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

reply to post by flexy123


Except we are animals too, don't forget that, I don't like when people separate us from animals. And animals do show morals, so your explanation is invalid.

reply to post by andersensrm

Animals cannot contemplate what morality is. Animals are made perfect that's all. Ever notice that everything on this planet works perfectly. EVERYTHING. Except us.
Humans are the only thing here that are not perfect. We are the only ones that don't contribute to the planet in some way.
We all have instincts that kept us alive in the beginning. Morality is the only thing we have to control those old instincts.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Animals cannot contemplate what morality is. Animals are made perfect that's all. Ever notice that everything on this planet works perfectly. EVERYTHING. Except us.
Humans are the only thing here that are not perfect. We are the only ones that don't contribute to the planet in some way.
We all have instincts that kept us alive in the beginning. Morality is the only thing we have to control those old instincts.

Please explain how animals are PERFECT. Also explain to me why humans have morals, so I can explain to you that animals have them as well. Google video Nat Geo Leopard saves babboon baby. And then explain to me why the leopard saves it, without using morals. We don't contribute to the planet???

reply to post by Blaine91555


these backwards plant people seem to forget that we are sentient and weeds though may be sentient, is a simpler life form with limited potential & no proven sentience or ability to communicate in a language we can observe.

for me I've always thought that life was sacred because of the potential for that lifeform to do things if it were alive, and how it is almost always a waste of energy to cut that life short, especially when you consider all the various forms of energy spent and 'little miracles' that happened to create that lifeform in the first place.

how can you have a fancy title like these guys and not realize it takes more effort to make life then to destroy it???

sorry but I really hate the world and the stupid people that live in it today. Wake up and smell the common sense.

-TF

In the case of organ transplants, it's not so much choosing to kill a person as choosing which person gets to live.

I know that's not trivial but in my mind it would make some choices much easier.

But, what do you do when you have to make the choice between two equal people?

Think is a broad sense I can't disagree with them. If the goal is to preserve maximum usable ability (life), then the idea stands. If we are to define life as the continued functioning of the body, regardless of it's ability to anything other than not rotting, then we will run into these types of moral issues.

We are not at a point now to where we can, as far as I know, really be certain of brain death or irreversibility of condition. This is the problem for now, which will someday be alleviated.

Until then we must make judgements based upon quality in terms of life. A dead but functioning body is far less worthy of it's organs than a functioning body, in objective terms. This equation must, on the grand scale, be balanced heavily on the ability side rather than the sensibility side.

Peace
KJ

Giving Credit.
*****www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(*****"belonging to the realms of spiritual/supernatural,
this is not something
ordinary, that humans can hear."

"belonging to the realms of spiritual/supernatural,
this is not something
ordinary, that humans can hear.")



Just something i wrote for another, Thread,, thought maybe might be appro.

@Copyright
"belonging to the realms of spiritual/supernatural,
this is not something
ordinary, that humans can hear."

Too paraphrase the above :
"this is not something
that ordinary, humans can hear."
Thats why the interest in,,,
and answers the question,,
"realms of spiritual/supernatural".
If a higher being
were to sound,
"the trumpets of Armageddon",
,,,,,would they be heard by everyone?
"if a person yells
in a forest,
will there be a noise?",,,
But will it be heard?
Yes.
"but will it be understood?"
Yes,
by the leaves,
the animals,
the birds in the air,
But if there is no other,
like man,
will it be understood?
in time,,,,,,
That is why we write,
in time,,,,,
will it be understood?
That is why we look,
will it be understood?
That is why we "YELL",
Hello,
will it be understood?
That is why we laugh,
Really i wasnt laughing AT you,,
will it be understood?
That is why we cry,
Mother and baby are fine,,
will it be understood?
Are Angels
,"like",
man, able to do all of these things?,
Are the leaves on the tree?,
the animals?,
will it be understood?,,
will it be understood?,,,
Man.
such a work of art, who said we were finished!
hello,
,,,anybody out there?,,
,static,,
hello???
a higher being,
placed ABOVE,
the Angels,
A man.
In time,
In time man is,
In time man was,
In time,,man, will be,
once again,
placed ABOVE,
the Angels,
In time,
In tim,
In ti,
In t,

Tau.
-------------
@copyright

Me.

**"belonging to the realms of spiritual/supernatural,
this is not something
ordinary, that humans can hear.",,see original ,,

I think it is wrong that people should decide who should live or die at birth. However it is possible we have already killed the next Steven Hawking because with genetic engineering it may be possible to tell whether the child would have a disability or disease so we can "mercy kill" and abort the foetus.

