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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


That isn't God, anything to do with smiting and murder was not and will never be The Highest Love and Goodness, in existence, the Infinite Consciousness, which is only expressed in Goodness. Because in regression, its shrinking, only in progression does it grow.

The bible is an inner process. But turning those things outer flips it around severely.




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Killing a newborn? Absolutely not EVER.

If they are born and out of the womb kicking and screaming, they should not be killed under ANY circumstance.

I honestly can't even believe this is a question that needs to be asked.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Here is one of the issues i have with this philosophy.

If you are somehow 100% certain this baby will go on to be a murder/mass murderer whatever, and you decided to kill it, then you have altered this 100% chance of the baby becoming a killer.

What i can deduce from this can only be that there is no 100% certainty once the observer becomes aware of future events.
The future can either be changed or it cant, and if it can be changed then no need to kill baby period.
This at least solves my hypothetical ethical conundrum.
edit on 29-7-2013 by TheomExperience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience
Here is one of the issues i have with this philosophy.

If you are somehow 100% certain this baby will go on to be a murder/mass murderer whatever, and you decided to kill it, then you have altered this 100% chance of the baby becoming a killer.

What i can deduce from this can only be that there is no 100% certainty once the observer becomes aware of future events.
The future can either be changed or it cant, and if it can be changed then no need to kill baby period.
This at least solves my hypothetical ethical conundrum.
edit on 29-7-2013 by TheomExperience because: (no reason given)

Gets you out of answering the question anyhow.

So lets then put a hypothetical addition to it.
You are watching tele in your living room, suddenly a woosh of light and energy comes in front of you...a future version of yourself walks through...looks like you but older, you compare tats or whatever to make sure your talking to yourself. Finally, the very last moments of his allocated time here, he says the neighbor kid turns into a monster unlike the world has ever seen..making hitler look like a boyscout. You try to ask when, how, why, but sadly he gets sucked back into his timeline/dimension
So there...you know then the future, but you don't know how, when, etc..hell, maybe going over there and trying to intervene sets it all off, you donno..

You can simply not answer of course...but trying to get out of the question on a hypothetical imagination game of moral dilemma's is a cop out. might as well just say like everyone else...no way to know 100% and move along...but do realize in doing that you are also dismissing star trek because they show ftl travel and that's impossible also, so that's a silly show, etc...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Killing a newborn? Absolutely not EVER.

If they are born and out of the womb kicking and screaming, they should not be killed under ANY circumstance.

I honestly can't even believe this is a question that needs to be asked.

it didn't need to get asked...it simply was asked.
there are lots of questions about moral dilemma's out there that are asked...rarely needed, but it gains insight into your own motivational factors.

incidently, what if your child was murdered..brutally...really terrifying stuff. you then somehow got a lift in a time machine for exactly 60 seconds standing in front of a baby that is the killer of your child.
...
What would you do?

Consider it...or not, up to you, but you may actually gain something from considering it verses just closing your eyes, sticking fingers in your ears, and running off.
Maybe you would protect your kid, maybe not...aren't even you interested in considering that?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


That isn't God, anything to do with smiting and murder was not and will never be The Highest Love and Goodness, in existence, the Infinite Consciousness, which is only expressed in Goodness. Because in regression, its shrinking, only in progression does it grow.

The bible is an inner process. But turning those things outer flips it around severely.


You say matter of factly. Are you then privy to knowledge that contradicts many hundreds of years and countless lives whom believe in the book? peasants and prophets...but unity_99 knows the real truth...

Are you currently typing from earth? What is your source of knowledge...not just belief, but you speak in certaintys..
What makes you think God isn't exactly how the old testament explains in great detail? a wrathful and vengeful god whom smites fairly frequently? I mean, don't get me wrong, suggesting that deity is the same as the loving new testament one is a stretch...but then we go back to islam (bible part 3) and he is back to being smiteful and vengeful....so...

Anyhow, all academic chatting in my opinion. You may indeed have some new and profound insight that thousands of years of people globally have missed out on. well done...but if not, then perhaps tame the commanding language with a bit more humility...after all, you may be wrong, right?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Gets you out of answering the question anyhow.

