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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by TheIrishJihad83
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.

Well if you read the article you will see they didn't say "for no reason". I disagree with your assessment also as Christians have been known to start wars throughout time and to send priests to pray that their army successfully kills the "enemy". they have no qualms with the torture of animal life for science or food. They are supposed to believe God created all life not just humans as you say.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by BulletShogun

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Blaine91555

Morality is an individual concept.. for some killing is not morally wrong.

I find killing animals, even hunting, morally wrong.
Society does not have an ethical dilemma with it.

Can't really dictate morals.
edit on 1/30/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

What if an animal population gets out of hand? like lets say if deer populate so much that on a weekly basis there are car accidents because of it

What if the human population gets out of hand causing starvation and water shortage and murder and crime. What makes humans the only untouchable life in most peoples value system. Everything must revolve around us not the whole planet and all the life forms that should be equally important on it.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555

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

Is it morally wrong to kill people? Not really, argue two eminent American bioethicists in an early online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics....

...“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow... Great catch, Blaine. I wouldn't have believed this was an attitude among those in a position to be heard on it, within the United States. How perfectly horrible. I believe it's VERY FAIR to say this kind of cold hearted and business like approach to life and the taking of it is WHY Nazi Germany is known as pure evil where Mao and Stalin have largely gotten a pass over in history books, despite body counts that make Hitler look like a part time worker on mass murder. Germany was systematic and just efficient about murder to the point where EVIL is the only way to describe it.

Now...between this and more I'm hearing about *REAL* Death Panels being proposed and the balance being weighed for how disabled someone need be, before termination of life is officially seen as a GOOD thing (?!??!??!), I can't help but wonder if Obama's little hopey changey symbol will come to be seen as the 21st century equivalent of the Swastika for generations yet to be born.

These are scary times...and I truly pity the human beings who can find ANY sympathy or relate to this kind of thinking in even a passing way. Those who can? How about you all step right up and show us what sacrifice to the state for the good of the population is all about. Be #1, please.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by essanance
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 ...

Goodness did any READ the article they are talking about brain dead people! harvesting organs by not waiting for the totally damaged brain to be considered dead!

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by Gazrok

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

Higher animals (and possibly lower ones) are sentient. Humans are sapient (little children are not, tough).

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:45 PM
In the future of MORE vast overpopulation, the taking of another life will be considered survival.

Moral ambiguity means not surviving.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

You could flip the question, is it moral to maintain a dying person on life support while letting a person who can be saved, die as a result?

Unless you "own" the dying person in some way and have to make the decision to pay or not to keep the person alive, it is not your decision to make.

In the case of a person whose brain activity has ceased, the law already allows the person to be declared dead. In the case under discussion, the person isn't dead because the brain activity hasn't ceased and the heart could probably start beating again. So anyone who is not paying for the cost of the person being kept alive has no business deciding whether the person should live or die.

The question of harvesting the organs should arise only when the person is either already dead or is on the verge of it because no one is going to pay for keeping the person alive.

Bioethicists break life down into numbers, who can get the most life as a result of this decision....

Well, they can make the decision about who gets the organs harvested, not about whose organs to harvest.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Is it morally wrong to kill people? Not really, argue two eminent American bioethicists in an early online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, of Duke University, and Franklin G. Miller, of the National Institutes of Health believe that “killing by itself is not morally wrong, although it is still morally wrong to cause total disability”.

Ultimately their aim is to justify organ donation after cardiac death (DCD). This is a state in which a patient is neurologically damaged and cannot function without a respirator. Within minutes of withdrawing this, the organs are removed. However, the authors state frankly that the patient is not dead at that point because it is possible that the patient’s heart could start beating again. (Other bioethicists disagree, vehemently.)

Way to pick and choose, OP.

We aren't talking about people are alive and walking, then taking a gun and shooting them in the head. We're talking about people who are very much dead, but there is a slim possibility that they could begin to breath on their own, with no guarantee that they ever really recover.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Miraj because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

When you have to ration valuable organs you have to see who has the most to gain. Is it really responsible to give a liver to a man who drank his to death, eats terribly and will see at most ten more years in the route he's currently going over a teenage girl or boy who has suffered from circumstances that were really beyond their control and could easily live a much longer and healthier life?

I think we both know this isn't about slavery. Stop twisting reality to your paranoia.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:10 PM
Why do so many people equate the lack of belief in God with having no moral compass?

If you look at most religions, there are many common values, such as the Golden Rule "treat others as you would wish to be treated". These are common values because we as humans, regardless of faith, hold them to be important.

Just because one doesn't share the same God you do, does not automatically make them immoral. Indeed, I know several people who worship no specific God, and they are far more moral than many who profess themselves to be Christians.....

Just something to think about...

Everything consumes the dead to live. However, to equate killing a weed with killing a human being is not only scientifically irresponsible, but ethically irresponsible.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:22 PM
There can be no logial comparison between that of a human being or that of a weed. Weeds do not think or feel as for as I can tell, and the only way its right to take a life is if its in self-defense or in war type situation and that again implies self defense. Who do they think they are by trying to tell us what's right and wrong and how much do these idiots get paid for thinking of comapring humans to weeds. How many of the sheeple are buying into that rot gut , I wonder. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:01 PM
It's like this people, killing someone who isn't physically hurting other people is wrong, plain and simple. Everything else goes.

edit on 31-1-2012 by TheOvermind because: Wrong thread.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by Magnum007

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Magnum007

That is fine for a round of philosophical discussion. In practice however that idea has always led to human suffering.

