I thought this subject was already brought up before, but I couldn't find it.
When, if ever, would it be justifiable to purposely target and kill an innocent person?
I'm not talking about collateral damage or acts of war, and would appreciate not dragging the thread down that path.
To Kill an Innocent
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
I cannot think of any justification for killing an innocent person by any means, nor even to threaten with death.
That is, if you disregard euthanasia. Euthenasia is another subject altogether. Is this what you have in mind?
That is, if you disregard euthanasia. Euthenasia is another subject altogether. Is this what you have in mind?
To Kill an Innocent
Just did a search for euthenasia and there are several subjects on this thread.
If this is not what you were thinking of, ACC, then what did you have in mind when you posted this thread?
If this is not what you were thinking of, ACC, then what did you have in mind when you posted this thread?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
OpenMind wrote: I cannot think of any justification for killing an innocent person by any means, nor even to threaten with death.
That is, if you disregard euthanasia. Euthenasia is another subject altogether. Is this what you have in mind?
Only if the euthenasia is involuntary. No, I wouldn't consider assisted suicide & such as fitting the category.
That is, if you disregard euthanasia. Euthenasia is another subject altogether. Is this what you have in mind?
Only if the euthenasia is involuntary. No, I wouldn't consider assisted suicide & such as fitting the category.
To Kill an Innocent
yeah that is where my mind wandered immediately too. then i would have to go with no...never okay to kill an innocent person. unless i'm missing something? 
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
I just remember that Stephen King mini-series about the village folk who's kids were all held hostage by some kind of immortal demon guy. They had to voluntarily give him one child to save the rest.
The Saw movies, I'm told, are about putting people in impossible situations to kill or be killed.
Someone once asked if you could kill a child if you knew it would save many, or something like that.
Is there ever a circumstance to sacrifice an innocent human life?
The Saw movies, I'm told, are about putting people in impossible situations to kill or be killed.
Someone once asked if you could kill a child if you knew it would save many, or something like that.
Is there ever a circumstance to sacrifice an innocent human life?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
flopstock wrote: Yep something similar a while ago.. but it wasn't worded like this.. more along the lines of could you conceive of ever doing it..
I remember because my answer here is the same.. i'd like to think i couldn't but if it meant the life of one of my kids verus someone elses, i can't say i absolutely wouldn't...
but would it be justified? nope. would that stop me? nope. do i feel good about the answer? nope. does not feeling good about the answer change the answer? nope.
Could have gone with the polite answer, thought you'd prefer honest.
Absolutely, thanks. Our posts overlapped. I tried to keep the family variable out of it, because I'd kill a friend to save family.
But would I murder one stranger to save another? Only if both would otherwise die, like in some strange emergency situation I can't imagine right now.
I remember because my answer here is the same.. i'd like to think i couldn't but if it meant the life of one of my kids verus someone elses, i can't say i absolutely wouldn't...
but would it be justified? nope. would that stop me? nope. do i feel good about the answer? nope. does not feeling good about the answer change the answer? nope.
Could have gone with the polite answer, thought you'd prefer honest.
Absolutely, thanks. Our posts overlapped. I tried to keep the family variable out of it, because I'd kill a friend to save family.
But would I murder one stranger to save another? Only if both would otherwise die, like in some strange emergency situation I can't imagine right now.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: Interesting.......
It's NEVER right to kill an innocent person, no matter what the circumstances.
I rarely use "NEVER".... but I believe there are always options...
"Mercy Kills" come to mind as I'm thinking of this, but then again we have options to make somebodies life nearly painless until death occurs naturally... not necessary to kill........
Then again, in my humble very limited bible knowledge we are all under a death sentence, we just assume we have more than 70 years to live, ah, but are any of us innocent? Yeah I know God sets that sentence and carries out the kill.
A few buddies and I accepted death sentences for each other in this manner, agreeing that, the last round in our auto's were reserved for each other, in situations where capture was emminent, but then again, I'm the eternal optimist and know I'd get away, so I'd never give the signal okying my readiness to recive mercy from my bud. Ah but again, whos declared me innocent?
Yeah, ok, I chased this one around and came up with nothin, youre welcome for the help Acc.:-2
Always dependable, Far. :yh_flag
It's NEVER right to kill an innocent person, no matter what the circumstances.
I rarely use "NEVER".... but I believe there are always options...
"Mercy Kills" come to mind as I'm thinking of this, but then again we have options to make somebodies life nearly painless until death occurs naturally... not necessary to kill........
Then again, in my humble very limited bible knowledge we are all under a death sentence, we just assume we have more than 70 years to live, ah, but are any of us innocent? Yeah I know God sets that sentence and carries out the kill.
