I was one of the people that said I'm sure that the parents love their baby, a ton, in different terms.

 

 

 

The point of killing it? Saving money, opening up a room, freeing up a nurse, etc.

 

 

 

"Life: Because all we care about is money and human productivity!"

 

:|

I was one of the people that said I'm sure that the parents love their baby, a ton, in different terms.

 

 

 

The point of killing it? Saving money, opening up a room, freeing up a nurse, etc.

 

 

 

"Life: Because all we care about is money and human productivity!"

 

:|

 

 

 

It's damn true. Sooner you accept that the better.

I was one of the people that said I'm sure that the parents love their baby, a ton, in different terms.

 

 

 

The point of killing it? Saving money, opening up a room, freeing up a nurse, etc.

 

 

 

"Life: Because all we care about is money and human productivity!"

 

:|

 

 

 

It's damn true. Sooner you accept that the better.

 

 

 

That's okay, you can go ahead and wish for your death all you want. In the meantime, I'm going to be enjoying myself, similar to what the mother is going to be doing with her mindless baby. :thumbup:

Bacteria, like any other organism, is there to reproduce and thrive as a species. Different sorts of bacteria have different purposes, some help give plants nutrients, some live inside us and help with bodily functions, and some try to kill us. That is their niche. Now this baby will never do anything. EVER. It won't walk, talk, feel, taste, smell, love, think, reproduce, or even voluntarily move.

 

 

 

It sounds like what you speak of as "purpose" is what one is genetically coded to do. Bacteria runs off instinct - it only uses the abilities it was endowed with at birth. This baby was only given the capability of breathing, so I guess that implies her "purpose" is to breath right?

 

 

 

If you're talking about the universal concept of "purpose" then I have news friend. Life doesn't have purpose. Without bringing up religion, it's pretty much pointless and any contributions you make to society will not matter in the grand scheme of things anyways, therefore it's silly to base the right to live on something that doesn't even matter.

 

 

 

And if you didn't like that response I have another one. The baby does contribute. As Venomai said, she brings happiness to others. Is this less important than what criminals, bums, lazy people do?

It's like saying we have the choice to cremate a corpse, so we also have a choice to cremate a living person.

 

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.

 

 

 

but simply because its an organism doesn't mean it should be kept alive.

 

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.

 

 

 

Like I said, whats the point of killing the baby if its going to die? Killing it would only cause emotional damage to the mother.

 

Either situation would be emotionally difficult. Euthanasia (giving it "the good death"), for many, is much better than watching your baby die slowly from starvation/asphyxiation/etc. Although the baby's crying and thrashing may be reflexive, its actions will look little different from those of an intelligent and suffering baby.

That's okay, you can go ahead and wish for your death all you want. In the meantime, I'm going to be enjoying myself, similar to what the mother is going to be doing with her mindless baby. :thumbup:

 

 

 

She isn't enjoying anything; any enjoyment she is feeling is a delusion, a defense mechanism so she doesn't have to confront the issue at hand. She needs to accept that things out of her control ruined her child and the sooner she is rid of it the sooner the healing process can begin. I can only imagine how much she put into planning for a new child and how devastatingly disappointing this birth must have been.

 

 

 

As for wishing for death, well, guess you have a point there somewhere but I don't see how that statement connects to my post you quoted. All I did was bluntly state a universal fact.

That's okay, you can go ahead and wish for your death all you want. In the meantime, I'm going to be enjoying myself, similar to what the mother is going to be doing with her mindless baby. :thumbup:

 

 

 

She isn't enjoying anything; any enjoyment she is feeling is a delusion, a defense mechanism so she doesn't have to confront the issue at hand. She needs to accept that things out of her control ruined her child and the sooner she is rid of it the sooner the healing process can begin. I can only imagine how much she put into planning for a new child and how devastatingly disappointing this birth must have been.

 

 

 

As for wishing for death, well, guess you have a point there somewhere but I don't see how that statement connects to my post you quoted. All I did was bluntly state a universal fact.

 

 

 

You're right, let's just not make any friends or spend time with family because they're all going to die sooner or later! Bravo, you've cracked the code to life! Give yourself a round of applause. =D>

That's okay, you can go ahead and wish for your death all you want. In the meantime, I'm going to be enjoying myself, similar to what the mother is going to be doing with her mindless baby. :thumbup:

 

 

 

She isn't enjoying anything; any enjoyment she is feeling is a delusion, a defense mechanism so she doesn't have to confront the issue at hand. She needs to accept that things out of her control ruined her child and the sooner she is rid of it the sooner the healing process can begin. I can only imagine how much she put into planning for a new child and how devastatingly disappointing this birth must have been.

