered off into a very touchy subject of abortion.

In theological sense, murder is wrong in 99% of the time, however, there has been a few instances, when murder was justified and ultimately supported by theological backing.

But let us look at this question in a few other points of view: How much is your privacy worth to you? Are you so willing to give up your right to privacy, as to what goes on between you and your doctor to stop abortion? If what goes on between a doctor and a patient is considered private, then how would anyone really know if a woman had an abortion or not? Would you be willing to have your every medical decision questioned and debated on, even considered a crime?
And then there is the other little aspect and that is a persons right to choose, both men and women to either have a child or to be sterilized. If a woman goes into a clinic she can get the reproductive organs removed, or her tubes tied, but for a man, he only has one option and that is a vasectomy, and being castrated is not a ready option.

Then there is one other problem with what is suggested, and if abortion is considered murder, then what about women who end up miscarrying the child, or has a still born child, do we now prosecute that woman on the grounds of murder?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: gggilll

So you are not your human genome? It started at conception, and every cell in you until you die is human.

Your complete human being from conception to death can be found in every living cell. Including your hair.

Or do you imagine a hair follicle will show you are not human?


Until your brain and heart is formed and starts beating you are not present inside the body. No you arent there at conception.

As to your Question. Murdering IS illegal,but KILLING SOMEONE isnt wrong(in some cases)


I could argue that the heart and brain, while not fully formed at conception, are already there, in the fact that all of the information about your human body is formed at that time, and the blueprint for them certainly does exist, and the zygote, based upon the pre-programmed genetic code, from the "book of life" (your DNA) begins forming into the body it was coded to create.

In fact the DNA at birth has all of who you are going to be as a human, physically, even what color hair you will eventually have, the color of your eyes, how tall you will be when you are 1 years old, 2 years old, 10 years old, 20 years old,etc. etc. Although rare genetic mutations can change that early on, or even later on, and of course the outside environment may change us physically to a certain extent, but it is all there at the very beginning.

So why do you say you only "become present" when those two organs develop? If you are a human, were you not present already when you were conceived?

The human being will eventually develop a heart and lungs, and will even eventually develop language, if taught, and become the most intelligent, and formidable physical life-form we know that exists in the universe.


You can argue it all you want but until the parts are ACTUALLY FORMED its not a living being. Your body can tlivce on its own with no brain input can it? Can you live with no blood being pumped as well?

Oh but its in the DNA. SO is cancer. Just because its their doess not make it viable. I knew it be a waste of time to reply to this thread. just liek the other one. A bait and switch.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

So, if the unborn child has not developed a heart and brain, if it's DNA is checked, it shouldn't be a human being? Can you provide evidence?



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: sociolpath



Under these premise, you can enter a hospital where heart transpants are happening. Stab the recipient in the brain the moment the heart has been removed. NOT MURDER?


That's not the same thing.

The person actually has a beating heart but is having it replaced with a better one.

Is eating an egg the same as killing a chicken?

I would say no since the chicken has to be formed and existent in order for it to be able to be killed.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join