A few buddies and I accepted death sentences for each other in this manner, agreeing that, the last round in our auto's were reserved for each other, in situations where capture was emminent, but then again, I'm the eternal optimist and know I'd get away, so I'd never give the signal okying my readiness to recive mercy from my bud. Ah but again, whos declared me innocent?
Yeah, ok, I chased this one around and came up with nothin, youre welcome for the help Acc.:-2
Always dependable, Far. :yh_flag
To Kill an Innocent
Accountable wrote: When, if ever, would it be justifiable to purposely target and kill an innocent person?I'd pick up on the purposely and the innocent.
You suggest that accepting the risk you might kill someone is less heinous than pushing a knife in a passer-by. I'd say it was less a difference in culpability, more one of statistics. I know, absolutely, that each time I drive my car I'm accepting the risk that I'm going to end the life of another road user, just as I know that if I hack the throat of my granny with a hunting knife she's not likely to survive for long. To my mind, I'm equally culpable. Society, though, says that one's socially acceptable and the other isn't, perhaps because one act makes life easier for the world at large while the other is a bit more personal.
As for innocent, who qualifies? I don't. You don't. The world would be a better place without either of us.
You suggest that accepting the risk you might kill someone is less heinous than pushing a knife in a passer-by. I'd say it was less a difference in culpability, more one of statistics. I know, absolutely, that each time I drive my car I'm accepting the risk that I'm going to end the life of another road user, just as I know that if I hack the throat of my granny with a hunting knife she's not likely to survive for long. To my mind, I'm equally culpable. Society, though, says that one's socially acceptable and the other isn't, perhaps because one act makes life easier for the world at large while the other is a bit more personal.
As for innocent, who qualifies? I don't. You don't. The world would be a better place without either of us.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
To Kill an Innocent
Accountable wrote: Someone once asked if you could kill a child if you knew it would save many, or something like that.
No I don't think that is right either. If you are going to talk of things in terms of right and wrong then you have to draw the line at some point and I believe that it has to be before the first innocent life is lost, not after.
No I don't think that is right either. If you are going to talk of things in terms of right and wrong then you have to draw the line at some point and I believe that it has to be before the first innocent life is lost, not after.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
spot wrote: I'd pick up on the purposely and the innocent.
You suggest that accepting the risk you might kill someone is less heinous than pushing a knife in a passer-by. I'd say it was less a difference in culpability, more one of statistics. I know, absolutely, that each time I drive my car I'm accepting the risk that I'm going to end the life of another road user, just as I know that if I hack the throat of my granny with a hunting knife she's not likely to survive for long. To my mind, I'm equally culpable. Society, though, says that one's socially acceptable and the other isn't, perhaps because one act makes life easier for the world at large while the other is a bit more personal.
As for innocent, who qualifies? I don't. You don't. The world would be a better place without either of us.
Okay, I'm not completely sure of your answer, but that's not unusual. It seems you think it is justifiable?
As for that last sentence, that hurts. You cut me to the quick. :p
You suggest that accepting the risk you might kill someone is less heinous than pushing a knife in a passer-by. I'd say it was less a difference in culpability, more one of statistics. I know, absolutely, that each time I drive my car I'm accepting the risk that I'm going to end the life of another road user, just as I know that if I hack the throat of my granny with a hunting knife she's not likely to survive for long. To my mind, I'm equally culpable. Society, though, says that one's socially acceptable and the other isn't, perhaps because one act makes life easier for the world at large while the other is a bit more personal.
As for innocent, who qualifies? I don't. You don't. The world would be a better place without either of us.
Okay, I'm not completely sure of your answer, but that's not unusual. It seems you think it is justifiable?
As for that last sentence, that hurts. You cut me to the quick.
:p-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: Hey Acc when ya got a minute lay us out a scenario.... about what you mean...Im interested in your angle.
Really
Oh, I'm sure any one of a hundred would do.
Should we clone people for body parts?
How about just cloning body parts?
What if, in order to clone a body part, you first had to fertilize an egg, and kill the fetus for the stem cells?
A terrorist has a nuke at the top of Sears Tower (I chose the location at random, but you get the idea). He says that he will give up and not detonate the device if the President beheads a four-year-old chosen at random, live on national TV. Would you support the beheading?
I'm sure we could come up with more.
Really
Oh, I'm sure any one of a hundred would do.
Should we clone people for body parts?
How about just cloning body parts?
What if, in order to clone a body part, you first had to fertilize an egg, and kill the fetus for the stem cells?
A terrorist has a nuke at the top of Sears Tower (I chose the location at random, but you get the idea). He says that he will give up and not detonate the device if the President beheads a four-year-old chosen at random, live on national TV. Would you support the beheading?
I'm sure we could come up with more.
