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: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoLoveInFear46and2
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Killing is ok? AlrIght let's go to war because AMERICAN ethics says it's ok because pulling weed and bleeding an innocent to death is the same thing. Wow! So why is it illegal then hmmm?


I would suggest you read the thread. Then join in the conversation.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Droogie


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


Me too Droogie. Me too.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by essanance
 


An Orwellian future does seem to be in the works. The idea of it scares me far more than the theories we discuss here, as this is in our faces and happening right now.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


This conversation is more than the contents of the article and I meant to be that way. The article was just the gateway to start the conversation.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
There are nine pages in this thread showing proof that science and critical thinking, not to mention reading comprehension, needs to be brought back in schools.


NO, the bioethicists are not comparing human life to weeds.

What they are discussing is just what is the definition of killing. If it is simply the ending of life, then anything that could be the end of life could be considered killing, such as pulling a weed.

They are discussing exactly where life ends. Nothing more.

It is amazing how people take this leaps and bounds and claim eugenics and that these people want to kill us off and harvest organs.

And it is not even strictly organ donors. If a person has absolutely no capabilities, they are only kept alive by artificial means, is that killing?

What they are trying to decide is if someone had a heart attack long enough to cause brain damage, is that person now completely disabled to the point of no longer "living" or are they still considered viable if the heart can come back.

in other words, are they viable if a machine has to replace their heart.

But they are turning the conversation around.

what they are stating, IN FAVOR of LIFE, is that if someone causes a person such disability that they are no longer have autonomy, and must be completely supported through artificial means, can that be considered murder or killing?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
What an unbelievable statement in the OP.

This is the key:

"Morale" is something you have to develop, morale is something which makes us different from animals (or murderers for that matter).

Morale is therefore an indication for human spiritual & intellectual growth - the ability to develop a sense "out of nothing" to make it possible that WE AS HUMANS are indeed more than simple stupid "beings". (We could even speculate and say that this "morale" is actually what ultimately makes us more similar to God, if we wanna go the religious route).

So..those scientists are denying that we humans can have a morale and a "higher" sense of what is good/evil...basically denying and ignoring the basis what makes us human in the first place.



Get over it, you are nothing special...


But this is exactly the point! If so, then your existence on Earth is truly a waste...you were born into some "science drone" who fails to respect other life and in particular other human's life...you could have as well born into a dog or whatever animal...so what's your purpose on Earth as a human if your mind obviously failed to develop respect for others and develop a sense of RESPONSIBILITY over your own actions?

So..example...let's say i go around now killing all kinds of animals like dogs and cats "simply because i can"....and it would never come to my mind that i POSSIBLY might have taken something away...some other being's right to experience life AS I DO....and i don't even want to bring up an example involving humans now...ok this is just ####ed up.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


It does seem like many today have a hard time coming to grips with what we truly are and that's just another species of animal with the same instincts for survival and procreation.

Our survival strategy is different in that it's our intelligence that spring boarded us to the top of the food chain. Yet we are still the same.

Perhaps the attitude that these Physicians seem to have adopted is also a product the same instincts. A way of coping with the pain, suffering and death they see daily. For that very reason its a bad idea that they decide for society what is ethical and what is not.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Infi8nity
 


Is it immoral when a virus kills us? Is it immoral to kill a virus to prevent our own deaths? At what point does reason and rationality enter into this?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I agree. This is a path we should not head down. History has shown us where it leads.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I also see this as a means to determine who lives and who dies with the new healthcare system. I agree with you Blaine, this could lead to so many wrongs. I have just about had it with these " experts" whether it's about food we should and shouldn't eat, green energy, or the climate. They all have agendas. $$$$$



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


If you have read the thread, you should know that this is article was just a way to start a conversation. I meant it to evolve along the lines it has. This one example is just one way the question of the morality of the taking of a life is evolving in our society. I think the conversation here is very poignant and timely.

It's not so much about this one issue as it is about where this leads us. As we accept the idea of taking lives for practical reasons it becomes easier and easier to take the next step.

Also on this issue, I contend only the patient and if they cannot their family should have the power to pull the plug.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


This is about exactly the point you make. The power to pick and choose who lives and who dies. The power to decide who's life is more important than another. The fact you can't see that is what is scary. The fact that is where our culture is headed is scary.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I think my conversation has been somewhat more rational than your post implies



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I understand your argument, however when you are dealing with a commodity that is in scarce supply the question becomes who should benefit from that commodity?

When you're considering organ transplantation how do you decide who should get a new liver, an 80 year old alcoholic, or a twenty something mother? I know whom I would choose.

If organs were not in short supply this wouldn't be an argument.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


But should you have the right to choose? Should I? Who gets that power?

I'm glad this conversation has gone way beyond just the topic of the article. I see this as a stepping stone to the future of how we view the value of human life in our future. Thanks for the post.



To the others who rightly point out the topic of the article, my thoughts are beyond just this topic.

I think it's important we start to discuss where this is leading. Should a Doctor have more power over these decisions than the patients family and loved ones? If they do, where does that lead? Should life saving medical procedures be only available to those deemed worthy by the medical professionals? Is it moral to give one person life while denying it to another? Do we cross a line where we simply discard the life of someone deemed unfit to live for whatever reason?

I know the article does not go into those topics, but it is the conversation I intended.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BulletShogun
 


In the future im gonna know your every thought. there will be nothing you can hide from me... or me from you.

People fear that more than anything. We will also have an eternity to fix the broken and heal the wounded.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Wow, thanks for posting. Looks like the bioethics people are on that sliippery slope to deciding who is worthy of life. Just like they did with Terri Schiavo. Death Panels anyone? Oh yes its true.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Why don't we just "weed" them out and see if they still stand by their conclusion



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
"Is it morally wrong to kill people?"

YES, IT IS! Unbelievable!



They are talking about life in general, not people. Is it morally wrong to kill life in general? Their answer is no, becasue we kill plants, animals, insects, all of these are LIVE organisms that we KILL. Do we get all bent out of shape when someone swats a fly, or pulls an apple out of a tree? The answer is no, because according to our society it is morally okay to destroy life. This does not mean, Its okay to kill people, and if thats what your getting out of this, then whatever no one cares enough to enlighten you.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Ya know, I recently saw the stories of a young boy, a drowning victim, and a neurosurgeon that were considered brain dead, and the doctors wanted to stop life support. Well they are all 3 alive and well with no disabilities. I say that when society stops valuing ALL life, then it will lead to complete anarchy. Don't take this meeting of the idiots lightly people, that is how so many atrocities started.
I'm glad I'll be gone by then, hopefully reincarnation isn't mandatory.




top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join