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 it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


What if for instance there were to be a worldwide drought that lead to food rationing for a couple of years? Would that justify killing people who served no important purpose to give their food to others who had more important jobs?


When I said kill to eat I meant animals other than humans. As-in kill a deer to eat it but don't kill a deer to have as a trophy.

To answer your proposed question, I think the right thing to do would be to divide rations equally and then eat those who stave to death. I think I would end up starving but I wouldn't be against anyone who chose to eat the dead if that was the only food they had.




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bronxbull
 


That's an issue of self-defense rather than this topic which is about how valuable is an individual life. Valuable enough to not kill somebody for their organs even if there may only be a tiny chance the person could recover one day? This is about killing one person deemed less valuable or viable to give life to another person deemed more valuable or viable.

To me it's also about where this leads. Once they start the discussions, seeing it in practice may not be far away.

As it is now they decide who lives and dies based on personal behavior and those who engage in say smoking (a legal activity) can be denied a transplant because the people making the list deem them less valuable due to behavior. In a way it is a back handed form of behavior control tantamount to slavery. You smoke, we the medical community have decided we will let you die. They have control over life and death based on behavior now.

What is at the end of this path? Are we headed to what Hitler envisioned, where only perfect specimens are allowed to live based on criteria those in power decide are important? I wonder about that.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Well when and if they ever get murdered, we won't cry about them and shall throw a party.

Is that a deal?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I understand. Hard to know how I would react if it was an eat or die situation. I also would not hold it against a person who was forced to eat someone who had already died.

It's not so much I think they should be irrational about determining when a body on support is dead or alive, but the fact its a matter of the value of life. The weed analogy is what got me thinking where is this headed after this. How many generations before we become a designer product with only those selected being able to breed and only those deemed perfect enough allowed to live after being born. When Hitler and others suggested this it horrified the world. Not so much anymore. Where does this lead?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


What if for instance there were to be a worldwide drought that lead to food rationing for a couple of years? Would that justify killing people who served no important purpose to give their food to others who had more important jobs?


When I said kill to eat I meant animals other than humans. As-in kill a deer to eat it but don't kill a deer to have as a trophy.

To answer your proposed question, I think the right thing to do would be to divide rations equally and then eat those who stave to death. I think I would end up starving but I wouldn't be against anyone who chose to eat the dead if that was the only food they had.


By that logic, why not kill a human to eat it then? Why is animal murder morally sound? The point being made is that life is life. No life is any more "special" than another. From garden weeds, to single cell organism genocide committed by applying antibacterial soap.

If you think the taking of a human life is morally wrong, you must therefore think the taking of any life is morally wrong. Otherwise that is a prime example of hypocrisy and delusional self grandeur.

For the record, I don't agree with the context the article is in.

I hope that made sense somewhat.
edit on 30-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

it's funny how the people who say such things don't consider themselves as the ones to be killed. put a gun to their heads and see if they sign a paper that makes it legal for you to kill them.

there is value in all life, but human life is more valuable than every other form on this planet. it isn't because we deserve it either.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there is value in all life, but human life is more valuable than every other form on this planet. it isn't because we deserve it either.


I'm curious as to your reasoning of why human life is more valuable.

If anything, we work against nature. Our species is a cancer.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
what if i think pulling weeds is wrong?

honestly, sometimes i do.


Thats a good point. If 'crab grass' was called 'fairy grass' we would all love it.

A paddock full of 'Pattersons Curse' can be a nice thing.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 

i agree that humans don't live as we were intended to, but think of us as arrogant first-born sons. even though we do not deserve our birthright, it has still been given to us.

though the future of the world may seem dim now, it won't be long before things are as they should be.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by r3axion
 

i agree that humans don't live as we were intended to, but think of us as arrogant first-born sons. even though we do not deserve our birthright, it has still been given to us.

though the future of the world may seem dim now, it won't be long before things are as they should be.


What is it exactly that you attribute to human value?

I ask strictly from a philosophical standpoint. I'm genuinely curious.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


The eugenics system Hitler modeled his after came from America, I think. Not saying it's not horrific - just that its not an original idea.

I often consider the questions you're asking and I don't know. I hope that mankind will know better but it seems to me that the whole world is becoming godless and immoral.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
If the people these bioethicists want to be able to kill still have a possibility of surviving, it is completely unfair that they should be killed early. The doctors need to use some empathy- they wouldn't want to be killed if they still had a chance at living. They say that life isn't sacred, yet this is completely dependent on their belief system, and it is completely unfair to make their patients' fates dependent on whether the doctors think they should live or die. If the patient willingly agreed, that would be alright, but these doctors are forcing their views upon their patients... and doctors are supposed to help cure their patients, not give up and donate their body parts to other people when they think the person has no hope left. In my opinion this is what can happen when you put nihilists in a position of power



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 

i believe we were made with great potential, and even though now we spit in his face, there will come a time when that potential on earth is realized. i'm not talking about humans getting super powers or new age bs, but a society based on love and acceptance. perhaps within 200 years i think this society will come to be.

picture a society that focuses on the children above all else. one that accepts and loves people instead of judging them. humans are worth saving, else we would not be here.

edit on 30-1-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


I know it's not me you asked, but survival of our Species is why. We are an animal and all we are and all we do is natural for our species. We have the same right to exist as any other life does. Now if your talking about the needless destruction of life that is a different matter all together.

If you carry it to the point of all life being equal in value, then it follows since all animal life eats other life to survive, that the only right answer would be for all animal life to commit suicide and starve to death.