To Kill an Innocent
Accountable wrote: Okay, I'm not completely sure of your answer, but that's not unusual. It seems you think it is justifiable?Lord no. I don't apply knives to my granny's throat. Neither do I own a car, since I'm unwilling to put other road users at risk. I'm saying that the difference between those two acts is one of degree, not one of type. That was the issue for you to grapple with.
As for ever allowing the expedient death of others, it's utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.
You didn't put an instance, so I'll put one and then answer it. Someone kidnaps my child and threatens its death unless I pay ransom. Should I pay the ransom, even though I can and I believe the threat to be genuine? No. Why? Because a successful ransom would increase the number of subsequent kidnappings. The responsibility for the death of my child lies squarely with the kidnapper. My social responsibility is to refuse to cooperate with him, regardless of the outcome.
As for ever allowing the expedient death of others, it's utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.
You didn't put an instance, so I'll put one and then answer it. Someone kidnaps my child and threatens its death unless I pay ransom. Should I pay the ransom, even though I can and I believe the threat to be genuine? No. Why? Because a successful ransom would increase the number of subsequent kidnappings. The responsibility for the death of my child lies squarely with the kidnapper. My social responsibility is to refuse to cooperate with him, regardless of the outcome.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
spot wrote: Lord no. I don't apply knives to my granny's throat. Neither do I own a car, since I'm unwilling to put other road users at risk. I'm saying that the difference between those two acts is one of degree, not one of type. That was the issue for you to grapple with.:wah: I keep forgetting that cars are luxury items everywhere else. The idea of cars here is like good seafood in the Islands. Everybody just takes it for granted. It makes perfect sense now.
spot wrote: As for ever allowing the expedient death of others, it's utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.
You didn't put an instance, so I'll put one and then answer it. Someone kidnaps my child and threatens its death unless I pay ransom. Should I pay the ransom, even though I can and I believe the threat to be genuine? No. Why? Because a successful ransom would increase the number of subsequent kidnappings. The responsibility for the death of my child lies squarely with the kidnapper. My social responsibility is to refuse to cooperate with him, regardless of the outcome.
That's easy to say as a hypothetical, but reality would make the decision alot more grey. But trying to keep the family variable out of the scenario, such as terrorists holding hostages back in the 70's and 80's, you make an excellent point.
spot wrote: As for ever allowing the expedient death of others, it's utterly unacceptable under any circumstances.
You didn't put an instance, so I'll put one and then answer it. Someone kidnaps my child and threatens its death unless I pay ransom. Should I pay the ransom, even though I can and I believe the threat to be genuine? No. Why? Because a successful ransom would increase the number of subsequent kidnappings. The responsibility for the death of my child lies squarely with the kidnapper. My social responsibility is to refuse to cooperate with him, regardless of the outcome.
That's easy to say as a hypothetical, but reality would make the decision alot more grey. But trying to keep the family variable out of the scenario, such as terrorists holding hostages back in the 70's and 80's, you make an excellent point.
To Kill an Innocent
Accountable wrote: A terrorist has a nuke at the top of Sears Tower (I chose the location at random, but you get the idea). He says that he will give up and not detonate the device if the President beheads a four-year-old chosen at random, live on national TV. Would you support the beheading?Ah, an instance. No, not even if the proposed victim were a hundred year old volunteer, the beheading could be kept secret and the executioner could be anyone else. The detonation of the device is the responsibility of the person detonating it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
spot wrote: Ah, an instance. No, not even if the proposed victim were a hundred year old volunteer, the beheading could be kept secret and the executioner could be anyone else. The detonation of the device is the responsibility of the person detonating it.
I love consistency! Does that apply to the other scenario as well?
I love consistency! Does that apply to the other scenario as well?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: Ok Acc.............
Get this!
My boy and I were traveling between towns, had some time and dead air, so I asked him your question... he shot back with my sentiments..that NO NEVER is it justified to kill the innocent! Boy I was proud of him! And then he said this....
But Dad what if you kill yourself to save others? Is that justified? Guess that blows "never" away.
So we kicked it around...
Gods law says if you murder, then the penalty is that you die. To murder oneself to allow the greater good for mankind would be justifiable. Your committing the crime and carrying out the sentence at the same time.
In keeping with your theme avatar. "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one"... Spock. :DLive long and prosper.
So it's okay to kill an innocent person if that person volunteers for reasons he/she feels justifies the death?
I can accept that.
And we agree that it is never acceptable to kill an unwilling or ignorant innocent, right?
Get this!
My boy and I were traveling between towns, had some time and dead air, so I asked him your question... he shot back with my sentiments..that NO NEVER is it justified to kill the innocent! Boy I was proud of him! And then he said this....
But Dad what if you kill yourself to save others? Is that justified? Guess that blows "never" away.
So we kicked it around...
Gods law says if you murder, then the penalty is that you die. To murder oneself to allow the greater good for mankind would be justifiable. Your committing the crime and carrying out the sentence at the same time.
