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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
You know I am pretty sure I have seen more than a few movies where a group usually a church group is hunting down and trying to kill what they think is the baby antichrist. They always fail in the movies but aside from that I guess there are a great many people that are rooting for the antichrist I wonder I those same people are the ones that want the world to end. Hmm conundrum.




posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcutler12888

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Someone once told me that (Ted Bundy) had an adult female relative...and one day (when he was 3 years old)...she was baby-sitting him...and she put him down for a nap...and then she went to her room to lay down for a while...when she woke up...she was surrounded by (knives) that 3 year old Ted had put on the bed...and when she looked at him...he was standing; starring at her with a sinister grin.

To me the (Ted Bundy) story does tell me that yes...some people are born evil.

Even knowing this...I still could not kill a newborn.


Oh, GOD...

Talk...about...CREEPY!!! Yeeeeesh...

Thank you for the nightmares, Cal! LOL

i'd call that frickin demon possessed. i'm not one to be succored in by wild tales, but i've known several trustworthy people who told me in confidence that they had dealt with demon possessed humans in foreign countries.

these were mostly missionaries (one of them rather famous, though not as a missionary), but one was a greek orthodox minister who told me a chilling story of an exorcism he performed where he and others witnessed a very young child turn it's head 360 degrees.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by jcutler12888

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Someone once told me that (Ted Bundy) had an adult female relative...and one day (when he was 3 years old)...she was baby-sitting him...and she put him down for a nap...and then she went to her room to lay down for a while...when she woke up...she was surrounded by (knives) that 3 year old Ted had put on the bed...and when she looked at him...he was standing; starring at her with a sinister grin.

To me the (Ted Bundy) story does tell me that yes...some people are born evil.

Even knowing this...I still could not kill a newborn.


Oh, GOD...

Talk...about...CREEPY!!! Yeeeeesh...

Thank you for the nightmares, Cal! LOL

i'd call that frickin demon possessed. i'm not one to be succored in by wild tales, but i've known several trustworthy people who told me in confidence that they had dealt with demon possessed humans in foreign countries.

these were mostly missionaries (one of them rather famous, though not as a missionary), but one was a greek orthodox minister who told me a chilling story of an exorcism he performed where he and others witnessed a very young child turn it's head 360 degrees.


I wonder if possession is even possible at the age of three or just for young children at all...you know, given the "age of accountability" and whatnot. If so, yet another YEESH and even more nightmares! Thanks, Bob! LOL

I wonder why you hear of demon possession so often in foreign countries...mostly third world countries, actually. I mean, is it just mistaking mental illness from a lack of education or is it because they subscribe to faith, religion, and superstition far more than people who live in first world countries? I've always been a bit perplexed by that fact...



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

www.merriam-webster.com...


Definition of ACCEPTED
: generally approved or used


www.merriam-webster.com...


Definition of APPROVE
transitive verb
1 obsolete : prove, attest
2 to have or express a favorable opinion of



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse

Originally posted by SaturnFX
there is a way to 100% predict if a newborn will murder someone in their life...


This is not possible because of the equal nature of nature vs. nurture in determining behavior.

No, its totally possible, because I said so in ops
Trust me, I'm the doctor.


But lets take your impossible given at face value; there are still a great many modifiers that convolute the whole issue. For example, the severity of this future-crime is a factor.

Sure, might as well toss you a easy softball. the infant in question murders you.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 




When is killing a newborn acceptable? I'd say when it's coming at you with a mean look in it's eyes and a big machete. Or one of those little baby guns they make. Yes, my vote would be: Green light for baby with gun.






Just kidding. (Mostly). That said, no offense OP, but I think your thread title was not the best choice. IMHO your proposed scenario has more to do with "Minority Report" style pre-determination than killing infants. I don't think it really changes matters, to alter the age of the subject / target in question. In my opinion it's just about the same moral question whether you're talking about killing this person at 3 weeks, 10 years, 20 years old, or in the womb.


As to my thoughts on that matter-- I think one of the ideas this hinges on is that of not only "precognition" but predistination. In other words-- is there such thing as destiny, or can we change the future by our actions? If there is no such thing as a firmly fixed destiny, and "precognition" is really only a vision of a possible future, and not the future as it is guaranteed to happen.

If you insist on a scenario where destiny is a real, and firm thing.... then sure, kill the baby.