I think the person in the article is not thinking through their argument well enough. I think the absurdity of that reveals itself quite quickly.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by r3axion
 

i believe we were made with great potential, and even though now we spit in his face, there will come a time when that potential on earth is realized. i'm not talking about humans getting super powers or new age bs, but a society based on love and acceptance. perhaps within 200 years i think this society will come to be.


I agree with your point on human potential, although it is objective and in a sense, meaningless, in the broad scope of things.

But what I am failing to grasp is how this makes us "better," or overtly superior to other forms of life. What exactly do we have to give, that the rest of nature can not?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 

I'm sure that concept goes beyond the history of the US. Hitler is just an easy example that most people would understand what is meant.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


this is the result of believing that humans are animals,
we are, of course but not in the way those who are actually preaching the Oligarchic Principle

these are the tools who are trying to get equal rights for gorillas and all other animals

it's not about elevating beasts to our level, but lowering humanity to a level below that of a beast
and all of the above is actually phase 2

phase 1 was elevating a human to godhood, over 2000 years ago
yup i'm talking about jesus

the medical fraternity is on the most part composed of individuals with good intentions
however these folks are an underclass and neither make the rules or have control of what treatments can be used

the upper hierarchy of the allopathic medicine cartel is composed exclusively of eugenicists.
Chop Shop Hospitals:Cutting for Fun, Profits, and Giggles: Surgically Removing the Appendix, Tonsils, and Spleen
healthwyze.org...




(Reprinted from issue 3 of Naturally Good Magazine.)

According to the World Health Organization, the United States is ranked 38th in life expectancy, indicating that its standard medical practices are inferior to Cuba, South Korea, Costa Rica, Guadeloupe, Singapore, and 31 other nations. The U.S. system of medicine is only slightly superior to the Czech Republic and Slovenia, despite the U.S. spending approximately 16% of its total expenditures every year for health related expenses. Standard medicine in the U.S. is the world's most expensive, and yet it is among the least safe.

Creating Dependence For Repeat Customers

There are plenty of medical procedures which are both unnecessary and dangerous. With most of them, a complete recovery is eventually possible provided that the patient steps away from the medical establishment, and begins taking care of his own health.

There are, however, three very common surgical operations which make recovery to perfect health practically impossible, as well as limiting the effectiveness of future health therapies. These procedures leave their victims forever dependent on a system that is concerned primarily with ever-increasing profits. These barbaric procedures cripple the immune system, making it unlikely that patients will ever be able to fully live healthy lives, and the establishment has misled us through its media influences into believing that random organ dysfunctions are unexplainable, normal, and incurable without surgical removal. With truly neanderthal-like logic, they have perpetuated a belief that some organs simply become "bad", and that the best solution is hacking them out with knives. Society will someday mock these procedures in the same way that it now mocks other dated medical techniques, such as blood letting.

***
Creating The Polio Epidemic

Scientists, and some of the braver doctors, now wonder if the Polio Epidemic was caused by the high number of tonsillectomies done in the 1920's through the 1940's. They discovered that the only organ in the body which synthesizes the antibody for Polio (Poliomyelitis) is the tonsils. Persons with removed tonsils have extreme difficulty resisting infections by the Polio Virus. In the 1920's, 30's and 40's, children tonsils were removed regardless of their health. This was supposedly done for the sake of preventive medicine against tonsillitis, since allopathic doctors were falsely trained that the tonsils served no purpose. Traditional Chinese Medicine and Alternative Medicine had long recognized the tonsils as a crucial component of a strong immune system, but leaders of the orthodox medical establishment claimed that they needed scientific tests to prove that these internal organs were actually there for a reason, even as they continually ignored the consequences of removing them. This unique version of science is still practiced by the A.M.A., and the damage done by Polio resulted from it.

Don t Call It Manslaughter: Those Were Just Iatrogenic Deaths

Iatrogenic
(i' at ro gen ic)
adj.

1. Describes a disease, injury, or death that has been caused by surgery or medicine. 2. Having been a consequence of medical treatment.

In the late 1930's, further aggravating the situation was the newly created F.D.A.. It had quickly made it a priority to discourage the use of silver medical solutions, which were competing with its freshly created antibiotics industry. Prior to the industry-wide adoption of the new synthetic, sulfur based, antibiotic medicines, silver solutions were considered critical, all natural, and nontoxic medicines, which were fatal to viruses such as Polio.

Therefore, the Polio Epidemic was iatrogenic caused by the same medical establishment that pretends to be responsible for ending the epidemic. The epidemic began thusly: First, almost all children had their tonsils removed, and secondly, silver was removed from the medicines, eliminating the defenses which had kept Polio at bay for decades.


lot's of medical tech/data came from experiments carried out by nazi scientists in the camps financed by their good buddies the eugenicists

sex-change was actually pioneered by none other than Mengele.
edit on 30-1-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


I am indeed hypocritical but I suffer no delusions about it. Taking life as pertaining to plants and animals differs in my moral ideology as opposed to humans.

I wouldn't kill someone for food, sport, or to play frankenstein, but I would if I felt threatened. So there is a moral difference even within my own species.

For me, it depends on intent in which you kill for - not the act of killing.

Killing is but aside effect of the intent.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Dear r3axion,



What is it exactly that you attribute to human value? I ask strictly from a philosophical standpoint. I'm genuinely curious.


I don't know how the person you asked the question will answer you; but, I know my answer. Self awareness makes us special. I have no evidence that a blade of grass is self aware or feels pain.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Is our right to exist and survive any less than any other species right to exist? We evolved to eat animals and plants which gave us and advantage over herbivores. Why should the fact we now are at the top of food chain due to our survival strategy of our intelligence make us any worse or better than a say a Polar Bear, tearing the head of a baby Seal?



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join