In keeping with your theme avatar. "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one"... Spock. :DLive long and prosper.
So it's okay to kill an innocent person if that person volunteers for reasons he/she feels justifies the death?
I can accept that.
And we agree that it is never acceptable to kill an unwilling or ignorant innocent, right?
To Kill an Innocent
Accountable wrote: I love consistency! Does that apply to the other scenario as well?
[QUOTE=Accountable]Should we clone people for body parts?
How about just cloning body parts?
What if, in order to clone a body part, you first had to fertilize an egg, and kill the fetus for the stem cells?[/QUOTE]You wanted the other half of your post discussed? here's the other half.
Firstly, these wretched "fetus" things people keep on mis-naming. Can I lay out a few words before getting my liquidizer to work on them?
Let's do this in a dish on my desk, shall we. Sit back and watch me experiment. I've got a few ten-liter barrels in my fridge. One's labelled "ova" and contains unfertilized female human "eggs". I take it that you don't mind me liquidizing a pint of that if I feel like eating really expensive caviar on my toast for breakfast? OK then, they're not alive. They carry DNA and nutrients. Another of the barrels contains male sperm, all ready to wiggle if I warm them up. My toast has nothing to do with them, but you get the idea. I can pour the content down the sink without harming my Karma, though obviously the Onanists who filled the barrel are destined for Hellfire, for is it not written in Genesis 38 etc etc.
So, a pint of each in the dish. Big dish, see? Stir it around, and into the microwave, 24 seconds at full heat and Lo! it's a uniform 39 degrees Celcius and I put the dish on a warmer to keep it that way, with a stirring rod to keep it distributed. I'll squirt a few activating chemicals to mimic an unspeakable environment and we can come back tomorrow.
So, what have we got after leaving it to stew? We have a large number of single-cell zygotes, and if you want to call them embryos for the next few weeks then I'm happy to do that too.
Let's put them through this zygote-filter into another dish, and watch. After almost a week, each single cell has divided and subdivided around eight times. Each zygote has around a hundred cells (though it hasn't changed size yet). It has a new name - a blastocyst. This, if it were inside a uterus, is the unit that embeds into the lining and establishes a food supply for itself from its mother's bloodstream. Here in my dish, it can't do that, but I have another bench...
OK, at bench two I've taken each blastocyst and put it into a cross between a kidney machine and what looks like a lump of raw liver. From now on, the blastocyst is connected to an oxygenated blood supply containing nutrients, it's implanted and a few of its cells have specified themselves to become the placenta. After three weeks from becoming implanted, cells start to change their nature to become, for example, brain cells. Eight weeks from the day with the microwave, I can look at what we can now call a fetus and point to what will be a head. If we leave it in this machine for another seven months, I'll take it out and give it a name and an education. Bear in mind that nobody has ever claimed to have performed this step. I don't think bench two has ever been constructed.
So, now we have a vocabulary. We're left with one undefined word at this point, which is "kill".
Were I a stem cell researcher, I'd have teased apart the blastocyst before it moved to bench two and harvested my raw material.
In a science-fiction world, if I wanted body parts I might have a bench three to keep what I'd grown on bench two alive for another twenty years, I might at some point remove most of the brain so that no conciousness developed and I certainly wouldn't give it a name or an education. Or, alternatively, I might grow arms, legs and organs from the stem cells directly, and never use bench two.
Have I any moral qualms about dismantling a blastocyst - that lump of cells which hasn't reached the stage where it's implanted and linked to an external blood supply? Personally, no, I don't think I do, whether I take it from bench one or from within a body in the way the morning-after pill does. Is a blastocyst alive? Yes, but it has no capacity to remain so outside of its environment, and each stands a less-than-even chance of successfully implanting in a natural setting.
Would I struggle to maintain the life of the implanted fetus? Yes. As for those four weeks between the two states, yes I probably would there too. But an unimplanted cluster of cells? No. I just made a dish-full of them, remember? They weren't going anywhere, unless I found a host mother to implant them in. I don't think there's many Dr Frankensteins out there equipped with bench two environments.
Why I've taken you this far is to be able to say that your original "kill the fetus for the stem cells" is badly worded.
"Strained virtue warps the soul" announced the Kid
"Those forced attempts at cleanliness that linger
Like soap between your wedding ring and finger
They're residues of which you're better rid
"For evil" said the Hypertension Kid
"Is better contemplated in the deeds of others
Mass-murderers and men who knife their mothers
Be glad that what you've done is all you did
[QUOTE=Accountable]Should we clone people for body parts?
How about just cloning body parts?
What if, in order to clone a body part, you first had to fertilize an egg, and kill the fetus for the stem cells?[/QUOTE]You wanted the other half of your post discussed? here's the other half.
