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.
Originally posted by LostSailor
First off, to understand what I am speaking about you will have to learn to think in the abstract. Drag your nose out of your books and think for yourself for a minute. I am just going to ramble on about my previous night. Maybe you can catch why I don't consider myself to be an "animal."
First, how many animals are able to converse across entire continents, and have a debate on the level that we are now?
Remember, I am not talking about a science book here. I read your posts questioning my thought process, but decided I didn't have the time to respond. I had to get some homework done for my Diesel Engineering class. I Decided I would go over to my girlfriends house, get some work done, and have a few drinks. Hmmmm... Hmmmm... Sweet sweet warm whiskey.
On the way I was thinking about [...] Only the ones that are just below us on the evolutionary ladder.
The whole idea of me saying I am not an animal stemmed from this comment...
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Actually, one of the first purposes of medicine was herbal abortions. Animals do it, and our ancestors here in Italy and Greece noted which plants the animals ate and used the same herbs.
I don't care if animals do it... I am not an animal in the context that you refer to. My self awareness, empathy for others, higher intelligence, and emotional magnitude separate me from even the closest of evolutionary cousins in the animal kingdom.
Because we are technically animals that means it's OK to act like animals? Do what animals do? We don't have something that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom? If we do, we don't have an obligation because of this, to act differently than animals?
Science will always conflict with my thoughts. That's fine... Science is not always the answer. Facts and knowledge are not always the answer. Sometimes you just have to look inside and think for yourself.[/quote[
You know why you can look inside yourself and think? Nature has blessed you with a frontal lobe and the capacity to see self, just as many other animals do. There's nature again, huh. Weird.
You guys asked... I am just trying to explain why i feel the way I do. I never literally meant that I didn't think I was an animal. It was just assumed that was what I meant. I am only a sailor, taking classes trying to upgrade my engineering license. I am no scientist, nor claim to be, or even claim to think like one. But, you can agree with me Right? Agree that there is something that separates us from the rest of the animals on this planet?
No one ever asked you to be a jerk and post unsubstantiated claims of a "higher sense" only you could detect. Also, you "never literally meant" that you aren't an animal? Are you serious? Look at these quotes from you:
Speak for yourself. I am no animal
Am I an animal? No.
On the way I was thinking about why I don't consider myself to be an animal
Wow, so, remind me where I was supposed to pick up on some hidden context where you "never literally meant" you aren't an animal?
Oh well... Go ahead and flame me for thinking the way I do. I will not change my mind. We all learn what we want to from each other. You can dismiss my thoughts if you want to... That's the beauty of being a human being.
Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just strongly suggesting you post things that have some, or any, evidence behind them or are within the bounds of reality. And you're right, thought is the beauty of being a human being, but it's quckly being discovered we aren't alone in the realm of thought.
Ciao e buon giorno,
~MFP
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,
mi ritrovai per una selca oscura,
che la diritta via e smarrita.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Yes, you're right LostSailor, once I joined the medical field, I lost all capabilities in my left lobe, I can no longer think in abstract, when I view art, I now see it as a pattern of brush strokes, not as art. Wow, you know me so well. *Sarcasm off*
Originally posted by bsl4doc
How many horses can fly? Does this make them less of an animal? No, it just makes them a different type of animal, as are humans.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Sorry, but anytime you bring up taxonomy and animals, that is the realm of science, no question about it.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
You're right, humans do have advanced tools and advanced societies because of these tools. This is due to our natural, animalistic evolution producing a frontal lobe, and our natural, animalistic need to communicate and socialize with like beings. Also, how can you say all these other creatures are "below" us on the evolutionary ladder?
Originally posted by bsl4doc
I never said animal behaviour is a catch-all excuse for our own behaviour. What I DID say, however, in reply to a poster saying we are the only animal who kills, is that this type of behaviour occurs throughout the animal kingdom and is not exclusive to humans. I was merely pointing out that we should look at the natural side of the issue as well. That side being, will this child survive? Animals, including us, have an innate system of self that allows us to quickly determine whether a nearby creature is the same as us or not. If something is wrong with a child, be it a deformity, etc., we can sense it. How do you think a mother knows when he child is just starting to et sick? There are distinct signs that we pick up before symptoms even fully set in. Certain smells, discolorations of skin, etc. These are all animals instincts. When a child is born who will not survive, why is it unnatural to allow this child to die with dignity instead of pain?
Originally posted by bsl4doc
You know why you can look inside yourself and think? Nature has blessed you with a frontal lobe and the capacity to see self, just as many other animals do. There's nature again, huh. Weird.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
No one ever asked you to be a jerk and post unsubstantiated claims of a "higher sense" only you could detect. Also, you "never literally meant" that you aren't an animal?
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Wow, so, remind me where I was supposed to pick up on some hidden context where you "never literally meant" you aren't an animal?
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just strongly suggesting you post things that have some, or any, evidence behind them or are within the bounds of reality. And you're right, thought is the beauty of being a human being, but it's quckly being discovered we aren't alone in the realm of thought.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,
mi ritrovai per una selca oscura,
che la diritta via e smarrita.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Also, you leave most of us wondering if you truly are "highly educated"due to your grammar and syntax.
