llcoolguy972

This, and a bad one at that.

It makes her happy. That's the point. You just choose to ignore this fact. And you choose to ignore the fact that the resources being consumed don't warrant the meager amount of happiness the mother's getting (while she's also setting herself up for greater pain in the long run). If staring at a wall triggers love and happiness then you're right. However, I've never seen a case of this to date. No, I was saying that staring at a wall is just as productive for the doctors and nurses as taking care of this baby. They should be doing other things that aren't lost causes. Way to fling the blame on me. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work when you do stuff like this: Plants don't know about their existence either. That doesn't mean we should go uproot all of them. Way to miss the point. The child is only existing because of reflex reactions and wasting resources. Plants, however, actually contribute. You said it's not really living because it doesn't even know it exists. I said plants don't know they exist either. Then you go on an irrelevant tangent and tell me plants contribute. This does not logically follow. I meant that the only reason it's alive is because of reflexes. I admit, I shouldn't have put in that it isn't aware it's breathing, but I can't take it back. It isn't aware of it's surroundings like babies should be, even plants are. At a human standard, she is alive. She's not dead, therefore she is alive. If what you mean is that she isn't living a normal life, then you are right, but either way she is still alive. Oh and I like how you refuse to answer my question. \ Would you want to be "alive" at that level? It's not a normal, human.. I guess "standard" of living. Technically, she is alive, but only because luck that her brain stem developed. And what question was that?

No, not because you don't see the point - because you claim one doesn't exist altogether. There is no point to keeping a stillbirth on life support. If that makes me a barbarian, so be it. The doctors get paid. The food is paid for and besides, do you know how much food is wasted? You can't honestly tell me you've never ate something even though you weren't hungry before. This is all besides the point anyways. The mother is the only one in the position to claim whether it's worth it or not - not you. It doesn't matter that the doctors are paid, the time that they're wasting on this child could be used doing something else much more productive. Staring at a wall would be just as productive as taking care of this child. Again, back to my copier example. It might be "worth it" to me to keep my copier on life support, however society shouldn't have to suffer because of my delusional quest for happiness. The women needs professional help. What does this have to do with the state of being alive? I was saying that not being productive doesn't make you dead. You keep changing your arguments. You make it seem like the less you waste, the more "alive" you are. Like I said, living doesn't have to do with how much you produce or consume - it has to do with biology. Even if you waste 50 meals a day and give nothing back to society, you'd still be alive. I never said being productive makes you alive and I did say that she's biologically alive. I'm not changing my arguments; it's just difficult to decipher your barely coherent arguments. You quote me and say a random thought and expect me to link the two. And if the soil under a plant was removed, it would die too. Oh and how is this relevant? I said I will agree that complexity =/= life if you can agree that not being able to acknowledge your existence =/= being dead. So, do you agree that flowers are alive or do you really think that if you don't acknowledge your own existence then that means you're dead? She's not "alive" at a human standard. Her being is purely reflexive. She can't think or move on purpose. Her existence is a knee-jerk reaction. Then wouldn't that make the doctors more at fault than yourself? The people around her shoulder just as much of the blame, if not more, as she does.

Faith isn't on life support, unless you count her mother's care as life support. She has to be fed with a feeding tube, otherwise she doesn't eat enough. Without that tube, she would die/have been dead a while ago.

Really? Kill anyone who takes more than they put in? Go ahead and bring up Godwin's Law on my [wagon], we all know what's coming next. Oh, calling me a Nazi. Mature. :thumbup: Economically speaking, anyone who requires more input than the output they provide shouldn't exist.

