Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sonerohi]

Well, if you were to see a picture of this one without the knit cap, her skull is supposed to be flat, apparently.

[Creamcorn]

Well, if you were to see a picture of this one without the knit cap, her skull is supposed to be flat, apparently.

Kinda like this!







Anyway what's with the fuss? Even though there are many scientific reasons to euthanize this baby, dose not mean it's going to happen. Mainly because the most important people to this baby, (from the bases of who takes care of her) want to keep her alive. Therefore we really don't have much saying and sending this woman an e-mail to go and kill her baby isn't the best way to get her to do so. You should go up to her and person than tell her what you think if it's really that important to you.

[Yanlin]

See, the big problem with this woman is that she doesn't realize the baby will never be more than a plant. It's a waste of a life. If she's trully Christian, she knows he will have a better life in heaven.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Am i the only one who doesn't find babies (in general) cute?

Nop, you are not alone. 

You have another comrade too!

See, the big problem with this woman is that she doesn't realize the baby will never be more than a plant. It's a waste of a life. If she's trully Christian, she knows he will have a better life in heaven.

You mean waste of energy
Also, yeah, I support the, uh, shut down of the poor child's soul.

Also, who made the child like this?
The pollution man! It's all those conservatives fault!

WE NEED A SLOGAN!

[Yanlin]

WE NEED A SLOGAN!

[Cthulhu]

If a woman has the option to kill her perfectly healthy child, I don't see why this woman shouldn't be allowed to let her invalid child live.

[Yanlin]

She's allowed to. But we disagree with her decision.

[Rysith]

No higher functions. Merely functions. Are viruses alive? I don't remember if they ever decided.

I'd say the kid is alive, if not much more than a sea sponge or a plant is. And even then, those can respond to stimuli.

Yeah, "alive" is kind of hard to draw a line on. Are, say, single-celled organisms alive, but other simple self-reproducing structures (like crystals, or certain molecules) not? Are viruses, since they can't reproduce without a host cell? If not, what about the highly-specialized parasites that require specific hosts? If so, what is the difference between a virus reproducing and a crystal growing? I personally don't think that there is a line to be drawn, and what we should be looking at is system complexity, but meh.

With this baby, I'm going to have to echo a lot of the other sentiments in the thread: It lacks a crucial part of what defines a human. Treating it as a human, and insisting that it be kept alive at great expense because it is human, is a stupid choice to me. It's somewhat of a problem, though, since medical science can keep at least parts of the body working indefinitely, and there are a lot of people who think of things as "as long as we can keep part of it alive, we should." It's all just a complex machine, and the brain (the part we can't replace) isn't needed for just keeping the rest of it functioning.

[Yanlin]

Sigh. People need to smarten up and realize this:

We exist only to make more of ourselves. Biology-wise, as soon as we do, we can die happy. We have served our purpose.

But somewhere along these lines, we decided to make our lives better. Then we started liking life. So we decided to live more. That's the oversimplified jist of it. While I can't say the development of humanity has been a mistake... I can say that this baby is not going to serve its biological purpose. It will forever be a waste of resources and time.

Not to mention that keeping something alive just because you can is wrong. The woman said it herself. Let god decide when she dies. Yet she puts it on life support? If anything, further proof how flawed religion is. This is not an isolated incident, as Epicurus has shown us. These religious dregs, whenever asked to think, supply blind faith. "Because god said so."

Yes. I used to be like that. Then I thought and became an Atheist.

But anyway, back to the topic.

I can understand why she wants to keep it alive. It's the motherly instinct. It existed back when the risk of losing a child was extremely high and was not affordable. Every child was too expensive to lose. It was a must have to propagate our species. Unfortunately, we evolved too fast for this instinct to fade away. Nowdays, it's a waste to keep the bad ones. They should not be kept. You will be making their life miserable as well as useless.

Back to religion, technically, this baby has no soul. So she might as well slaughter it and put it on an alter or something.

[LegoLord]

5.  What if, thanks to future modern medical advances, a brain (or whatever) can be grown via DNA manipulation and stem cells (or some other heretofor undiscovered way) for the child?

I was just about to bring that up.  I must applaud you, Gorjo (clap, clap).  Many people don't realize just how far stem cells can be taken with current technology, and with further research, something like that might very well be easily done.  As a side note, stem cells don't necessarily have to come from a fetus.  They can come from other sources, some of which we may not even know of yet.

[Karlito]

Yeah, but the ones from fetuses are the best.  The last eight years of stem cell research have gone into discovering new methods for developing stem cells, rather than developing cures.  Who knows where the technology will be 8 years from now?  But certainly that technology won't come along until that child is dead.

Anyway, I'm of the mind that if a severe defect is detected in a fetus, and an abortion can be undertaken without risk to the mother, then the mother has the moral obligation to abort that fetus.

[Mephisto]

...Let god decide when she dies. Yet she puts it on life support? ...

I was thinking about that when I read the article. Let God choose when the baby dies, but if the baby dies I want you to do everything that you can to resuscitate it.

[Karlito]

...Let god decide when she dies. Yet she puts it on life support? ...

I was thinking about that when I read the article. Let God choose when the baby dies, but if the baby dies I want you to do everything that you can to resuscitate it.

I can't think how God wouldn't be a determining when the baby died if he really is omniscient and omnipotent.

[Daft]

It's alive, but not doing anything useful.

Unless we keep it as part of a museum attraction of deformed babies for interested medical students. I know I'd go see it.

[Guy Montag]

Well, this whole thing is awful. You can take one look at any of the pictures of "JESUS HOPE JUSTICE EEAGAL ROOBYHOPE" and see there is nothing alive behind that face. I don't care how well she tolerates the feeding tube, there is not a human being in that living corpse there.

Its one thing to respect life, the trees and birds and ect. They are as mindless as jesusroobyhoep, but Its another thing to keep something that should be a human and maintain its mindless exisitance.

People write living wills and DNR orders to prevent exactly what this baby was born with.

If you believe in a soul, then you'd believe this kid should be allowed to die, try it over again. Have another kid. Don't keep something around that cannot even keep itself alive. I don't mean to offend anybody, but, this child is not alive enough to live. A human being deserves to experience more then a mindless existance as a peice of meat sustained by an oh-so-comfortable feeding tube. Let it die, its just about the only thing it can achieve on the level as another human being.