~MFP
If you have ever been published in international journals it is very likely I was part of the peer review...........
quote: Originally posted by bsl4doc
How many horses can fly? Does this make them less of an animal? No, it just makes them a different type of animal, as are humans.
What the heck does this have to do with what I said? You lost me with this comment.
You sure? What was said in that quote that had anything to do with the classification of animals anyway? I know big words too.
Look, if you want to argue that we are on the same level as amoeba... What? You can't possibly be serious here..............
However, I think that unlike in the animal world we have the duty to not let a child die. Even if it is born with a birth defect. You did read that I thought this case was an acceptable example of euthanasia right?
I never was a jerk... And I never made any claims to a higher sense only I could detect. Quit with the spin already.
We aren't alone in the realm of thought. That's you again. I'm strongly suggesting you shouldn't claim to know what is and isn't relevant and within the bounds of reality. What kind of evidence do I post for my line of thought? Is there any?
Hatwse Hetse Oesdse Histse Eanmse?
Originally posted by FredT
Originally posted by Striker8441
Some families have elected to stop treatment and allow thier child to recieve pain medication and die in the love and warmth of thier parents embrace.
Originally posted by FredT
To me this is NOT euthanasia, this is simply letting nature take its course with compassion in regards to the pain meds.
Yes it is! A compassionate and loving manner yes but the adminstering of pain medication in often large enough doses to cause repiratory system shutdown IS how it is practiced and that is Euthanasia.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Therm:
If you have ever been published in international journals it is very likely I was part of the peer review...........
I highly doubt this. Could you provide the names of journals, or perhaps your credentials as a peer reviewer, i.e. degree and university attended? Be smart here, there's always a way to check =).
Originally posted by dawnstar
what was the topic again??
oh, ya, allowing people to die, and in exteme cases, where the prognosis and suffering warrents it, helping them with the transition.
Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill." There are two problems here -- the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day." The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to "terminal old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur in a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is expected within six months or less.
Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and "meaningless life."
An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .
Originally posted by dawnstar
okay, let's put it into religious terms for just a minute, here's this new soul, just arrived on planet earth. unfortunately, she is not developed right. as a result, she will struggle her first three years of life (snip)okay, so she undergoes operation after operation, all the while suffering, and all the while struggling, just to live. and never, ever able to even come close to reaching the full potential of being human.
Originally posted by dawnstar
why?? would she have lived if it wasn't for our great medical system, wouldn't she had died soon after birth.
Originally posted by dawnstar
well, what do you think would have happened to that new soul after death? would it have gone back to god? or maybe be given another chance at live, maybe this time with a healthy body? what do you think would have been the worst that could have happened, she would have been deprived of a life of suffering and pain?
Originally posted by dawnstar
our medical system can be either a blessing or a curse. it can keep us healthy, so we can live a life relatively free from pain, disablity, and early death...
or it can also serve to prolong our death, and thus increase our agony and pain.
the first, I believe serves a higher purpose of good, the latter though, could only serve to make our world a darker, more miserable place.
Originally posted by dawnstar
christians are susposed to welcome death when it comes, without fear, with faith that the loving creator waits to welcome them.
why fear death when it comes to those who are too weak, ill, and quite frankly in so much pain that they would be willing to accept death themselves?
would you rather that life be spent here on this earth, in pain or misery, or would you rather it be spend in the arms of the creator?
Originally posted by thermopolis
Originally posted by Bibliophile
Originally posted by thermopolis
...This is a horrid concept...
On the contrary, it is realistic for this day and age. Mankind stands at 6.5 billion and counting. Resources are not unlimited. Our planet is being taxed to its limits by overpopulation. We must face the fact that not everyone can or should be saved.
Survival of the fittest has historically prevailed via either Mother Nature or the hand of man himself. Nothing is going to change that. Holland is simply the vanguard in this particular issue.
So based on "too many" humans we should start the german gas chambers up again? Jews were deemed "sub-human" AFTER the murder of the handicapped and retarded in Germany.
So if I think say "paris" has too many residents it is OK to kill off a few thousand? By that logic China and India are screwing up the planet for the rest of us, so perhaps they should "nuke" each other for the betterment of th planet.
Complete lunacy isn't it?
Suposedly back in the good old 60's the max world popluation was 5 billion, or we would all starve to death. At 6.5 billion now that was kinda stupid...........
Originally posted by plague
no your above statements are lunacy.
im not saying that i totally agree with mercy killings but what you were ranting about was way off in left field.
Originally posted by Bibliophile
On the contrary, it is realistic for this day and age. Mankind stands at 6.5 billion and counting. Resources are not unlimited. Our planet is being taxed to its limits by overpopulation. We must face the fact that not everyone can or should be saved.
Survival of the fittest has historically prevailed via either Mother Nature or the hand of man himself. Nothing is going to change that. Holland is simply the vanguard in this particular issue.