It is wrong to think this child could not live a full life. This should be the child's decision later on whether it would like to continue living (If they can make this decision), there have been recent debates to legalise euthanasia in the UK. Euthanasia can be seen as murder. Is it right to allow a "mercy kill"? The Commision on Assisted Dying is being discussed over the last 12 months. You can find more information on the BBC.

reply to post by Blaine91555


The medical world indeed creates careless psychopaths beyond belief!

Nice sharing this... it gives us a glimpse of these cold-blooded mad scientists that work in "scientific" institutions today.

reply to post by andersensrm

Are you really saying that an animal contemplates that saving another is "the right thing to do?". No, it's instinctual. As to why we have morals, well that's a philosophical question that really doesn't apply to this thread. I myself know why.
As to how animals are perfect, well... Duh. Are animals motivated by money? No. Do animals consider how they feel about politics? No do you get it now?
Can you name one way in which humans are necessary to the ecosystem? All other species of plant and animals are. We only use and consume. We are in no way essential.

Active Euthanasia on Disabled Newborns Will Cut Abortion Rates

Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forth a proposal calling for the active euthanasia of babies born with serious health problems, the Times reported Sunday. One argument the doctors are using is that the possibility of killing newborns after birth will reduce “late abortions”.

The college is arguing that medical advances which allow severely disabled babies to survive more often and with longer life spans make the option of “active euthanasia” necessary for the wellbeing of families.

“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” the proposal said. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”

In this case, a child's worthiness to live is reduced to is it an inconvenience. For the "wellbeing" of families they argue it is OK to kill a newborn, carrying it way beyond abortion. Then to justify it they claim it will reduce abortions.

This should point out clearly the dangers along this path.

The link below takes you to a ProCon debate on this topic.

Is Euthanasia acceptable for severely ill infants.

This paper from Canada discusses euthanasia for those with mental or physical disabilities without taking sides.

"So the issue of ending life for disabled newborn infants is not without complications... Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
-1993 Peter Singer, MA-

This should terrify us that a medical professional is making the argument that a disabled infant is not a "person".

We have been seeing discussions like this on the rise of late. This goes way beyond simply pulling the plug on someone who may be brain dead to harvest organs. We are being led down a path here one step at a time towards an Orwellian society. One can't help but see the academics involved consider their lives as having more value and that makes it easy for them suggest what would have been unthinkable just a couple of decades ago.

Each step we take this direction makes it easier to take the next. Eventually idea's like those from Hitler of using Eugenics will be move into the mainstream if this goes far enough. In all of these cases the power over life and death are dealt into the hands of the academics and medical community. It will no longer be about "do no harm", it will be about evaluating a persons worth based on a formula and who lives or dies will rest in their hands.

A dark time in our history is related in this article about how euthanasia was used not that long ago in our history. This article is from the Holocaust Museum

CHILD "EUTHANASIA" PROGRAM
In the spring and summer months of 1939, a number of planners--led by Philipp Bouhler, the director of Hitler's private chancellery, and Karl Brandt, Hitler's attending physician--began to organize a secret killing operation targeting disabled children. On August 18, 1939, the Reich Ministry of the Interior circulated a decree compelling all physicians, nurses, and midwives to report newborn infants and children under the age of three who showed signs of severe mental or physical disability. Beginning in October 1939, public health authorities began to encourage parents of children with disabilities to admit their young children to one of a number of specially designated pediatric clinics throughout Germany and Austria. The clinics were in reality children's killing wards where specially recruited medical staff murdered their young charges by lethal overdoses of medication or by starvation.

At first, medical professionals and clinic administrators incorporated only infants and toddlers in the operation, but as the scope of the measure widened, they included juveniles up to 17 years of age. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 5,000 physically and mentally disabled German children perished as a result of the child "euthanasia" program during the war years.

This happened in an industrially modern, educated country. This did not happen in a Third World Hellhole ruled by anarchy.

This later evolved into the Eugenics program to kill those thought to be physically or mentally inferior due to their culture (the Jewish People and others) to clean up the gene pool.

Horrors start with small steps in the wrong direction.

reply to post by sickofitall2012


I am sorry. I was not going to post , but your infatuation with the animal kingdom ... is ... different. I dont think you perceive reality very well. We are the top of the food chain for a reason. We have just as much right to live and enjoy our lives as the animals do. Could we be better accommodating? Yup , but just so happens there are a lot more of us with brains that allow us to dominate the animal kingdom.

The animal kingdom is not perfect. It is good , but not perfect.

Humans do not have to bend their will to animals because we are simply the smartest beings on this planet and it allows us to rule them.