 

 

 

As for wishing for death, well, guess you have a point there somewhere but I don't see how that statement connects to my post you quoted. All I did was bluntly state a universal fact.

 

 

 

You're right, let's just not make any friends or spend time with family because they're all going to die sooner or later! Bravo, you've cracked the code to life! Give yourself a round of applause. =D>

 

 

 

What the hell did you get that from? Not what I was saying. Seriously, read correctly please.

What the hell did you get that from? Not what I was saying. Seriously, read correctly please.

 

 

 

You're saying she shouldn't get attached to her daughter because of the issue at hand. Ken was just pointing out that the issue of man's mortality doesn't stop us from loving/embracing/caring for each other while we still can, even though it's all technically in vain and being happy about it must just be a "delusion".

What the hell did you get that from? Not what I was saying. Seriously, read correctly please.

 

 

 

You're saying she shouldn't get attached to her daughter because of the issue at hand. Ken was just pointing out that the issue of man's mortality doesn't stop us from loving/embracing/caring for each other while we still can, even though it's all technically in vain and being happy about it must just be a "delusion".

 

 

 

Somewhat, mostly what I'm saying is that in this case the only alternative that will be good for the mother's sanity will be to let the baby die. And even then she'll be hardcore messed up for a long time.

The rest of the world doesn't give a crap about what you believe is right or wrong.

 

Precisely what's going on in your case. She's going to keep that baby until it dies and she doesn't give a [bleep] what you have to say about it. Cool?

Those of you speaking about the baby not being productive...

 

You don't need to be 'alive' to have a purpose. Hell, Faith has made me go over all that I think of as 'life', and has sparked a raging debate on a gaming forum she will never be able to read.

 

 

 

I'm not productive right now. I'm just a student--sure, I submit some excellent papers and do well on tests, but that isn't worth [cabbage] to society. Kill me.

 

 

 

And those arguing about Faith's status as living: I have to say that she isn't alive in the human sense. She's 'alive' in the same sense as a machine being 'alive'--in motion, and seemingly autonomous.

 

The truth is that we could probably recreate her twitches and responses with a few smart programmers and some top-of-the-line circuitry. This hypothetical product of silicon, copper, and steel would be 'alive' in the same way. Which is to say, not at all.

 

 

 

The reason why I want her delusion weaving arm movements and joy-bringing reflexive smiles terminated is this:

 

The more happiness and bonding that grows between the mother and the object of her love (in the most literal sense), the harder she will crash when she realizes that there can be nothing for her daughter.

 

The greater the love, the greater the loss.

 

 

 

The quicker she dies, the less chance the mother wastes away with her tears.

i dont mind anymore about this

It's like saying we have the choice to cremate a corpse, so we also have a choice to cremate a living person.

 

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.

 

but simply because its an organism doesn't mean it should be kept alive.

 

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."

 

Those of you speaking about the baby not being productive...

 

You don't need to be 'alive' to have a purpose. Hell, Faith has made me go over all that I think of as 'life', and has sparked a raging debate on a gaming forum she will never be able to read.

 

 

 

I'm not productive right now. I'm just a student--sure, I submit some excellent papers and do well on tests, but that isn't worth [cabbage] to society. Kill me.

 

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.

 

It isn't aware it's breathing, it doesn't know its heart is beating, it is simply a reflex.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

It's like saying we have the choice to cremate a corpse, so we also have a choice to cremate a living person.

 

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.

 

but simply because its an organism doesn't mean it should be kept alive.

 

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."

 

Those of you speaking about the baby not being productive...

 

You don't need to be 'alive' to have a purpose. Hell, Faith has made me go over all that I think of as 'life', and has sparked a raging debate on a gaming forum she will never be able to read.

 

 

 

I'm not productive right now. I'm just a student--sure, I submit some excellent papers and do well on tests, but that isn't worth [cabbage] to society. Kill me.

 

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.