As to what I do to help others, talk about a straw man

As to priorities, ones loyalty has to be to family, community and country first or you will not have the resources to help anyone beyond that.

the priorities you mention are hardwired in our brains. we are animals that are hardwired to live in small groups which fight other small groups for food, water, shelter, the best grounds, and other life essentials...

I would say that you are right in general, but this is not always the case. Due to the transcendental mentality (I would say nature) of man, an individual is capable of denying ones own instincts for a greater benefit. Like the monk who does no procreate, or chooses to fast while meditating.

today this hardwiring has been challenged and the fighting over food, water, shelter etc... has been replaced in the modern world with fighting over who has the best clothes, or the fastest car, or the biggest this or the best that...

Yes we fight, we fight all the time. But haven't we started to fight less? Haven't we attempted to quell hatred and anger with compassion? Have we not attempted to conquer our primal ego? I think we have...I think this has been the goal for a long time.

we are still animals... we live, we die, and we must follow nature just as much as the rest of the animal kingdom does...

there is a reason why we have a messed up world today... it's because we think that we are better and deserve more...

Yes we are animals, but again we do not have to follow nature. We as a race are beyond the constraints of nature, we have the ability to harness the power of the universe and utilize it for our benefit, something NO other race on this planet can do. And until we find another intelligent race out there some where we are the only race in the universe that can do that. So does that make us important...IMO yes it does. Are we better than the not really...but more important...yes.

we are the only creatures who believe that to live is not enough, that we need to "be happy"... that's BS

What is wrong with being happy? The speed in which we progress is amplified in times of happiness. Despite the troubles of the last 100 years, they have been some of the most happy and joyous times in human history. And what we have accomplished in 100 years outshines all other scientific and social achievements in human history.

now that access to food and basic necessities is so easy, we need to find other things to do to keep us occupied... this makes people believe that they "deserve" to live...

Because they do...they always have.

well now... why should the weed die? why should the bacteria die? well... because we are cruel that's why! but are we really cruel? isn't cruelty something based on emotions also? the animal kingdom seems cruel as well...

I always asked myself why people pull weeds, doesn't make much sense to me
People are just vain.

Why should bacteria die? Because most of the time it can kill us, so we have to defend ourselves.

Nature is not necessarily cruel, it is however chaotic. Cruelty on the other hand implies some form of intent. Like a child predator abusing a child, or a leader committing genocide simply because he hates the people he is killing.

Wolves do not hunt down and kill bunnies because they hate them, its because they gota eat.

I get where your coming from man, I just think that we deserve a little more credit. Yes we are animals, yes we are cruel. We are capable of horrible cruelty, but we are also capable of cyclopian compassion. We can learn! We can rectify our mistakes! That's whats makes us unique!

Don't let apathy cloud compassion.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Blaine91555


I find killing animals, even hunting, morally wrong.
Society does not have an ethical dilemma with it.

For me the morality of hunting is based on need and intent. Being raised poor around farms and ranches the meat we took hunting was part of our income and vital to making through the year.

In my young adult years it was also an important source of food and the meat I took each year through hunting and fishing was needed and necessary.

Later on as I no longer needed the meat to get by, I stopped hunting but still have no issue with those who hunt because they need the meat to get by. That might be odd to a person not part of that lifestyle or raised in an urban environment where it was not a option.

My Father taught me at a young age to never kill anything you were not going to eat yourself. I'm almost militantly against trophy and sports hunting. Hunting for food however is another matter.

I feel no sadness or regret when I take a Game animal for food if I need it. If I hit a bird with my car however, I actually grieve for the bird.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Blaine91555

There is an important difference between Humans and a plant. One of us has sentience/self-awareness, and the other does not. Humans aren't the only species on Earth to be self-aware imo, and that's why I find it highly immoral to hunt or kill certain species, such as dolphins etc.

Is it wrong then when a Dolphin takes the life of a fish for food? Or is your view based entirely on intelligence?

The way I see it, we evolved to eat meat contrary to the spin we see from activists. If I shoot an Elk for instance to feed my family because I need to, I see it no different than any other animal killing for food. If I shoot it for sport or a trophy, then I've done something wrong.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Discussions and debates by bioethicists are just that, discussions and debats and information for the decision makers.
I know people like you understand, but the ones on here screaming that they are spychopaths and want to cut organs out of living people are the ones who don't have a clue.

Organ donation is still up to the donor and families. That hasn't changed. I think what they are changing is the definition of living. Is someone who is sustained on life support, living? We apply it to brain waves, but what about the heart?

All they are doing is changing the goal posts. No one is changing the permissions.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by Magnum007

There is a lot of truth in what you posted.

Much of it goes back to our base instinct for personal survival and survival of the species. In the end none of it matters if we do not survive.

We are most certainly hardwired to place survival above all else.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:40 PM
Morals are something held on a personal level. Just because some jack-butts declare that something is or is not a moral thing to do, doesn't declare that it's a moral thing for everyone. No one can decide what is a "good" or a "bad" thing. Anyone who is listening to these fools has no mind of their own.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Blaine91555

Without reading more, would bet they are UTILITARIAN bioethicists. That sort thinks that people that aren't "productive enough", "healthy enough", etc, should be killed, so they don't "waste resources". SICK thinking. Unfortunately, it seems to be catching, though. Just look at the anti-child trend you can see some places online. Anti-elderly. Anti-disabled. And so it goes. Same types that have been pushing for a LONG time now for "euthanasia centers" for people. Type that thinks they are better than all others, and that there is no value to life, treating people the same as weeds!

That is exactly what worries me. If that becomes group-think and accepted in our society and we move towards our ethics ignoring the individual atrocities are sure to follow.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I have no quarrel with the family or the person through a living will making that decision either. It is simply to much power to give to the medical community.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in