Firstly, these wretched "fetus" things people keep on mis-naming. Can I lay out a few words before getting my liquidizer to work on them?
Let's do this in a dish on my desk, shall we. Sit back and watch me experiment. I've got a few ten-liter barrels in my fridge. One's labelled "ova" and contains unfertilized female human "eggs". I take it that you don't mind me liquidizing a pint of that if I feel like eating really expensive caviar on my toast for breakfast? OK then, they're not alive. They carry DNA and nutrients. Another of the barrels contains male sperm, all ready to wiggle if I warm them up. My toast has nothing to do with them, but you get the idea. I can pour the content down the sink without harming my Karma, though obviously the Onanists who filled the barrel are destined for Hellfire, for is it not written in Genesis 38 etc etc.
So, a pint of each in the dish. Big dish, see? Stir it around, and into the microwave, 24 seconds at full heat and Lo! it's a uniform 39 degrees Celcius and I put the dish on a warmer to keep it that way, with a stirring rod to keep it distributed. I'll squirt a few activating chemicals to mimic an unspeakable environment and we can come back tomorrow.
So, what have we got after leaving it to stew? We have a large number of single-cell zygotes, and if you want to call them embryos for the next few weeks then I'm happy to do that too.
Let's put them through this zygote-filter into another dish, and watch. After almost a week, each single cell has divided and subdivided around eight times. Each zygote has around a hundred cells (though it hasn't changed size yet). It has a new name - a blastocyst. This, if it were inside a uterus, is the unit that embeds into the lining and establishes a food supply for itself from its mother's bloodstream. Here in my dish, it can't do that, but I have another bench...
OK, at bench two I've taken each blastocyst and put it into a cross between a kidney machine and what looks like a lump of raw liver. From now on, the blastocyst is connected to an oxygenated blood supply containing nutrients, it's implanted and a few of its cells have specified themselves to become the placenta. After three weeks from becoming implanted, cells start to change their nature to become, for example, brain cells. Eight weeks from the day with the microwave, I can look at what we can now call a fetus and point to what will be a head. If we leave it in this machine for another seven months, I'll take it out and give it a name and an education. Bear in mind that nobody has ever claimed to have performed this step. I don't think bench two has ever been constructed.
So, now we have a vocabulary. We're left with one undefined word at this point, which is "kill".
Were I a stem cell researcher, I'd have teased apart the blastocyst before it moved to bench two and harvested my raw material.
In a science-fiction world, if I wanted body parts I might have a bench three to keep what I'd grown on bench two alive for another twenty years, I might at some point remove most of the brain so that no conciousness developed and I certainly wouldn't give it a name or an education. Or, alternatively, I might grow arms, legs and organs from the stem cells directly, and never use bench two.
Have I any moral qualms about dismantling a blastocyst - that lump of cells which hasn't reached the stage where it's implanted and linked to an external blood supply? Personally, no, I don't think I do, whether I take it from bench one or from within a body in the way the morning-after pill does. Is a blastocyst alive? Yes, but it has no capacity to remain so outside of its environment, and each stands a less-than-even chance of successfully implanting in a natural setting.
Would I struggle to maintain the life of the implanted fetus? Yes. As for those four weeks between the two states, yes I probably would there too. But an unimplanted cluster of cells? No. I just made a dish-full of them, remember? They weren't going anywhere, unless I found a host mother to implant them in. I don't think there's many Dr Frankensteins out there equipped with bench two environments.
Why I've taken you this far is to be able to say that your original "kill the fetus for the stem cells" is badly worded.
"Strained virtue warps the soul" announced the Kid
"Those forced attempts at cleanliness that linger
Like soap between your wedding ring and finger
They're residues of which you're better rid
"For evil" said the Hypertension Kid
"Is better contemplated in the deeds of others
Mass-murderers and men who knife their mothers
Be glad that what you've done is all you did
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
To Kill an Innocent
Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would end hunger in the world?
I believe this is the original thread question that you were thinking of Acc. From "another" forum.
My response there was and still is:
I have to assume that the person who's life is at stake is not actually responsible for the hunger or s/he would not be named "innocent". The question comes down to the ethic of whether a crime can be justified by a greater goal. One innocent person would die but millions would be saved. The easiest way for me to think about this fairly is to ask "would I be willing to die if it meant and end to world hunger?" The answer is then yes. I would offer my life if I knew for sure that it would save millions. (I'd just hope to die painlessly)
For fans of the show "24" they seem to constantly put this question before the characters. The president had to decide if he would offer up the Russian president for assasination to stop terrorists from releasing toxic gas upon hundreds of thousands of Americans. He chose to sacrifice the president, even when his wife got in the Russian motorcade car to try and stop it. Jack Bauer, the moral "hero" refuses to allow loss of life for any reason, but that is probably because he is a super hero who believes that he will find a way to stop the terrorists anyway, which the writers usually plan on having him achieve. I think, in reality, the multitude would die in these scenarios and most likely these decisions are made from time to time.
