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.

 

When is killing a newborn acceptable?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I wouldn't put myself on the same level as the one who killed my baby.

Not sticking fingers in my ears, it's just kind of a ridiculous question. Not dissing you personally, just saying.




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I wouldn't put myself on the same level as the one who killed my baby.

Not sticking fingers in my ears, it's just kind of a ridiculous question. Not dissing you personally, just saying.

Fair enough...silly question..totally would never happen.
Totally unrelated, but if you were a military commander that had intel on a group of youths prepping to bomb a nightclub, would you have a drone strike take them out well before the danger occurred?

or...would you not put yourself on the same level...

Again, just nonsense thinking...after all, drone strikes are also imagination, pre-emptive strikes are a myth, and nobody ever plots and plans death...so, just a weird sort of ridiculous question.




-no such thing as a stupid question meme inserted here-
edit on 29-7-2013 by SaturnFX because: added some stuff



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You can't 100% predict anything in the future without observing it and being able to confirm the prediction was 100%.

I don't see any scenario, not even a hypothetical science fiction one, where you kill a newborn.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You can't 100% predict anything in the future without observing it and being able to confirm the prediction was 100%.

I don't see any scenario, not even a hypothetical science fiction one, where you kill a newborn.

I wrote a hypothetical that works fine a couple pages back..or the previous page..or maybe it was 4 pages back...but its there either way.
something about doctor who shows up and tells you, then goes off, etc...but that's not the point of the discussion...if it was, then the discussion topic would be "I just figured out how to always win the lottery" and not the question posed.

I assume you refuse to answer the question posed...

so...why then are you here?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I don't see why bombing a bunch of children "well before" they were done with their plan would be necessary. I'd probably try to go in non-lethally and disarm the kids and their bombs without casualties personally.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I did answer, I said that there is no scenario that I would kill a newborn.


I just thought I would also point out the illogical aspect of your scenario. Another illogical aspect of your scenario, if the prediction was 100% accurate...you wouldn't be able to kill the newborn anyway, doing so would make the prediction inaccurate.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I did answer, I said that there is no scenario that I would kill a newborn.


I just thought I would also point out the illogical aspect of your scenario. Another illogical aspect of your scenario, if the prediction was 100% accurate...you wouldn't be able to kill the newborn anyway, doing so would make the prediction inaccurate.

Depends on the space time xenoflux matrix crossing into a quangnakong vortex. the flang spactulator hitting the zero emission beveled scronjet would then work to 38.5 petajoules and flip the aforementioned matrix to the nedapinjoint flowtrap thrival until artificial gravometric portal stravex alter the timeline properly, allowing the paradox to compensate.

Shesh, you primitive humans...now, since you are not from the 28th century like I am, I will put it in simple terms you silly cavemen can understand:

Magic happens

-tosses a banana to the ancient internet people-



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I don't see why bombing a bunch of children "well before" they were done with their plan would be necessary. I'd probably try to go in non-lethally and disarm the kids and their bombs without casualties personally.


Awesome!
You should teach the military how you have a easier way that allows no casualties...also stop war, and maybe even end world hunger while your at it (and not busy curing cancer).



In my mind, all I have to do is put out a ke$ha video and everyone will stop fighting and start dancing



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You can't 100% predict anything in the future without observing it and being able to confirm the prediction was 100%.

I don't see any scenario, not even a hypothetical science fiction one, where you kill a newborn.


I predict with 100% certainty that one day you will die as well as everyone we know.


Would you care to rephrase your post now?

edit on 29-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Acceptability, is a situational parameter.
Is killing by omission 'killing'?...or a rationalisation of behaviour?

On a scale of 'acceptability', there is no 'acceptable' instance, but, some situations are able to be rationalised as more acceptable than others...there are real-life situations where this occurs, because options do not exist...the poor individuals who have to justify thier actions to themselves when faced with a live-die choice...by omission, have made that choice where one lives, the other dies...Is that 'acceptable'?

Å99



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yeah and killing someone before they do an act or before the process of acting is wrong. Protecting your family's life is your duty as a man. Yeap minority report is a good one for this lol. Pre crime.
edit on 29-7-2013 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


God can not be considered evil in the same sense a person can be considered evil. You have many different kinds of evil. There is the evil of the natural world, there is human evil, there is absurd (or banal) evil, and there is chaotic evil which is very similar to the evil of the natural world. God is generally either above or must be considered separate from these evils. Remember, God of the Old Testament existed well before anyone had any conception of evil. In addition, before the OT act (or fiat) of creation it can be said that a certain kind of evil was pre-existent before creation but that is a different matter.

Generally, based on the Old Testament, evil is a human mindset.

