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

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

www.bioedge.org

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)

I find it very disturbing that this is the direction we are heading, just pieces of meat to be harvested to provide organs for the few lucky enough to have money or insurance that will cover transplants.

I still recall in about 1988 when they had a large Bioethics conference to discuss who should get life saving treatment and who should not get it. That is what lead to how they decide who gets on a transplant list and who does not.

We should have never had it go that direction where one person has the right to withhold lifesaving treatment because they have a prejudice to that patient due to their lifestyle or habits.

I'm sure that down the road we can expect these same people to begin arguing who should live and die at birth. The next Hawking could end up being killed at birth for instance.

www.bioedge.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Blaine91555


What a ridiculous statement.

Comparing killing a man to pulling weeds?

i get it, but my common sense disagrees.

And yes, disturbing is a good word for this!

Great post btw.

and reference.

I don't have much to say about it, but i'm happy to observe the conversation. S+F

"Is it morally wrong to kill people?"

YES, IT IS! Unbelievable!

I agree that its not morally wrong but I don't agree with the ideology that is within the context of his message.

The only thing that makes killing morally wrong is the intent in which leads to it. To kill for food or to protect one self is is morally justifiable. To kill in order to have spare parts to use on someone else is morally wrong.

Depends on intent.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Every time they open their mouth they tell on themselves. What they just said is we are considered no more than the weeds. They are so caught up in their own twisted minds that they are not the same species that the rest of us are. So of course to them its not any different to kill us than a bug or a tree. These people are completely out of their minds. Who is more crazy them? Or the rest of us who allow them to be in power?

I think the more we are desensitized to the taking of human life, the less value it will have in society. Look at how we went from tolerating abortion for very specific purpose to it being now used routinely as a form of birth control.

Where I see this desensitization heading is something that scares me. I can see it leading to a decision being made at birth as to who lives or dies based on perceived value to society.

When you use the logic in this article, it's easy to see us heading to a time when a persons perceived ability to contribute to society will determine if they are allowed to survive at all. If your IQ is low and there are no meaningful jobs for you, why feed you or waste resources on you for instance.

If your still living in your parents basement at age 40, it's off to the human tissue recycling center for you

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”.

These two are probably not the only ones thinking this way..

IMO, psychopathic at a minimum.

AND, they get paid big money on top of it.

I hope the bubble-guppies aren't voting this year !!

I wonder how many "like-minded" friends they have in Federal positions making decisions for ME ??

I wonder WHO lobbied this "study".

Sounds a bit like 'master morality'. I think society protects the weak and the worthless.It also protects murderers,rapists,psychopaths.....

Im with these guys.

Makes me wonder what these people have gone through in order to get to where they are mentally.

Years and years of watching people die?
Years and years of having to replace organs?

Glad I'm not them.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Dear Blaine91555,

Great catch S&F. The amazing thing is that they consider them experts on ethics and they say life is not sacred, wow. They can only be understood by understanding what "morality" means to them. Firstly, they do not see human life as special or humans as unique, they compared killing a human to pulling up a blade of grass. Secondly, morality for them is a cost benefit analysis, there is no firm right or wrong, everything is situational. Finally, there is a lot of money to be made in selling organs and a large black market in the trade. Peace.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


What if for instance there were to be a worldwide drought that lead to food rationing for a couple of years? Would that justify killing people who served no important purpose to give their food to others who had more important jobs?

To me what is behind the word humanity is that we value all life no matter how unimportant that life is to the whole. Only when we value individuals over the good of the whole, can we claim to be humane.

The greatest atrocities in history seem to have a their heart the idea that the whole is more important than the part.

I would like to see this get caught up by the MSM to spark a debate about this issue. Academics and those in science are quite conceited in how they think their idea's trump those of who they consider lesser beings. They should not even be having this conversation since the decision when to pull the plug should be left up to the patients living will or family if one does not exist; not to a heartless academician who's heart has never connected with their brains.

This smells of people suffering from a god complex and grandiose delusions at a dangerous level.

I understand this article is not exactly along those lines, but it's the direction its sending us that concerns me.

I don't really think this particularly offensive, it really is about context. If one were to look at this life, society, etc from an outsiders point of view.... or in a cosmic sense an individual life is very insignificant. Everyone of us is a blip on the radar, with our lifetimes so short.

When looked at it in that sense life is both precious and meaningless, which in my opinion, is pretty close to the truth. It may be a paradox, but most truths are in one way or the other.

At the basest of levels, taking the life of a plant and taking the life of a human is pretty much the same.

Now we have consciousness and have developed standards that state otherwise, and to fit into this society we must abide by it's rules.... not only that, we have evolved beyond what we consider murder.

But in an apples to apples comparison.... I can't disagree.

not if it is people that undermine your government and are slowly enslaving you, and KILLING you.
It's ok to defend your country. If it is ruled by foreign nationals. They will try and send you to war so either you die, or their enemies die. You will return to a nation under martial law and no civil liberties. It's ok to defend your constitution. It's ok to defend your bill of rights. It's ok to defy tyranny at home. It's cool, it's all good. It's great to be a patriot and defend your fellow citizen and your children´s future. those that wish to enslave us under the red shield of the NWO must be stopped. They will kill you if it is necessary. against people like that, it's ok.

by all means defend your nation, at home.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Great point. I can easily see how it would desensitize them to humanity. Perhaps they need to get out among the common folk, have a good laugh and get some humanity all over them.

I do think though that some of this comes from the Ivy League crowd separating themselves from society and staying inside their circle of peers. Much in the same way those in Law Enforcement do the same to their detriment and soon come to look at everyone as suspicious and the enemy.

"There is no scientific consensus that life is important." - Professor Farnsworth

This sounds like more of a matter of ethics than morals.

what if i think pulling weeds is wrong?

honestly, sometimes i do.

In the 1970's I remember hearing about the Chinese executing prisoners for organs. According to my political science professor people were being incarcerated on trumped up charges and executed with no hearing/trial. The Chinese government claims they are all death row inmates

Here is a 2001 article about it:

"Killed to order: how China harvests body parts on Death Row"
www.telegraph.co.uk...

THE gruesome details of China's trade in human organs harvested from Death Row were revealed in detail for the first time in Washington last week by a young doctor from the People's Republic newly fled to the West.
As horror stories, they compare with the experiments carried out in Nazi concentration camps. Prisoners are killed to order so that doctors can take their body parts, including - in at least one case - while a victim's heart was still beating.

It's all about the money.

Damn if it doesn't look to be the direction we are headed.
So much for the Hippocratic oath.

I really hate to think what doctors will be like in the future.

if you think that life has no value, then why are you still here?
The expression to that belief is to stop living, why ask others to join you? dont want to go alone?