I say that somewhat lightly, however, because I do not believe that is the case. I think free will is real, and that we are products of not only genetics, but our environments. As such, I don't exactly think anyone is "destined" to become a terrible person. On the other hand, I do believe in probability. (Which is one mechanism by with precognition could exist alongside free will.) But even if we could analyze an infant, their circumstances (genetics, parents' personality, poverty or wealth level, etc) and determine they're at higher risk to become a mass murderer, I'd then say "no" killing them is not justified.

Besides-- assuming some advanced predictive model, I still think infancy would be too early to form a good predictor of probability of that kind of thing. You'd probably have to wait until they were at least a teenager, to get any kind of accurate insight. Even then, I'd still say no. There are other solutions.


And as to your other question-- as you might have guessed from my answer to the previous-- I am generally against the death penalty. I think there is too much room for human error-- even with modern technologies. For me to agree with that kind of thing, it would have to be a chronic offender of the worst kind (sadistic murder, etc) with no chance of rehabilitation, a high risk of re-offending, who was 190% beyond any shadow of a doubt guilty. Then, I might concede to a death penalty being acceptable.

But IMHO those cases are rare.

It is also a fact that most forms of execution (including, perhaps especially lethal injection) are not as humane as they're made out to be. And killing people, especially in painful or torturous ways, sort of makes us little better than the criminal being killed. Especially if it is in the name of "revenge." If it's practical, and not out of vengeance, I could agree with it, providing the circumstances / conditions I mentioned above.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Why should an atheist such as yourself have any qualms about this at all?

Why should a theist such as yourself have any qualms about sending people to paradise?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



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?


Interesting paradox.

If adhered to, who would be left to perform the execution work?

Almost clever response..but I did say murder, not kill.
you can kill people without it being murder. state does it all the time



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


1 feels if the takes the position and JUDGES another's LIFE they MUST be prepared to explain to the REAL JUDGE why?... in flesh and soul.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd

It could never happen - epigenetics. We are not meerly biology nor meerly upbringing. It's a blend of the two. Into that mix - is self determination. Nope could never happen.

Nonsense. it totally can happen. I stated it in the ops, therefore it has happened actually. see...impeneterable flaw.

Incidentally, do you go to a star trek film and scream the whole time at the screen that faster than light travel is impossible until they usher you out?

anyhow..back to the question...if you felt like answering it as posed (after all, I suspect that's why you came into this thread)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
The flaw is obvious in that someone is going to murder the infant which makes them guilty of the crime which they are seeking to stop.

So OP will the infant be the one growing up to be responsible for murdering infants who fail the murderer test? Would it then be okay to murder the murderer of the infants to keep them from murdering more infants?

This is the most retarded thread I have read in a looooooonnnnnng time, why am I not surprised it was written by a transhumanism supporter?

-FBB

I see
So, drone operators taking out terrorists before they strike = murderers.
gotcha.

As far as most retarded thread...I suspect you probably don't read much then.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:40 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.)


God is faced with this question every single day in the existence of mankind....and He has answered it the same every time. That should be your answer.




posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


There is nothing to answer. You can't murder an infant, you can't project future crimes on someone. You can't know what they do.

Unity...why are you in a philosophical thread if you refuse to participate in the most basic aspect of it? Is it strictly to derail the thread or are you just seeking attention?
In this hypothetical pretend thread, you do know what they do.
When you go watch a sci-fi movie, your meant to suspend some disbelief. Do you do that? Can you fathom the imaginations?
Now, since I suspect you can sort of figure out that even though FTL travel is fairly impossible, you can sit back and watch a space saga without flipping out everytime they show a ship going through space...because its not real, its not meant to be, and so you relax and calm the hell down.
Now
in this "sci-fi" thread...you have a machine, some device..it gives 100% accurate info...if you let this person continuing existing, someone in the future will brutally die. might be you, or your children, might be someone you don't know, might be millions, who knows..just that someone will be murdered maliciously by this person.
That is the pretense, that is the question, its not meant to be a serious question about killing infants mind you, it has knock on effects, and as some here found out (wont say names), it can be extremely thought provoking when you personalize it...
aka, could you kill the infant if you knew with absolute certainty that the infant would grow up and murder your own child in a brutal fashion.