In my opinion , i think you need a reality check. Humans do not live in peace and harmony because obviously we do not want too. Animals are there for our pleasure and enjoyment of course now ... nutrition.

reply to post by milkyway12


What are you talking about? I know we rule over the animal kingdom to an extent, please show me where I said we don't. Animals are not evil or motivated by the same things humans are. Humans consume and we are in no way essential to the ecosystem like plants and animals are. Are you agreeing with the person I was responding to that animals have morals? Really, morals? I will never believe that animals can contemplate their existence, they just are.
And I find your personal attack offensive and uncalled for.

i bet the grass disagrees with most people here lol

life is life no matter which way you look at it

imagine yourself as an observer from space.. not human.you would see a bunch of hairless monkeys treating the world like sh*t and label them as the most abusive species on the planet. would you not?

you (space being) wouldn't feel bad if a bear ate a human, or they nuked each other. just like most people accept "its life" when a alligator eats a baby zebra.

So its alright to kill Stephen Hawkings since he is completely disabled according to this article? I'm sure he would tell you not to.

Originally posted by theubermensch
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.

edit on 30-1-2012 by theubermensch because: (no reason given)

Earth is a school, and you either progress consciousness or regress/shrink it. Looks like your turning dark side eh? More machine than man. Wisdom looks up from the bottom of the well and many of the Light Beings are here, with them. And we're watching.

Frankly, I agree.

Human life has no more intrinsic value than any other. In fact, blue-green algae has more intrinsic value to the biosphere than human life, which is in most regards a parasite.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Are you really saying that an animal contemplates that saving another is "the right thing to do?". No, it's instinctual. As to why we have morals, well that's a philosophical question that really doesn't apply to this thread. I myself know why.
As to how animals are perfect, well... Duh. Are animals motivated by money? No. Do animals consider how they feel about politics? No do you get it now?
Can you name one way in which humans are necessary to the ecosystem? All other species of plant and animals are. We only use and consume. We are in no way essential.

edit on 31-1-2012 by sickofitall2012 because: Add

How could you possibly know what animals are thinking. Are animals motivated by money, no because money holds no value to them, food on the other hand is valuable, which is why we use food to motivate and control animals. Their greed for food will drive them to the same lengths our greed for money will. It is no different.

As to the question of the thread, is it morally wrong to kill a fly, how bout a spider, or a plant for food, or a cow. We've found that no, according to our society it is not morally wrong to kill these life forms. Now since all life forms EXCEPT humans are considered morally acceptable to kill, we can say that it is morally acceptable to kill a life form. Humans are the exception, is it morally wrong to kill a person, anybody you'd ask would say yes, otherwise youd be dead.

reply to post by sickofitall2012


I was not trying to insult you. I do not insult people because i can be insulted just as easily in turn. I just seem to aggravate you with my response. I cannot see "You need a reality check" as an insult. I see it as saying , your opinion seems to be way off base "in my opinion" and my opinon alone.

You take the animal thing way to far is what i am trying to say to you. I am not an animal and neither are you.

The only thing that makes us an animal are the scientist who believe in evolution. There are arguments that refute both sides of "creation" and "evolution". I do not want to debate that.

Again , comparing man to animals is not a good thing to do simply on our cognitive ability alone.

Animals can reason to a degree , but their reason is on the "moment or spot". Man can "Consult" his reason and question / ponder his reason. He is much more creative than animals. Man can worship , be poetic , and create philosophies. Animals do not have the ability to consult their reason / instincts as to "why" they have come to this conclusion.

Man can. Killing is wrong , it is simple. If it was not wrong i probably would have tried to kill the first kid that aggravated me .. but i did not. That automatically proves that you know killing is not the only way. Even as a child , i was aware of my limbs and the actions they had on the world. You learn this by the age of 2. You know you can cause pain and aggravation to influence events. If you have ever heard some one screem out in distress or animal you gets your attention rather quickly and makes you wonder what it is / curious. I do not know about you , but i dont simply "HELP" individuals who are in trouble because i was taught too. It is automatic. I do not have to think ... hmm ... "there are a bunch of other humans around , ill pass up on this guy / woman or perhaps i should help him for the heck of it .. hmm".

It is common sense that killing another human for no reason is wrong. If it is not common sense for some one .. they need to be locked up or medicated.

Killing is not only wrong because it is frowned upon , but you know there are other ways to solve a problem other than killing some one or physically beating them on a disagreement.


Animals and Man are very different , and should be in different categories.

reply to post by Wildbob77

In the case of organ transplants, it's not so much choosing to kill a person as choosing which person gets to live.

I know that's not trivial but in my mind it would make some choices much easier.

But, what do you do when you have to make the choice between two equal people?

Unless you think you own every being on the planet, you don't have to make the choice.

The brain-damaged person stays alive as long as the person's own wealth or those willing to pay to keep him/her alive last. It is not as if anyone else owns the person's organs and have to make decisions about whether to continue to "leave" the organs with him/her while the person is still medically alive. The choice of what to do with the organs arises only when the person is dead or cannot be kept alive because no one alive cares enough to keep him/her alive.