So lets then put a hypothetical addition to it.
You are watching tele in your living room, suddenly a woosh of light and energy comes in front of you...a future version of yourself walks through...looks like you but older, you compare tats or whatever to make sure your talking to yourself. Finally, the very last moments of his allocated time here, he says the neighbor kid turns into a monster unlike the world has ever seen..making hitler look like a boyscout. You try to ask when, how, why, but sadly he gets sucked back into his timeline/dimension
So there...you know then the future, but you don't know how, when, etc..hell, maybe going over there and trying to intervene sets it all off, you donno..

You can simply not answer of course...but trying to get out of the question on a hypothetical imagination game of moral dilemma's is a cop out. might as well just say like everyone else...no way to know 100% and move along...but do realize in doing that you are also dismissing star trek because they show ftl travel and that's impossible also, so that's a silly show, etc...


I do not feel it is a cop out i am just pointing out an obvious inconsistency to any logic based around potential decision making in this event.

What you are trying to do is draw people into a real hard core ethical debate where you do not seem satisfied until everyone appears to agree with making an irrational decision. At least i can only call it irrational from my perspective.

Previously i have stated what "decision" i would make and why, so now i am pointing out why i think it is manipulative line of thinking.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
When you examine its pate and discover 666 tattooed on the crown...

...but of course when the dear looks at you with Bambi eyes, like dinner plates...how could you?!

Å99



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Unless the rehabilitation was the thing that caused them to kill of course (being treated for something you didn't do may drive them insane and make them react violently)


Well said!


Sort of how the "rehabilitation" in the prison system works...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I am waking up and some things knew from birth. Don't buy into the worlds programming but always knew. Remembered even as a toddler beaming in like a shooting star or ray of light and taking this reddish warm snuggly place.

Definitive you bet. You cannot harm.

This world is a warzone, and to leave this level you have to go beyond. But if a soul harms another they go through it, and feel great remorse and shame. Some become dark souls while others "purge" in the abyss these flaws. Some receive mitigation and their circumstances are varied for not always the same level of sanity or intent for each act. But we are never to cross the line and murder others.

Only dark hats would ever think this kind of morality is up for grabs, as if its merely a perception of wrong. I would actually defend such children against such a corrupt government, self defense and in defense of others, Serve and Protect.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


In the highly philosophical sense evil is subjective, yes. We don't have to call Hitler evil. You can call him whatever you want. The fact remains though that when you murder innocent people wholesale you deserve the worst treatment possible. If some people could take Hitler to their basement and torture him for a month while having his screams lull them to sleep they probably would, and he would deserve such treatment. What would name-calling and evil this or evil that have to do with the situation I just described?


What I meant when I said that evil was subjective was that it is in the eye of the beholder, and I gave examples.

Hitler may not have viewed his actions as 'evil'.

Another example, since so many of you disagree with my comment on evil being subjective: Would you consider Lord God of the Christian Bible evil? After all, he murdered MILLIONS that were innocent...

and what about people who commit and perform abortions?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I don't even know why this debate is happening.

Are you serious?

Are you really willing to justify murder?

Sick



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Who would be in charge of disposing of said newborns, robots, because I don't see how any sensible human being could ever do such a thing...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I am waking up and some things knew from birth. Don't buy into the worlds programming but always knew. Remembered even as a toddler beaming in like a shooting star or ray of light and taking this reddish warm snuggly place.

Definitive you bet. You cannot harm.

This world is a warzone, and to leave this level you have to go beyond.

Warzone? darkness?
Well, come to think of it, I don't think I would like your world much.
This world I live in, definitely has issues...lots and lots of issues.
But the personal love, joy, and overall happiness far outweighs the negative parts of life. If the threat is to come back again after death...that's not a threat..thats sort of awesome (unless your stuck in Cleveland I guess.
)

And no, I am not living a charmed life. Some could look from the outside and suggest I have a lot of hell going on and how they would perhaps consider checking out...I get annoyed with people saying I have "strength" to endure....
But I easily get 30 laughs and smiles to a frown ratio.

As far as overall world darkness...well, light is best seen when accentuated by dark borders. remove darkness and nothing seems light either. they are symbiotic.
how do you know your feeling good if you never felt bad sort of thing.

So, to deny darkness from even a consideration is to whitewash the light also, no?

-see, I can also be esoteric and spiritual-



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
I don't even know why this debate is happening.

Are you serious?

Are you really willing to justify murder?