 

 

 

But in America, we have freedom of choice. If she thinks the baby is worth keeping, I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

 

But in America, we have freedom of choice. If she thinks the baby is worth keeping, I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

 

 

 

Sooner or later--later if we do nothing--she'll realise that something is wrong with her baby. And then her baby will die. And that will destroy her. And the longer she goes on believing she is looking after a healthy, happy baby girl, the more painful it will be when she realises the truth.

 

But in America, we have freedom of choice. If she thinks the baby is worth keeping, I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

 

 

 

Sooner or later--later if we do nothing--she'll realise that something is wrong with her baby. And then her baby will die. And that will destroy her. And the longer she goes on believing she is looking after a healthy, happy baby girl, the more painful it will be when she realises the truth.

 

It's not the job of anyone else to intervene though.

 

But in America, we have freedom of choice. If she thinks the baby is worth keeping, I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

 

 

 

Sooner or later--later if we do nothing--she'll realise that something is wrong with her baby. And then her baby will die. And that will destroy her. And the longer she goes on believing she is looking after a healthy, happy baby girl, the more painful it will be when she realises the truth.

 

 

 

The mom knows she is caring for a baby with no brain. I think she's aware that her baby will die in a couple months. No matter what, the mother is going to feel grief, but it would much worse for the mother emotionally if someone knifes the baby. At least she's being optimistic in a sad case like her baby. You have to give her credit for that.

The mom knows she is caring for a baby with no brain. I think she's aware that her baby will die in a couple months. No matter what, the mother is going to feel grief, but it would much worse for the mother emotionally if someone knifes the baby. At least she's being optimistic in a sad case like her baby. You have to give her credit for that.

 

 

 

But she doesn't know! She thinks that the baby knows who her mother is and responds to her, these are just reflex actions which babies have for the first 6 months of their lives, and she's also convinced herself that God will perform a miracle, which let's face it...it isn't going to happen. She hasn't fully grasped the fact that because her only child has little or no brain, it can never love her and never realise who her mother is.

The mom knows she is caring for a baby with no brain. I think she's aware that her baby will die in a couple months. No matter what, the mother is going to feel grief, but it would much worse for the mother emotionally if someone knifes the baby. At least she's being optimistic in a sad case like her baby. You have to give her credit for that.

 

 

 

But she doesn't know! She thinks that the baby knows who her mother is and responds to her, these are just reflex actions which babies have for the first 6 months of their lives, and she's also convinced herself that God will perform a miracle, which let's face it...it isn't going to happen. She hasn't fully grasped the fact that because her only child has little or no brain, it can never love her and never realise who her mother is.

 

 

 

My mistake. Still, its good to hear she is at least trying to care for the baby.

No it isn't.

 

It's sad to hear.

 

 

 

Sad to know how much an individual's mind can break when under strain.

 

 

 

Sad to know that meanings, feelings, emotions and soulfulness are being attributed to the random muscular twitches and mechanical processes of the dead.

 

 

 

And even sadder to know that this dream that she is trying keep holding up for herself will eventually fall to pieces, and with it, whatever sanity she has left.

 

 

 

I can already see her muttering under her breath about the wonderful things her daughter has done and the grades she has been getting to white-coated pill-dispensers and bespectacled therapists.

 

 

 

If she is already creating a false life, one that her imagination is using to inflate that husk of a baby's body, then she will probably fabricate false memories, false first words, false baby steps, false everything.

 

To inflate the hollow of her life.

To inflate the hollow of her life.

 

lol, you're going to hell for this

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Way to miss the point. The child is only existing because of reflex reactions and wasting resources. Plants, however, actually contribute.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.)

To inflate the hollow of her life.

 

lol, you're going to hell for this

 

How do you know where we all are at right now isn't hell. Perhaps this is all an illusion our brains came up with to cope with the intense pain.

 

 

 

I couldn't imagine being in her position though. However form my standpoint the baby should be taken off life support. I feel the same way about vegetative states in other people. Wires and tubes aren't natural. Some times people are supposed to just die.

The child isn't "alive." There's only an illusion of choice.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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:

 

 

 

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."

 

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.

 

 

 

She thinks that the baby knows who her mother is and responds to her, these are just reflex actions which babies have for the first 6 months of their lives, and she's also convinced herself that God will perform a miracle, which let's face it...it isn't going to happen. She hasn't fully grasped the fact that because her only child has little or no brain, it can never love her and never realise who her mother is.

 

These are things which many mothers of severely disabled children have yet to grasp.