Thanks, you painted a very vivid and barbaric picture about what your stance is. That will be helpful in this debate. I'm barbaric because I don't see the point in keeping a stillbirth on life support? :roll: Which means you are claiming that you know how much joy she gets from the baby - something that only she can tell us. The baby is going to die very soon. It's a black hole for resources. All the time doctors spend on it will be wasted. All the food it uses will be wasted. The spillover costs for this child are immense. Umm... let's stick to the point, shall we? Having the potential to contribute to society doesn't make you alive - biology is what makes you alive. Hell, I could be in the middle of the woods and eat berries and fish to survive and I wouldn't be contributing anything to society at all - does this mean I'm not alive? No, it does not. And how do criminals who are in jail for life have the potential to be productive anyways? If you were in the woods you wouldn't be consuming the immense amount of resources this child is. You wouldn't be wasting them like this child is. What was the point in that? If I didn't read that post then why would I respond by saying we're using the same approach to our logic and we should both come to an agreement on one instead of picking and choosing which one to go by. I will agree that being complex doesn't make something alive, as long as you agree that not being able to acknowledge one's existence doesn't make something dead. You can't have both though. She's biologically alive, but simply because of reflex reactions. If the feeding tube was removed, she would die. She isn't "alive" like a normal baby. She doesn't cry for her mother or laugh during baths. Her heart beats and her lungs breath and that's all it knows how to do. Economic cost incurred by society would be too great? Umm, you'd be paying the doctors to do it so it wouldn't be a waste for them... only for you. There's something called opportunity cost. If I had the world's 100 best doctors and they worked EXCLUSIVELY for me, no one could benefit from them. Society is suffering because I'm delusional and want to keep my copier alive.

The economic costs that society incurs housing inmates far outweighs the joys we as a society get from them. This argument can be used for a lot of things, so if you're going to use an argument at least be consistent about it....meaning if THAT'S going to be your reasoning, say "She should abort the baby, and we should kill any other people that don't benefit society that put a cost on society". It's like you're in my mind. But about the inmates, if the total output from each individual inmate is greater than the cost of the input, then they should be kept alive, otherwise, they should be killed. There are many people in jail who actually like being able to freeload and there should be a stop put to that.

The child certainly is alive and kicking, albeit unintelligently. The belief that an anencephalic baby "thinks like other humans" may be an illusion, but the choice to carry the baby to term certainly is not. The idea of pro-choice is to give the mother full freedom over her pregnancy. In the case of anencephaly, most will choose abortion, but some will carry the baby to term. Of those who give birth to the baby, some have its organs donated, while others attempt to raise the child, as in the case of Faiths mom. In all cases, a choice is made by the mother and the mother alone. See below. An assumption which is likely incorrect, as Ive pointed out: "The baby, as is the case with Faith Hope, brings an incredible amount of happiness to the family, and this happiness is much greater than the (material) costs needed to keep her alive. Hence the reason they continue to spend the time and money to keep her alive." If you still aren't sure, I encourage you to e-mail her and ask her yourself: "Does the amount of happiness Faith brings you justify the costs needed to sustain her life?" :lol: As said above, I'm not debating that the baby brings happiness to the mother, but the economic cost is greater than the joy it brings. Why should this matter? If somebody wishes to hook their loved one up to life support in their own home and does so at the expense of their own time and money, then there is no problem. This is a free society; we have the full right to love and care for -- and spend the money to sustain -- other humans and even robots, flowers, etc. There's a fine line between freedom and idiotic wastefulness. I can choose to hook a copy machine up to life support and have a staff of 100 of the world's best doctors by my side at all times just in case something goes wrong with the copier, but that would be simply idiotic. If I had the money to do that, it would be my "choice," but it shouldn't be allowed because the economic cost incurred by society would be too great.

