It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
I agree that its not morally wrong but I don't agree with the ideology that is within the context of his message.

The only thing that makes killing morally wrong is the intent in which leads to it. To kill for food or to protect one self is is morally justifiable. To kill in order to have spare parts to use on someone else is morally wrong.

Depends on intent.

I agree with this. The only reason you should kill anything is to eat it or to protect yourself from it. However, in nature, it does seem like a rule that species shouldn't kill their own species. However, there are some exceptions. (black widow spiders). Nevertheless, don't kill unless you are going to eat it. Hunting for sport is murder whether it be your own kind or not.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by 547000
I've recently started reading Chronicles of Narnia. Those books best expose this sort of mindset.

I agree.
Those books contain Christian overtones when you examine it closely.
edit on 31-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Ahh, logic. Such a misused tool.


posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:28 AM
How can bioethics teach people what is morally right or wrong? Man made ethics will never suffice. Stupid people, and to think that we are equivalent to weeds, shows how that evolution thinking has brainwashed those medical professionals to think we are only pieces of meat with some wiring, a pump and a few filters.......

Its sad but thats the state of humans, deny the creator, so lets just decide who lives or dies cause who makes the rules but the rich, famous and so called smart ones. No more standard left that upholds life and morality anymore, all thats left is some opinions of professionals who decide the fate of human souls when they leave this earth or not.

Maybe they should consider whats gonna happen to themselves when they are possible 'vegetables' and whos gonna call the denied life cord. If only they knew we were spiritual beings that had a purpose on this earth, then maybe things wouldnt be so easy to decide who dies or who lives.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
Sounds like they are trying to talk themselves out of their job. If human life isn't sacred, then ethics are pretty much thrown out the window. No more need for bioethicists.

It's like the Catholic church deciding to tell people, "Well, the bible isn't totally true."
O wait....

What a world we live in.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
I always thought that humans are the only unwanted species in nature.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:43 AM
This is ridiculous. Just shows how de-sensitized the world is these days...

Oh well, back to positive thinking I guess...

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:49 AM
Their rationale seems to be quite oxymoronic, doesn't it?

Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

Killing does no harm? Well, I beg to differ, and I'm sure the majority of disabled patients agree with me. And nevermind the fallacious and outrageous comparison between a weed, and a human being with hopes, dreams and a will of their own.

Additionally, we're inching our way into the era of transhumanism, and the borders of life and death will exponentially get more ambiguous and harder to define. I think these bioethicists can take a seat in the meanwhile, and let the patients themselves and their families try to decide what's best for them.

Sheesh, I'm a bit dumbfounded by this Blaine91555.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:58 AM
I dont think we should be physically be killing people, but i would like to have warning labels taken off of some things so we can let the problem fix itself. This world is over populated and I also think we should not have people be living to 100 unless they can do there part in the world still.

Just my opinion

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:04 AM
I believe alot of the super Elite Groups at the top were formed to push the mindset that Human evolution must be controlled from the top and they are taught to see themselves as above the rest of humanity , because they believe its for the greater good ..They see themselves as the guardians of human existence ,there for if they have to kill a few billion of us for the "GREATER GOOD" then they think so be it . It is sad that we believe we have freedom when common sense clearly would show that we do not , we are walking piles of flesh and organs to be used as needed for there "GREATER GOOD" . It terrifies me to imagine what they have planed for us . The people of United States are the most Diverse group of people anywhere and if your goal is to fine the best most adapted Human Genes then this is where they would look .Now take all that and realise they have built huge internment camps everywhere in this country and have created systems to know every detail about the population and you start to get some truthfully scary pictures in your head ...

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:14 AM
For the people jumping the gun (like happens so often here..) read the journal piece, not the NEWS ARTICLE.

What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities. This account implies that it is not even pro tanto morally wrong to kill patients who are universally and irreversibly disabled, because they have no abilities to lose. Applied to vital organ transplantation, this account undermines the dead donor rule and shows how current practices are compatible with morality.