I believe this is the original thread question that you were thinking of Acc. From "another" forum.
My response there was and still is:
I have to assume that the person who's life is at stake is not actually responsible for the hunger or s/he would not be named "innocent". The question comes down to the ethic of whether a crime can be justified by a greater goal. One innocent person would die but millions would be saved. The easiest way for me to think about this fairly is to ask "would I be willing to die if it meant and end to world hunger?" The answer is then yes. I would offer my life if I knew for sure that it would save millions. (I'd just hope to die painlessly)
For fans of the show "24" they seem to constantly put this question before the characters. The president had to decide if he would offer up the Russian president for assasination to stop terrorists from releasing toxic gas upon hundreds of thousands of Americans. He chose to sacrifice the president, even when his wife got in the Russian motorcade car to try and stop it. Jack Bauer, the moral "hero" refuses to allow loss of life for any reason, but that is probably because he is a super hero who believes that he will find a way to stop the terrorists anyway, which the writers usually plan on having him achieve. I think, in reality, the multitude would die in these scenarios and most likely these decisions are made from time to time.
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: Thats the most heartless and hopeless write up Ive ever seen in the garden. I'm both repulsed and sad.
There are some couples out there, my wife and I included, that hope our little ones stay attached long enough to breath air.I wonder whether you actually read where I got to? How does your view differ from:
spot wrote: Would I struggle to maintain the life of the implanted fetus? Yes. As for those four weeks between the two states, yes I probably would there too.
There are some couples out there, my wife and I included, that hope our little ones stay attached long enough to breath air.I wonder whether you actually read where I got to? How does your view differ from:
spot wrote: Would I struggle to maintain the life of the implanted fetus? Yes. As for those four weeks between the two states, yes I probably would there too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: Forgive me Spot... I have a tender heart right now, I did not read it all before I responded.The text, and the entire topic, can't be remotely easy for you to even look at. The only reason I wrote at such length was to introduce some facts and explain a few words.
Nobody, honestly, is out there working with cells deliberately killed. The extension into "body parts" is nowhere near possible, and I can't imagine any western democracy ever allowing it even if it became practical, if it were based on anything but cell culture. It's far more likely that re-growing parts within the patient will happen - probably with teeth first. Budding a replacement tooth would change dental practice a lot.
Nobody, honestly, is out there working with cells deliberately killed. The extension into "body parts" is nowhere near possible, and I can't imagine any western democracy ever allowing it even if it became practical, if it were based on anything but cell culture. It's far more likely that re-growing parts within the patient will happen - probably with teeth first. Budding a replacement tooth would change dental practice a lot.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
To Kill an Innocent
tmbsgrl wrote: I would never kill an innocent person no matter what.. Nothing can justify it.
Susie, just to play devil's advocate, check this out:
The scenario: You, your daughter, and a perfect stranger are kidnapped by a psychotic murderer. You are taken to a remote place where you can't escape, and no help is coming. The psychotic hands you a gun, and holds another one to your daughter's head. He tells you to shoot the stranger or he will kill your daughter right in front of you. What do you do?
Susie, just to play devil's advocate, check this out:
The scenario: You, your daughter, and a perfect stranger are kidnapped by a psychotic murderer. You are taken to a remote place where you can't escape, and no help is coming. The psychotic hands you a gun, and holds another one to your daughter's head. He tells you to shoot the stranger or he will kill your daughter right in front of you. What do you do?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: :-2 kill the pshychotic dude. Oops, sorry BR. Theres always options to me.
That would be my first thought, too, if I could do it without any possibility of hitting my child. Not everyone is that good of a shot to be willing to take that chance, though.
That would be my first thought, too, if I could do it without any possibility of hitting my child. Not everyone is that good of a shot to be willing to take that chance, though.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
spot wrote: You wanted the other half of your post discussed? here's the other half.
Firstly, these wretched "fetus" things people keep on mis-naming. Can I lay out a few words before getting my liquidizer to work on them?
Let's do this in a dish on my desk, shall we. Sit back and watch me experiment. I've got a few ten-liter barrels in my fridge. One's labelled "ova" and contains unfertilized female human "eggs". I take it that you don't mind me liquidizing a pint of that if I feel like eating really expensive caviar on my toast for breakfast? OK then, they're not alive. They carry DNA and nutrients. Another of the barrels contains male sperm, all ready to wiggle if I warm them up. My toast has nothing to do with them, but you get the idea. I can pour the content down the sink without harming my Karma, though obviously the Onanists who filled the barrel are destined for Hellfire, for is it not written in Genesis 38 etc etc.