So you're saying that aborting child is the "correct" choice and any other choice that she would make stems from nothing more than a delusion of her own? Now you're understanding it. This child was essentially a stillbirth. There's no point in keeping it on life support or wasting time on it. It. is. dead. Who are you to say what makes her happy or not. I'm pretty sure the only person who gets any say-so in that field would be her - no one else. I'm not saying this child doesn't make her happy. I'm saying the economic cost that society is incurring because of the doctors/machines wasted time far outweighs the joy she gets from the baby. You were speaking about living - not productivity. You don't have to be productive in order to be considered "alive". As stated numerous times, criminals, bums, and couch potatoes usually aren't productive and they are very much alive. They have the POTENTIAL to be productive, however. This child doesn't, nor will it ever. Is that how this works? In that case, you're misunderstanding me. You said that she wasn't alive because she doesn't even know about her existence. I said that a plant doesn't know about its existence, but the act of simply not acknowledging your existence doesn't mean you are not alive. I don't think you realized but we used the same exact approach for opposite intentions: I said, "She is more complex than bacteria so she is alive," but it doesn't suggest complexity = being alive. (You brought up how corpses are complex.) You said, "She doesn't acknowledge her existence so she is not alive," but it doesn't suggest that not knowing about your existence = not being alive. (I brought up how plants don't know about their existence.) I'm going to edit in the quote because, obviously, you have no recollection. :roll: Edit: Here. You say it is not alive, yet she is more complex than any bacteria I've ever seen. I think you'd agree that bacteria is very much alive. I would say a human corpse is more complex than an amoeba, yes, but that doesn't mean that the corpse is alive simply because it's more complex.

What an awful analogy... You still aren't explaining why the mother doesn't have a choice when she clearly does. The choice is to abort her anencephalic child, or to give birth to it. The child isn't "alive." There's only an illusion of choice. I have the choice to believe in flying unicorns or not, but only one is correct. If I choose the former I'm simply fooling myself and setting myself up for disappointment. No. People extend the lives of their dying and unintelligent fish/dogs/etc not because they are organisms, but because they want them to live longer (even if such an extension comes at a cost). The case of Faith Hope is no different. Yes, but as I said before, the cost of extending a pets life compared to the amount of happiness it brings is a much greater proportion than as is the case with this baby. The baby will never get better or have a change in condition. It's equivalent to hooking up a corpse to life support; its heart is beating and its lungs are breathing but it can't think. It's "living" but not "alive." The difference between you and this baby is you have the potential to be productive which is more that it has and ever will have. Plants don't know about their existence either. That doesn't mean we should go uproot all of them. Way to miss the point. The child is only existing because of reflex reactions and wasting resources. Plants, however, actually contribute. Wait, is it alive or not? You seem to keep switching back and forth between the two. I'm sorry, I must have forgotten the quotations around "alive." The fact that she isn't dead is a given, that's why I chose not to add it. But of course you would disagree to make your stance seem more humane. You're misunderstanding me. You said that she was more complex than bacteria and that bacteria is alive (implying that she was alive simply because she's more complex). I said that a corpse is more complex than an amoeba, but simply being more complex doesn't mean something's alive.

Bacteria has a purpose. This empty shell doesn't. :| And what is that purpose...? Why is nobody answering my questions about life being some sort of mission? She doesn't have all the qualities that a corpse has. She can't have a life, she'll never be able to. She doesn't have a brain to do ANYTHING. I'm not saying life has a clearly defined purpose, but she won't be able to go through it. Also, I wasn't saying she was a corpse, I was simply refuting your argument that just because something's more complex, it's therefore alive.

There is little difference. Both are choices to be made by the mother, and both include a living human. There is a big difference. It's like saying we have the choice to cremate a corpse, so we also have a choice to cremate a living person. This baby is "living" simply by reflex. It isn't aware it's breathing, it doesn't know its heart is beating, it is simply a reflex. The baby is a living organism, i.e. she is alive. Whether she is an intelligent person is irrelevant to whether we ought to kill her against the mother's wishes. Refer to my earlier post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. I didn't see what your other post had to do with this, but simply because its an organism doesn't mean it should be kept alive. If an animal was born with this syndrome, it would die, there wouldn't be any effort to maintain the "life" because there is none.

You say it is not alive, yet she is more complex than any bacteria I've ever seen. I think you'd agree that bacteria is very much alive. I would say a human corpse is more complex than an amoeba, yes, but that doesn't mean that the corpse is alive simply because it's more complex. Whats the point of killing a baby thats going to die in a couple of months? The mother doesn't want to kill her child, so she's going to let the child live as long as she can. I don't see why thats disagreeable with the lot here. Killing the baby would just be plain cruel and barbaric. What's the point of wasting a significant amount of time, money, and energy on something that's going to die in a couple of months. See, that works both ways. And I love all the "nazis" and "barbarians" that are being thrown around. Really shows something about your maturity.