If you do not have access to the journal, perhaps you should get it. Don't get your information from 'news' sites.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Most of us, make a BIG distinction between sentient life, animal life, and plant life.

Most of us (humans) feel that the taking of another sentient being's life is only morally acceptable under certain grounds (war, defense, etc.)

It's a bit disturbing these scientists seem to lump all life together. Not sure why, as we in society do not, we make the above distinctions.My guess is that they were going for shock value to get some free publicity.

The taking of animal life is really more about personal values and morality. To some, killing a deer is immoral, to others, a way of life.

The thing is, EVERYTHING that lives feeds off the dead. EVERYTHING. Whether it's a plant drawing enrichment from the rotting things in soil, or we humans eating a salad, we're existing off of the sustenance of consuming the dead. Don't blame us, we were all designed and/or evolved that way.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

That is scary.


Weeds are not babies. Is this China talking or the US.

Hello a baby is a life created by two people doing the dance. He he he.

Yes it is wrong to take a life. Unless it is self defense for the protection of yourself and your family.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:54 AM
Not sure i disagree, as this is obviously very situational.

There are times when a person would be very justified, and in my opinion very morally justified in taking a life.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:05 PM
People argue this point all the time, usually brought on by the word abortion.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:07 PM
To be frank, it's these kinds of debates that are the reason that Atheism can be so bad.

When your moral compass is based on nothing but logic, when you deem intuition, emotion, and the natural instinct for social behavior (specifically empathy) irrelevant, there's nothing to keep you from listening to lunatics like these.

And sociopaths like these? Now that there's no fear of the sky-daddy, there's nothing to stop them from saying junk like this.
edit on 31-1-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:13 PM

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

honestly, sometimes i do.

True and one man's weed is another man's flower!

I also wonder why only human life seems to get everyone all caught up in emotion. Bloody slaughter of animal life so similar to our own does not get anyone emotionally involved even when torturer is involved and they have "pets" they love.

I think loving human life can go to far, for instance feeling the need to let a 90 year old who is not even aware of anything but pain all day go on living by spoon feeding and physically digging his feces out of him every few days as the body no longer functions...this is for care money not out of love or respect for human life!

We have gone so far as to make laws saying the Gov owns your life as you are not allowed to take your own.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:13 PM
I agree %100. How can we hold value in life when we are constantly killing other living beings. Weather it be bugs, plants or spraying lysol to kill germs. Morality is a perspective and the ONE perspective as human beings as a whole it would seem that we do not think killing is immoral. We show support for killing not just by chairing but with money. We buy food witch was not processed with care and respect for deaths, life and the animals we eat. YOU buy stuff from china and other country's such as America thus supporting the immoral deaths of millions. The only time we look at death as immoral is when it happens with in our own sheep pen. This seems to be the perspective of us as a whole.

Individually, we say that its immoral but then we kill creators around our house, we pay taxes to corrupt Govt., we support our military and wish death on those that piss us off.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:18 PM
Morality often comes down to your beliefs. Christians are more likely to take the stance that all life is precious especially human life because God created it.

Atheists are more likely to see life as nothing special, just a naturally occurring phenomenon that is quite common and just another result of biological processes.

Personally I think it is wrong to take life for no reason. And I am not a religious person at all.

All life came from stars and will return there once more.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Makes me wonder what these people have gone through in order to get to where they are mentally.

Years and years of watching people die?
Years and years of having to replace organs?

Glad I'm not them.

I guess if you are a person who has a 3 year old little kid on the one side and needs a kidney to live and you have a 50 year old brain dead man, who cannot feel think or act and will never move LIVE again the death of the 50 year old may not look so sinister! He is already essentially dead and he can save a life.

Strange thing to me is how many people have no compassion for the brain dead who clearly would like to be put down and not burden their family or society yet it is not allowed.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in