Did you ever get the question posed to you..your child is standing on a railroad track, stuck..train coming at him/her. at the opposite direction, a bus full of children you don't know is teetering on the edge of a cliff...you can run one way and save either your own child, or the bus full of kids...which do you choose?

How did you answer that one..or did you refuse to answer that also because your too nervous to make such a decision about something so horrible?


If you could, which no one could here and even Ets can only project possibilities not facts, on a 90%, 80%, 70%,
likelihood for this possible timeline out of zillions of them

Aha, but I have technology far superior than even that of deities.
its called imagination...and in imagination, all things are possible...to include the 100% chance thing.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

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.)


God is faced with this question every single day in the existence of mankind....and He has answered it the same every time. That should be your answer.


Didn't he flood the earth, bomb a couple cities, slaughter the first born in Egypt, etc etc etc?

So...his answer is..sure?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by queenofswords
Pondered it for ....oh, I don't know. Maybe one second. NEVER.

So, you wouldn't kill baby Hitler?
Imagine how many you would save if you simply took out one...

Are you pro death penalty?


Imagine how much technological advancement wouldn't have been had without the war which have saved millions over the decades... imagine all those people who wouldn't have died, or that baby boom that didn't happen, or the cultural revolution, or the tensions between the two remaining ginormous powers leading to the landing on the moon, or ...

yea, that doesn't work, man. You know why? Because human nature, and nature itself is too complex to comprehend. With what little we know of, we're pretty well certain that what results is a product of genetic propensities interacting with environmental stressors. Someone who has a high genetic load to become a psychopath won't necessarily kill, in fact it's estimated that only 2% of psychopaths go on to murder someone.

So unless there's a time machine involved, or our current understanding of the developmental psychology is completely incorrect, then the scenario is not applicable to reality.

If there is a time-machine involved, well, let's just say we have no clue what impacts changing things like this would do.

I used to be fairly ignorant regarding psychopathy and thought they should all be shot. Now, I know better. They were born with the propensity to abnormally wire, and must be worked with considering their condition, in order to develop within society and operate as civilly and productive as can be reasonably expected.
edit on 28-7-2013 by QuantriQueptidez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Didn't he flood the earth, bomb a couple cities, slaughter the first born in Egypt, etc etc etc?

So...his answer is..sure?


Flood...yes. Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.....yes.

The rest is the work of humanity and something called "free will."



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
The simple answer to the OP would be never, but that is based upon by my own personal morals and not based on the social pressures applied in a group setting which could easily be justified in disagreeing with me based on the logic associated with their world view.

thank you for answering the question posed.

Followup question: If you chose not to, then some years later, your son or daughter was brutally murdered by that person you had a chance to kill, would you regret your decision? Perhaps not, inevitably, a stance of morality is rigidly defended, moreso than regret felt. People have died and murdered..even their own offspring that they love out of moral rigidness.

(Personally, I prefer principles over morals, but principles becomes difficult in this circumstance)



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Didn't he flood the earth, bomb a couple cities, slaughter the first born in Egypt, etc etc etc?

So...his answer is..sure?


Flood...yes. Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.....yes.

The rest is the work of humanity and something called "free will."



If God (the father) leads by example....

...

What example has he left us with?



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by queenofswords
Pondered it for ....oh, I don't know. Maybe one second. NEVER.

So, you wouldn't kill baby Hitler?
Imagine how many you would save if you simply took out one...

Are you pro death penalty?


Imagine how much technological advancement wouldn't have been had without the war which have saved millions over the decades... imagine all those people who wouldn't have died, or that baby boom that didn't happen, or the cultural revolution, or the tensions between the two remaining ginormous powers leading to the landing on the moon, or ...

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.


So unless there's a time machine involved, or our current understanding of the developmental psychology is completely incorrect, then the scenario is not applicable to reality.

Never said a time machine wasn't involved...left that up to the imagination. and this isn't based in reality..not really..its based in the imagination of dilemma.



Now, I know better.

Although not really part of this thread, I am glad to see you have moved past the easy answer to an actual issue in society. Easy isn't always right.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

If God (the father) leads by example....

...

What example has he left us with?


The question was whether you would kill an infant if you knew it would grow up to commit murder and other evil deeds. This is a situation that God has faced every single day since the birth of Cain... And yet, murderers are still born every day.

My point is that all deeds...and the people who commit them...have a place in the Divine plan.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join