So, a pint of each in the dish. Big dish, see? Stir it around, and into the microwave, 24 seconds at full heat and Lo! it's a uniform 39 degrees Celcius and I put the dish on a warmer to keep it that way, with a stirring rod to keep it distributed. I'll squirt a few activating chemicals to mimic an unspeakable environment and we can come back tomorrow.
So, what have we got after leaving it to stew? We have a large number of single-cell zygotes, and if you want to call them embryos for the next few weeks then I'm happy to do that too.
Let's put them through this zygote-filter into another dish, and watch. After almost a week, each single cell has divided and subdivided around eight times. Each zygote has around a hundred cells (though it hasn't changed size yet). It has a new name - a blastocyst. This, if it were inside a uterus, is the unit that embeds into the lining and establishes a food supply for itself from its mother's bloodstream. Here in my dish, it can't do that, but I have another bench...
OK, at bench two I've taken each blastocyst and put it into a cross between a kidney machine and what looks like a lump of raw liver. From now on, the blastocyst is connected to an oxygenated blood supply containing nutrients, it's implanted and a few of its cells have specified themselves to become the placenta. After three weeks from becoming implanted, cells start to change their nature to become, for example, brain cells. Eight weeks from the day with the microwave, I can look at what we can now call a fetus and point to what will be a head. If we leave it in this machine for another seven months, I'll take it out and give it a name and an education. Bear in mind that nobody has ever claimed to have performed this step. I don't think bench two has ever been constructed.
So, now we have a vocabulary. We're left with one undefined word at this point, which is "kill".
Were I a stem cell researcher, I'd have teased apart the blastocyst before it moved to bench two and harvested my raw material.
In a science-fiction world, if I wanted body parts I might have a bench three to keep what I'd grown on bench two alive for another twenty years, I might at some point remove most of the brain so that no conciousness developed and I certainly wouldn't give it a name or an education. Or, alternatively, I might grow arms, legs and organs from the stem cells directly, and never use bench two.
Have I any moral qualms about dismantling a blastocyst - that lump of cells which hasn't reached the stage where it's implanted and linked to an external blood supply? Personally, no, I don't think I do, whether I take it from bench one or from within a body in the way the morning-after pill does. Is a blastocyst alive? Yes, but it has no capacity to remain so outside of its environment, and each stands a less-than-even chance of successfully implanting in a natural setting.
Would I struggle to maintain the life of the implanted fetus? Yes. As for those four weeks between the two states, yes I probably would there too. But an unimplanted cluster of cells? No. I just made a dish-full of them, remember? They weren't going anywhere, unless I found a host mother to implant them in. I don't think there's many Dr Frankensteins out there equipped with bench two environments.
Why I've taken you this far is to be able to say that your original "kill the fetus for the stem cells" is badly worded.
Thanks for writing this. It's detached and balanced enough that others can read it as good food for thought, I believe.
Blastocyst is a new term for me.
I've got some thinking to do.
Firstly, these wretched "fetus" things people keep on mis-naming. Can I lay out a few words before getting my liquidizer to work on them?
Let's do this in a dish on my desk, shall we. Sit back and watch me experiment. I've got a few ten-liter barrels in my fridge. One's labelled "ova" and contains unfertilized female human "eggs". I take it that you don't mind me liquidizing a pint of that if I feel like eating really expensive caviar on my toast for breakfast? OK then, they're not alive. They carry DNA and nutrients. Another of the barrels contains male sperm, all ready to wiggle if I warm them up. My toast has nothing to do with them, but you get the idea. I can pour the content down the sink without harming my Karma, though obviously the Onanists who filled the barrel are destined for Hellfire, for is it not written in Genesis 38 etc etc.
So, a pint of each in the dish. Big dish, see? Stir it around, and into the microwave, 24 seconds at full heat and Lo! it's a uniform 39 degrees Celcius and I put the dish on a warmer to keep it that way, with a stirring rod to keep it distributed. I'll squirt a few activating chemicals to mimic an unspeakable environment and we can come back tomorrow.
So, what have we got after leaving it to stew? We have a large number of single-cell zygotes, and if you want to call them embryos for the next few weeks then I'm happy to do that too.
Let's put them through this zygote-filter into another dish, and watch. After almost a week, each single cell has divided and subdivided around eight times. Each zygote has around a hundred cells (though it hasn't changed size yet). It has a new name - a blastocyst. This, if it were inside a uterus, is the unit that embeds into the lining and establishes a food supply for itself from its mother's bloodstream. Here in my dish, it can't do that, but I have another bench...