As far as people who perform abortions, they aren't passing judgement upon the child. They are simply helping the woman terminate the preg in the safest way possible. If, however, some abortions happen because of the malevolence of the mother or is due to her sexual irresponsibility than I would consider that evil... and karma is a bitchch.
edit on 29-7-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I predict with 100% certainty that one day you will die as well as everyone we know.


That's right....no one gets out alive.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Why do the right pretend to care about the fetus inside? Because when they are born they do not care what happens to an unwanted child. It then becomes everyone else's problem and we all know how the right hate helping anyone out.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
-points to the philosophy forum-
Meant to ponder and consider this, so try not to gut react to the topic alone but actually consider this:


Lets say in 100 years, there is a way to 100% predict if a newborn will murder someone in their life. Do you execute the infant right then and there? imprison for life, or simply let it go about life with absolute certainty that people will die (unknown, might be one, might be millions, but they will maliciously kill, that is the only certainty. Maybe when they are 10 years old, maybe 100..who knows.)


Thoughts?

...and try not to get too bogged down in "The Minority Report" side discussion..although that is similar in concept, this academic consideration is about a infant, not full grown people a hour before they do whatever it is they are going to do.
Also, I know the concept is impossible technically speaking, well, as far as we know...but just roll with it anyhow.


Say you are in a life threatening situation, where the presence of an infant would put many other full grown humans at risk of death, and your only choice is to off the kid for the sake of the group, totally okay.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Completely understandable standpoint. I wasn't remarking that you gave a "wrong" answer btw..its philosophy based on a impossible double negative dilemma...about as akin to asking what tastes better, pepperoni or sausage. No wrong answer, just consequences either way. become a monster, or unleash a monster.


Since I'm bored, I've decided to give this a second go and answer your question correctly.

Here is the first paragraph OP:


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Lets say in 100 years, there is a way to 100% predict if a newborn will murder someone in their life. Do you execute the infant right then and there? imprison for life, or simply let it go about life with absolute certainty that people will die (unknown, might be one, might be millions, but they will maliciously kill, that is the only certainty. Maybe when they are 10 years old, maybe 100..who knows.)


I choose none of the three options you highlighted. If they have the genetic soup to become a killer at some point in their lives, put it to use. You wouldn't need to put them in prison, you could funnel them directly into a special ops military program. You might say something like, "but how do you know they won't kill someone on their team" ? Psychos fear only bigger psychos. You make sure his superior is one big, bad mother#$%@#

Another option would be to clone people (we're 100 years in the future, right?) that they could release their tension on... murder... every once in a while while still putting their predatory nature to good use in other ways. Maybe they've got a knack for kicking the crap out of someone in the ring... MMA superstar entertainer... something along those lines.

I think it's a social failure not to put it's members to good use, and instead shun them just cause they're not imaginative enough and willing to take on the extreme variants well.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You can't 100% predict anything in the future without observing it and being able to confirm the prediction was 100%.

I don't see any scenario, not even a hypothetical science fiction one, where you kill a newborn.


I predict with 100% certainty that one day you will die as well as everyone we know.


Would you care to rephrase your post now?

edit on 29-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


You don't know for certain that I will die one day...who knows what science may bring us.

Besides, I may die at night



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


God can not be considered evil in the same sense a person can be considered evil. You have many different kinds of evil. There is the evil of the natural world, there is human evil, there is absurd (or banal) evil, and there is chaotic evil which is very similar to the evil of the natural world. God is generally either above or must be considered separate from these evils. Remember, God of the Old Testament existed well before anyone had any conception of evil. In addition, before the OT act (or fiat) of creation it can be said that a certain kind of evil was pre-existent before creation but that is a different matter.

Generally, based on the Old Testament, evil is a human mindset.

As far as people who perform abortions, they aren't passing judgement upon the child. They are simply helping the woman terminate the preg in the safest way possible. If, however, some abortions happen because of the malevolence of the mother or is due to her sexual irresponsibility than I would consider that evil... and karma is a bitchch.
edit on 29-7-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)


Wow..didn't know that there were different 'types' of evil, let alone 'acceptable' evil....


Why isn't the Lord God of the bible considered 'evil'? Isn't he guilty of commiting horrifc and evil deeds?

The religious like to consider Satan 'evil', even though they are not able to name anything that he did that was evil. Oh, they will say, "Well, his evil was in disobeying God"....Hmmm, ok. God commanded Satan to murder, rape, and steal, and then to murder some more. He refused.

How is that being evil?

Who is REALLY the evil guy there?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Evil and Good are simply different degrees of the same, generally subjective, concept...much like hot and cold.

Both created by God.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join