Sick

Yes...this entire thread is simply to try and justify murder.
Glad you read through it and truly put thought into the point of this thread.

You totally caught on. this many pages all to justify murder..no deeper subtext, just that.

...

you didn't read past the title...did you..



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
In the old days before everybody got so litigious, doctors delivering babies would occasionally kill newborns if they were hideously deformed to a point where it would have a terrible life and it would also ruin the parent's life as well.

As illustrated by nature, life is not an end to itself. The natural course of life always leads to death. Short or long, life is only a transitional state between non-existence and death. So the idea is to minimize suffering while we're here, but not maintain life at all costs.

As for "letting God decide," that's why a god would give us eyes with which to see and a brain with which to think, and would allow us to kill if necessary. Do you think a god couldn't stop you if it really wanted to? Don't be silly.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
In the old days before everybody got so litigious, doctors delivering babies would occasionally kill newborns if they were hideously deformed to a point where it would have a terrible life and it would also ruin the parent's life as well.

As illustrated by nature, life is not an end to itself. The natural course of life always leads to death. Short or long, life is only a transitional state between non-existence and death. So the idea is to minimize suffering while we're here, but not maintain life at all costs.

As for "letting God decide," that's why a god would give us eyes with which to see and a brain with which to think, and would allow us to kill if necessary. Do you think a god couldn't stop you if it really wanted to? Don't be silly.


Killing newborns and creating them makes you God.

I believe if we knew of the next newborn to be Hitler or whatever I or any of you would still not kill it. A statement like... "this child is going to be the most evil we have ever seen on this planet" would be a tremendously ridiculous statement and would have to see it to believe it. And of course we would not be granted the licensing or legal permission to commit such a horrendous act.

So therefore even if you can come up with the craziest reasons a child should be slain, the answer is still no. It is against the law. Endo story



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It's so interesting that we have nine pages of some deep philosophical and sociological questions and debate about a provocative topic and yet there are only a few flags. To me, its more of a reflection of how fundamentally abhorrent to the nature of humans it is to kill a child than it is a reflection on this great alternative discussion. The title of the thread colors ones initial inclination on the broader topic.
edit on 7/29/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It's so interesting that we have nine pages of some deep philosophical and sociological questions and debate about a provocative topic and yet there are only a few flags. To me, its more of a reflection of how fundamentally abhorrent to the nature of humans it is to kill a child than it is a reflection on this great alternative discussion. The title of the thread colors ones initial inclination on the broader topic.
edit on 7/29/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

I did consider that.
Bit off topic, but what does a flag represent? is it a "hey, I agree with this topic fully" mark (actually, I thought that's what stars were for) or is it a "this is a interesting topic, albeit a horrible subject". 9 pages and a tiny amount of flags is a bit odd really (unless it was just like 4 people total yapping through the whole thing).


No flags for you lion!

Anyhow, the title actually is provocative, but it does allow for sudden rash outrage, often followed by wondering why the question would even be asked...and perhaps then actually wondering when such circumstances would.

A soldier can easily answer when a child should be killed...typically when they are either pointing a rifle at you, or wearing a bomb vest...not much consideration there. this is similar, but without the gear at that moment (would the soldier wait for the bomb to be strapped on before taking the shot? does it matter if that is inevitably what will happen, so best to take it out before it crosses that line, etc)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It's so interesting that we have nine pages of some deep philosophical and sociological questions and debate about a provocative topic and yet there are only a few flags. To me, its more of a reflection of how fundamentally abhorrent to the nature of humans it is to kill a child than it is a reflection on this great alternative discussion. The title of the thread colors ones initial inclination on the broader topic.
edit on 7/29/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)


Oh, one thing I did notice actually...here and privately.
Some people (some of the more vocals actually) say no, absolutely not, ever.
...
until its personalized (didn't murder someone..they murdered one of your own..your daughter).
Then suddenly the view is turned.

Its ok to unleash a monster..unless that monster turns on you...then its not ok and you will do whatever it takes to protect your offspring.
This right here is human nature though. In the end, lots of people talk about higher morality...but that only works on academic considerations that don't effect yourself.

I wonder...if poor people only were allowed to be politicians, familys of victims only allowed to be judges, etc...what the world would look like.
only able to make decisions if you have actual hands on experience in that dealing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join