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down? Everyone's focusing on that part of the argument too much. This child is DEAD. It will get bigger, but it's dead. It won't talk or walk. It can't even move its limbs on purpose. It isn't aware and it doesn't have emotions. It's not aware of its environment. All of the characteristics that make a human human are missing. This child is dead and keeping it "alive" is downright idiotic. On the other hand, killing it would be wrong. No, "killing" it would just be. The child is not alive. It cannot function on its own; it is a hollow shell that happens to look like a baby. I sympathize with this woman, I really do. No one should have to have a choice like this and I understand that her judgment may be clouded. The people around her do not deserve sympathy. They should be able to think logically and help her through this situation.

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down? Everyone's focusing on that part of the argument too much. This child is DEAD. It will get bigger, but it's dead. It won't talk or walk. It can't even move its limbs on purpose. It isn't aware and it doesn't have emotions. It's not aware of its environment. All of the characteristics that make a human human are missing. This child is dead and keeping it "alive" is downright idiotic.

Listen to this very carefully: THE MOM IS PAYING THE MEDICAL BILLS FOR HER BABY! WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR HER BABY. Judging by what you are assuming, we should kill people that are about to die anyway. While we're killing babies with no brains, lets go pay a visit and pull the plug on that 104-year old lady thats gonna die in a couple weeks. I think they're "wasting" our money as well. Real quick, there's this cancer victim thats about to die, lets go put that person to sleep. Yup, we're really wasting resources on people that are about to die. That sounds like something Hitler did when he came to power (I'm gonna wait to see how many people respond to the Hitler sentence). Ooo big letters, I can do that too. THERE'S SUCH A THING CALLED OPPORTUNITY COST. Its not murder to kill someone that doesn't have a brain but still is a living breathing person? Its not murder to kill someone who can't ride a bicycle? Well then, I think I'm gonna go butcher some "leeches" real quick because they can't do things normal people can. This baby isn't a person. All it is is a poop machine. Insert food -> collect poop. That's all it does. That's all it ever will do. Nice non sequitur, too. :thumbup: A leech? What is she doing that is leeching? Her mom is paying for the medical bills, its coming out of her money. God, I have to repeat this several times. Yes, isn't repetition annoying? It doesn't matter that its mom is paying the bills, all the products/services that are being wasted on it should be used somewhere else. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because, I repeat, THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES THIS BABY IS USING HAVE A MUCH BETTER USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. All machine X can do is, essentially, keep a corpse breathing. There's no point to having machine X and the materials and labor used to produce it should have been used to make something else. Yeah, well guess what. Every piece of bread you've eaten in your entire life could have gone to a starving child in Africa. But it didn't. Why? Some people can afford what they want, others cannot. This mother has the right to keep her child alive, and by all means she will. The bread that I ate allowed me to survive so I can go to school and eventually have a career. And, like I previously stated, not all lives are worth the same. The starving child in Africa doesn't have the potential I do, so the bread did go to the best use. Also, simply being able to afford something doesn't mean you should waste it. If I had enough money to buy a fleet of H3s and have them idling 24/7 that would just be wasteful. The products that I would be WASTING would have a much better use somewhere else, as does everything that's being thrown at this baby. [/hide] So, it's wrong for the mother to spend her own money to keep her own baby alive because you think her baby isn't ever going to be anything? Using that logic, you'd currently be dead. No, because there was practically a 100% chance that I would amount to something other than basic bodily functions. This child, however, won't change. When it's 3 months old it will act the same as when it's 30 as when it's 60. It will only get bigger and more costly without any contribution to society. I believe many of them are wasteful, too. Many require resources that are greater than their output. There's a difference between the choice to abort a potential LIVING baby, and the "choice" to euthanize this empty shell of a human. All it can do is drain resources, nothing more. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead.

