The baby is not being harmed, and I suppose it's their money going to keep a vegetable alive, when honestly, I can't believe she (the baby) could care either way. If it was me in that position, I would rather be "unplugged."

Unbelievable. The fact that anyone can be so incredibly arrogant as to pass judgment on this mother using what passes for his own morality is mind-boggling.

 

 

 

So you think the baby should be put down. Well, the mother of Faith Hope doesn't give a [cabbage]. She may or may not be in for a rude awakening depending on her actual emotional state over this matter, but who is ANYONE to judge that? You have no right to condescend to someone in a position that there is almost zero chance you will ever be in yourself.

 

 

 

Some of you give the impression that you would burst in and stab the baby yourself if you happened to be within ten miles of it.

Poor woman :cry: Can any of you imagine what you would do if you had a child like that? Some would have an abortion, but I am absolutely sure some would keep the baby like this mother does.

 

 

 

Poor, poor woman :(

Some of you give the impression that you would burst in and stab the baby yourself if you happened to be within ten miles of it.

 

 

 

There are babies, and then there are hollowed out shells. I dunno about the others, but personally I'm not saying it should be put down, I'm saying if it was me in that situation, I wouldn't spend the time and energy with a hollowed out shell of a human. It's not alive, it will never be alive, or concious, and for my standards it doesn't count as human then.

Personally, if I was her I would abort it because I wouldn't be able to deal with something like that. However, I'm a strong believer in "to each his/her own". I advocate pro-choice, so if she makes the choice to keep the baby then I will definitely defend that right. My arguments are directed towards the people who say that she should die regardless of the mother's feelings.

 

Some of you give the impression that you would burst in and stab the baby yourself if you happened to be within ten miles of it.

 

 

 

Stab? Oh, nothing quite so visceral.

 

 

 

Maybe something as cold and impersonal as I am. A lethal injection, perhaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me, are you so blinded by anger right now that you cannot see this text, and cannot realize that that was a test?

 

As you've said, we cannot 'judge' the mother's future. But we can speculate. And we can conclude with certain facts based on observed past human behavior.

Well howdy' y'all. I've been on "vacation" for two weeks in the land of the free. I'm back now. Anyone miss me ? Lenin sure didn't.

 

 

 

OT: I always hate things like this - not news posts on the forum, but just general happenings such as this. It appears as if the mother is mentally ill, once the baby has passed away, I'm sure the mother will be devastated. If the baby provides somekind of support or reassurance to the mother I don't see why it shouldn't live. But then again as mentioned in the last 15 pages or so, there is actually no need. But who am I to say anything.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

They have the POTENTIAL to be productive, however. This child doesn't, nor will it ever.

 

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.)

 

I'm going to edit in the quote because, obviously, you have no recollection. :roll:

 

Edit: Here.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

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.

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".

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.

 

See below.

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

Thanks, you painted a very vivid and barbaric picture about what your stance is. That will be helpful in this debate.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Which means you are claiming that you know how much joy she gets from the baby - something that only she can tell us.

 

 

 

They have the POTENTIAL to be productive, however. This child doesn't, nor will it ever.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I'm going to edit in the quote because, obviously, you have no recollection.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

They have the POTENTIAL to be productive, however. This child doesn't, nor will it ever.

 

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.

 

I'm going to edit in the quote because, obviously, you have no recollection.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm barbaric because I don't see the point in keeping a stillbirth on life support? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith isn't on life support, unless you count her mother's care as life support.

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.

 

 

 

Yup, the mom is going insane due to the stress. And say, how do you know that? She could be trying to be optimistic in a very dark situation.

 

 

 

The baby is not being harmed, and I suppose it's their money going to keep a vegetable alive, when honestly, I can't believe she (the baby) could care either way. If it was me in that position, I would rather be "unplugged."

 

 

 

So if you were the baby, you would be unplugged? I believe anencephalic newborns do not have brains, meaning they do not have any of the functions that require a brain.

 

 

 

 

 

Man, most of these people act like they would do anything just to keep the mom from being happy.

Reductio ad hitlerum ad infinitum.

 

 

 

Nazis - heh, never get old.

 

 

 

Sorry, I had to do that.

 

 

 

OT: How can one measure happiness in the first place ?

 

I'm going to side with Zierro and say that terminating (killing) this baby, "or a pocket of flesh" as coolguy would say would have a negligible effect on society. I can't see a good reason, not influenced by any thoughts other than rational ones - that say keep "it" alive. If it makes the mother happy...

 

 

 

damn, this forum is active.

 

I'm barbaric because I don't see the point in keeping a stillbirth on life support? :roll:

 

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.

I'm barbaric because I don't see the point in keeping a stillbirth on life support? :roll:

 

 

 

No, not because you don't see the point - because you claim one doesn't exist altogether.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The doctors get paid. The food is paid for and besides, do you know how much food is wasted everyday anyways? 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.

 

 

 

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 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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 can't acknowledge your own existence then that means you're dead?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Then wouldn't that make the doctors more at fault than yourself?

I'm barbaric because I don't see the point in keeping a stillbirth on life support? :roll:

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

There is no point to keeping a stillbirth on life support. If that makes me a barbarian, so be it.

 

 

 

It makes her happy. That's the point. You just choose to ignore this fact.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If staring at a wall triggers love and happiness then you're right. However, I've never seen a case of this to date.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Way to fling the blame on me. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work when you do stuff like this:

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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. \

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.

 

Your analogy couldn't have made that line any more clear.

 

 

 

Faith's mother is free to spend her own money and time to care for her child -- a baby who does not have 100 doctors (if any at all) idling uselessly by her side. Unlike Baby K, Faith is in good condition and is not significantly draining medical resources.

 

 

 

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.

 

Many people, disabled or not, use feeding tubes to assist with nutrition intake. Since Faith uses an NG/NJ-tube as opposed to a G-tube, it very well may only be temporary.

 

 

 

Oh, calling me a Nazi. Mature. Economically speaking, anyone who requires more input than the output they provide shouldn't exist.

 

Ever heard of Action T4? I can see why Zierro made the connection.

 

 

 

"It was Brandt and Bouhler, Conti and Heyde who met to develop a systematic registry of patients in mental facilities for the purpose of euthanizing what Hitler and others referred to as 'feeders'. Hitler and others decried the injustice of German men of a 'higher order' losing their lives on battlefields while the mentally infirm took up space in hospitals at the state's expense [see above]. Part of their argument was bloodlines, part was economic as these mentally ill children and adults were seen as incurable and forever stressing tax-payers. As the systematic euthanization was developed, it began first by the Einsatzguüppen in the Wartheland in Poland, and before 1941 most of the hospitals became instead sites of mass graves."

 

From: http://www.shoaheducation.com/t4.html

 

 

 

Now you're understanding it. This child was essentially a stillbirth.

 

Life support is intended to extend the life of a living thing, regardless of its level of intelligence. A stillbirth is not living, whereas this anencephalic baby is. Therein lies the difference...

Religion..The ball to stupidity's chain.

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 agree with you on that point, but you can't force it.