OK, at bench two I've taken each blastocyst and put it into a cross between a kidney machine and what looks like a lump of raw liver. From now on, the blastocyst is connected to an oxygenated blood supply containing nutrients, it's implanted and a few of its cells have specified themselves to become the placenta. After three weeks from becoming implanted, cells start to change their nature to become, for example, brain cells. Eight weeks from the day with the microwave, I can look at what we can now call a fetus and point to what will be a head. If we leave it in this machine for another seven months, I'll take it out and give it a name and an education. Bear in mind that nobody has ever claimed to have performed this step. I don't think bench two has ever been constructed.
So, now we have a vocabulary. We're left with one undefined word at this point, which is "kill".
Were I a stem cell researcher, I'd have teased apart the blastocyst before it moved to bench two and harvested my raw material.
In a science-fiction world, if I wanted body parts I might have a bench three to keep what I'd grown on bench two alive for another twenty years, I might at some point remove most of the brain so that no conciousness developed and I certainly wouldn't give it a name or an education. Or, alternatively, I might grow arms, legs and organs from the stem cells directly, and never use bench two.
Have I any moral qualms about dismantling a blastocyst - that lump of cells which hasn't reached the stage where it's implanted and linked to an external blood supply? Personally, no, I don't think I do, whether I take it from bench one or from within a body in the way the morning-after pill does. Is a blastocyst alive? Yes, but it has no capacity to remain so outside of its environment, and each stands a less-than-even chance of successfully implanting in a natural setting.
Would I struggle to maintain the life of the implanted fetus? Yes. As for those four weeks between the two states, yes I probably would there too. But an unimplanted cluster of cells? No. I just made a dish-full of them, remember? They weren't going anywhere, unless I found a host mother to implant them in. I don't think there's many Dr Frankensteins out there equipped with bench two environments.
Why I've taken you this far is to be able to say that your original "kill the fetus for the stem cells" is badly worded.
Thanks for writing this. It's detached and balanced enough that others can read it as good food for thought, I believe.
Blastocyst is a new term for me.
I've got some thinking to do.
To Kill an Innocent
Accountable wrote:
When, if ever, would it be justifiable to purposely target and kill an innocent person?
I'm not talking about collateral damage or acts of war, and would appreciate not dragging the thread down that path.
I'm surprised that I missed this post on the first go round. Anyway, let's say there are two innocents. One a 97 year old healty male and a 5 year old healthy boy, and one had to die to save the other. No problem----kill the old guy. By the way ---I could do it and sleep nights. I could make up any number of comparable scenarios.
When, if ever, would it be justifiable to purposely target and kill an innocent person?
I'm not talking about collateral damage or acts of war, and would appreciate not dragging the thread down that path.
I'm surprised that I missed this post on the first go round. Anyway, let's say there are two innocents. One a 97 year old healty male and a 5 year old healthy boy, and one had to die to save the other. No problem----kill the old guy. By the way ---I could do it and sleep nights. I could make up any number of comparable scenarios.
To Kill an Innocent
Far Rider wrote: The question is is it justifiable, not wether you could do it. Is it right? Killing the 97 year old is still murder.
I agree thats the most logical choice though.
OK---Let's say the 97 year old was sexually molesting my 5 year old and I caught him in the act and killed him. I'll just betcha the courts would find it justifiable. Or, let's just say the guy was 25 years old.
I agree thats the most logical choice though.
OK---Let's say the 97 year old was sexually molesting my 5 year old and I caught him in the act and killed him. I'll just betcha the courts would find it justifiable. Or, let's just say the guy was 25 years old.
To Kill an Innocent
Lon wrote: OK---Let's say the 97 year old was sexually molesting my 5 year old and I caught him in the act and killed him. I'll just betcha the courts would find it justifiable. Or, let's just say the guy was 25 years old.
I would think that once a person choses to molest a 5 year old, they forfiet the right to be classed as "innocent".
I would think that once a person choses to molest a 5 year old, they forfiet the right to be classed as "innocent".
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
To Kill an Innocent
Lon wrote: OK---Let's say the 97 year old was sexually molesting my 5 year old and I caught him in the act and killed him. I'll just betcha the courts would find it justifiable. Or, let's just say the guy was 25 years old.
Here's one:
Two twin five-year-olds, both suffering horribly but not dying, each with a different disease. A transplant from one child to the other to replace a defective organ would kill one but make the other healthy and normal. This is true for both kids. (I leave out type of organ because medical types would start looking for loopholes. :sneaky: )
Would you allow both to continue suffering horribly, or kill one to to give the other a normal life?
Here's one:
Two twin five-year-olds, both suffering horribly but not dying, each with a different disease. A transplant from one child to the other to replace a defective organ would kill one but make the other healthy and normal. This is true for both kids. (I leave out type of organ because medical types would start looking for loopholes. :sneaky: )
Would you allow both to continue suffering horribly, or kill one to to give the other a normal life?