Listen to this very carefully: THE MOM IS PAYING THE MEDICAL BILLS FOR HER BABY! WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR HER BABY. Judging by what you are assuming, we should kill people that are about to die anyway. While we're killing babies with no brains, lets go pay a visit and pull the plug on that 104-year old lady thats gonna die in a couple weeks. I think they're "wasting" our money as well. Real quick, there's this cancer victim thats about to die, lets go put that person to sleep. Yup, we're really wasting resources on people that are about to die. That sounds like something Hitler did when he came to power (I'm gonna wait to see how many people respond to the Hitler sentence). Ooo big letters, I can do that too. THERE'S SUCH A THING CALLED OPPORTUNITY COST. Its not murder to kill someone that doesn't have a brain but still is a living breathing person? Its not murder to kill someone who can't ride a bicycle? Well then, I think I'm gonna go butcher some "leeches" real quick because they can't do things normal people can. This baby isn't a person. All it is is a poop machine. Insert food -> collect poop. That's all it does. That's all it ever will do. Nice non sequitur, too. :thumbup: A leech? What is she doing that is leeching? Her mom is paying for the medical bills, its coming out of her money. God, I have to repeat this several times. Yes, isn't repetition annoying? It doesn't matter that its mom is paying the bills, all the products/services that are being wasted on it should be used somewhere else. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because, I repeat, THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES THIS BABY IS USING HAVE A MUCH BETTER USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. All machine X can do is, essentially, keep a corpse breathing. There's no point to having machine X and the materials and labor used to produce it should have been used to make something else. Yeah, well guess what. Every piece of bread you've eaten in your entire life could have gone to a starving child in Africa. But it didn't. Why? Some people can afford what they want, others cannot. This mother has the right to keep her child alive, and by all means she will. The bread that I ate allowed me to survive so I can go to school and eventually have a career. And, like I previously stated, not all lives are worth the same. The starving child in Africa doesn't have the potential I do, so the bread did go to the best use. Also, simply being able to afford something doesn't mean you should waste it. If I had enough money to buy a fleet of H3s and have them idling 24/7 that would just be wasteful. The products that I would be WASTING would have a much better use somewhere else, as does everything that's being thrown at this baby.

What you are suggesting is, in essence, murder. Sure, people die, when the kid dies naturally, she'll grieve, then she'll get over it. However, you feel alot worse signing your kid's death warrent even though its not in any pain. It's not murder, though. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead. It will never ride a bike, go to kindergarden, or climb a jungle gym. All it will do is lay wherever its parent's set it down. This baby has no brain, it will not realize it's alive or dead.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because, I repeat, THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES THIS BABY IS USING HAVE A MUCH BETTER USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. All machine X can do is, essentially, keep a corpse breathing. There's no point to having machine X and the materials and labor used to produce it should have been used to make something else.

If a sick and dying pet fish "has potential to contribute to society," then an anencephalic baby, or for that matter any unintelligent thing (including certain technologies) sure as hell can contribute to society. Baby K, as well as other anencephalic babies, have given us a completely new perspective in the bioethics debates. They contribute plenty to their family: they bring them a great deal of joy, even if only for a short period of time. Anencephalic babies contribute a great deal to scientific research and help to broaden our understanding of birth disorders (as well as how to prevent them). To say that these babies "contribute nothing" is clearly incorrect and very much unsupported. In any case, whether or not something "contributes to society" is completely irrelevant. The term is vague and subjective. And, even if we could objectively "rank" the productivity of a certain thing or individual, it would be no grounds for killing individuals. The difference between a dying fish and this dying baby is the happiness gained from having that fish is much greater than the resources needed to keep it alive. That's not the case with this child. With the cost of medical care, necessities, child care, etc it's just not a good idea to keep it. The costs far outweigh the benefits. The same could be said about most uses of television, fatty foods, video games, decorative flowers, pets, etc. Hell, one could argue that the resources used on a healthy third or fourth child could have been better spent on other things. Again, these things all contribute to society, or their benefits outweigh their cost. Are you always that stupid? If people have money to spend, don't get pissed when they get the things you want. Personal insults, yay. I don't understand your argument either... Are you implying I want a brainless child?

It depends who he kills, really. If a person killed, say, the current Prime Minister, that would be a worry. But if a jobless junkie is killed, well, that's a bit more money the tax-payers get to keep, isn't it? Of course that's undone tenfold by the cost of sending the person to jail.... So it's ok for a jobless junkie to be murdered? Quite frankly, yes. People need to realize that not all lives are equally valuable. Some lives are simply worth more than others and this baby's life is worthless. There's absolutely no way for it to contribute anything to society, so, logically, it should be euthanized. This is absolutely barbaric. Just because a homeless person (or for that matter somebody who lives in a tent in the woods, somebody who is severely disabled, or even just a couch potato) doesn't "contribute to society" in the same way that, say, a doctor or a fireman would doesn't mean we have the right to kill them. This is a horrible, horrible perspective. As I have said before, even children who are severely disabled and do not live a full or healthy life bring a great deal of joy to the parents. Let's take a step back, for a second. I hate to reduce this child to a mere pet, but it seems the best way for you dim-witted barbarians to understand the basics of happiness and life. Say a mother has an animal which she loves dearly, and treats as a child rather than a pet. She is aware that this animal is greatly unintelligent, and will die in a short number of years (yet, even so, she sometimes deludes herself into thinking that the animal is more intelligent than it really is). The animal is sick, and the cost of keeping it alive is steep. Yet, even so, this animal brings her an incredible amount of joy, and she wishes to be with it for as long as she can. Does she have the right to keep the animal alive, even at the cost of her own salary? Yes, of course. Is it her decision to make? Yes, of course. From our third-party perspective, it may seem most rational to just put down the animal, but it's ultimately not our call, nor should we have any say in the matter.[/hide] There's a commonality in your examples; everything is or has a potential to contribute to society. This child doesn't have that potential and it never will. A brain won't just appear in its head and say "HAI GUISE, SORRY IM LATE LULZ" An elderly person consumes medical resources. A celebrity consumes media resources. All children consume "their mother's resources." This baby is not "taking" anything significant from us, no more than any other person or even animal would. So long as the parent continues to pay the costs of medical attention, there is no problem here. Again, all of your examples contribute to society, while this child doesn't. The resources being used on the child can be better used other places. So you basically want to execute her for a "crime against society", which she has had absolutely no effect in? There are many people who have had much, much more negative effects on this world, yet they are still alive. Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Not to mention she does actually have some positive influence. She makes her mother happy. Her happy mother probably makes other people happy. Killing the "baby" would barely lessen its negative influence (which I admit exists), and perhaps even increase it. I don't even get why this is up for debate. It's obvious that you'd kill it if you were in her situation, and I probably would too - But we aren't in that situation. This woman is, this is what she's doing, and the choice is hers and hers only. I never said the child committed a "crime against society." ( :roll: ) All the child is doing is draining resources that should be put to better use in other places (I feel like I'm repeating myself). Besides, the baby is doomed and all the mother is doing is setting herself up for more pain in the future when the child does die. Also, I would look up the term opportunity cost.

What does it take from society? If it contributes nothing, and takes nothing, there's no reason to keep it alive nor to kill it. And that would give the mother the final choice. I suppose it does take some things. Time, from the doctors who are caring for it. Time that could be spent saving other lives, perhaps. Money? I haven't really read up on it, but I'm pretty sure the mother is supporting it by herself. I kind of doubt that money would go to any other use. And really, chances are it'll be dead in a few weeks or months. After that it won't even have a chance of hurting anyone, not like it does now. In her latest blog post, I love her comments about the "internet terrorists." Under demonic forces, definitely. But it doesn't take nothing, it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

It depends who he kills, really. If a person killed, say, the current Prime Minister, that would be a worry. But if a jobless junkie is killed, well, that's a bit more money the tax-payers get to keep, isn't it? Of course that's undone tenfold by the cost of sending the person to jail.... So it's ok for a jobless junkie to be murdered? Quite frankly, yes. People need to realize that not all lives are equally valuable. Some lives are simply worth more than others and this baby's life is worthless. There's absolutely no way for it to contribute anything to society, so, logically, it should be euthanized.

ilu Musky

TIME TRAVEL??? No... he would probably get disenegrated. Dr Manhattan plz