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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. \

 

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?

Regarding something I saw earlier, there's a difference between being on life support and being fed through a tube. There are a plethora of reasons why someone would need to be fed through a tube that have nothing to do with them being on life support.

Religion..The ball to stupidity's chain.

 

QFT

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The only disablities I can think of which prevents a person from loving another is Autism and related diseases. This is completely different. This child has no brain, it doesn't even know how to repeatedly stack objects one on top of the other.

Religion..The ball to stupidity's chain.

 

QFT

 

Scapegoating. The chain.

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).

 

 

 

The mother is the one who gets to decide whether it is warranted or not - not you. Maybe you are just under the assumption that love is supposed to be rational... :lol: What might appear as stupid to you can be wonderful to someone else, because it is their emotions we're dealing with - not someone from outside of the entire situation.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Whatever happened to equality? The moment you prioritize who's life is more important is the moment you put a price on human life. I mean this is a mother and daughter we're talking about, where the bond is a lot stronger than the bond between a person and a wall.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Of course not. You can't ask that question to someone who is experiencing a normal life and has the capability to formulate a preference. It's like asking a human if they would want to be a plant. However, if I were in her shoes and didn't know anything else outside my own life, would it really matter? As long as it wasn't painful it would be like being a plant. Plants can't think or act but they seem to be fine with living and people seem fine with caring for them. :P

Religion..The ball to stupidity's chain.

 

QFT

 

Scapegoating. The chain.

 

Religion is fine. Thinking it will magically solve everything is just foolhardy indeed.

Religion..The ball to stupidity's chain.

 

QFT

 

Scapegoating. The chain.

 

Religion is fine. Thinking it will magically solve everything is just foolhardy indeed.

 

What happened to the days when religious nuts went like:

 

 

 

"This baby is a manifestation of the devil! Drown it in holy water!"

It's ultimately the mother's choice.

 

 

 

I have worked with children who are blind, deaf, mute, and apparently do not know who they are or what they are doing. Yet the parents are happy with the situation, and nothing brings them greater joy than seeing a smile on their child's face (even if it may only be a reflexive smile). If the parents are coping, I see no reason not to support their decision.

 

 

 

Quite. I don't understand how it can sicken someone any more than a person with a bond to their car or trees.

 

Or, for that matter, a loving bond with one's pet...

 

 

 

After seeing a picture of Anencephaly...I honestly don't know what to say. To even THINK It's alive if a nieve, selfish and absolutly blasphemous act of nature itself.

 

Err... She is alive, and she's doing surprisingly well:

 

 

 

 

The hat is in there because she has no brain. She cannot feel, think, hear, see, talk she only moves as a reaction. She has no "soul" She dosn't know it's there. And it's wasting food and other resources that could be used for someone else.

Religion..The ball to stupidity's chain.

 

QFT

 

Scapegoating. The chain.

 

Religion is fine. Thinking it will magically solve everything is just foolhardy indeed.

 

What happened to the days when religious nuts went like:

 

 

 

"This baby is a manifestation of the devil! Drown it in holy water!"

 

Wait, they stopped doing that??

The only disablities I can think of which prevents a person from loving another is Autism and related diseases. This is completely different. This child has no brain, it doesn't even know how to repeatedly stack objects one on top of the other.

 

I'm not arguing that anencephalic babies are more intelligent or more able-bodied than those with other disabilities. I'm suggesting that many mothers see their child as more 'special' and more intelligent than they may be in actuality.

 

 

 

The hat is in there because she has no brain. She cannot feel, think, hear, see, talk she only moves as a reaction. She has no "soul" She dosn't know it's there. And it's wasting food and other resources that could be used for someone else.

 

Whether the food is going to this baby or an obese American's stomach really shouldn't matter, so long as the mother pays for it.

 

 

 

PS: Babies with anencephaly are missing large regions of their brain, but they do not have "no brain."

This thread just keeps getting more and more disgusting. Granted the mother is a bit too religious, but considering what's happened, I don't judge anyone if something this bad happens.

I only read the first five pages but I am disgusted at a few of you!

 

 

 

I don't care what religion, if any at all, you are but you need to understand her situation. I don't believe in labels but if I had to label myself I suppose I'd be somewhere between agnostic and atheist but I don't insult anyone who believes in their God strong enough to have the compassion to keep a baby with this condition. I saw the video of the baby and it really does act like a normal baby. She should choose what she wants to do and no one under the anonymity of the Internet should tell her what to do and call her a "religious nut-job" or idiot for not killing her own baby.

 

 

 

Some of you were debating what the definition of a human is, and if you want to go into technicalities this is a human being.

 

 

 

She's PAYING for the treatment so what is the freaking problem about keeping this baby alive? Morals and ethics you might say? There's no such thing as morals in today's society so what's the big deal if a 23 year-old woman wants to keep something that was inside her for 9 months?

 

 

 

I was expecting a more liberal view from you but some of you peoples' hatreds for religion has clouded your view. Sure she may be a bit on the crazy side with her comments about Exorcists but that's only in response to the hate mail she receives for keeping her child ALIVE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. Has Goddess made a post on the pages I didn't read?

if she has she'd be arguing about how we all are bastards and should feel bad for ourselves for suggesting the baby be killed, then she'd stick up for the mother and be like "if that was my baby i'd keep it too! you don't know how it is to be a mother!" etc. personally, i'm indifferent. i just want the baby to die naturally and see the aftermath of that. or even better i'd like to see the baby grow up a few more years and see what the mother is saying when her kid still can't do anything but twitch and use only her life supporting functions.

 

 

 

oh, and btw, this is my first post on this thread. i read like 2 pages, and was linked to the site by faitherooski on msn. i laughed, a lot then decided i didn't really care.

[hide=Original quote and response]

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.

 

 

 

I hinted at this myself earlier... You're right. People who berate you for simply stating it are overly-confident in the strength of the human mind. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any previously-sane individual who wouldn't crack in this situation.

 

 

 

She's developing a delusional adjustment disorder. I could look up some facts and attempt to narrow down a few possible things it could be. Might post it later after I consult Wikipedia and the DSM-IV.

 

 

 

EDIT: Probably will, almost definitely, not like I have a life or anything to preoccupy me.[/hide]EDIT2: She seems to be firmly set in one of the main coping categories, I'll (through combination of two similar definitions) describe this category as:

 

 

 

Including cognitive or internal strategies, this involves avoiding, minimizing, distancing, or seeking value in negative events. The person modifies their thinking and employs strategies such as denial to help them manage the problem.

 

 

 

I'm most interested in that last one, sounds exactly like the situation at hand. Evidence of this can be in the article posted on the blog in the original post:

She seems to function at the same level as any "normal" baby. In fact, she may be a little more advanced for her age. How many babies smile before they are born, start cooeing at one day old, and can sit up by 5 days old? I'm just saying!

Sorry. Not true. She is in denial and has deluded herself into thinking she actually has given birth to anything close to a normal child. One of the classifications describing delusional disorders stood out in particular to me: "It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity." Her tenacity is clearly evidenced by her militant rejection of reason stemming from her unwillingness to accept the fact that her child barely (if at all) fits the definition of a human being.

 

 

 

There is a problem with saying she has a delusional disorder when she, despite being clearly delusional, does not actually fit any of the sub-classifications of delusional disorders. There is the allowance of a classification of "unspecified" to be used when the delusional individual does not fit any of the other categories but it is likely that somewhere there is another, more appropriate, diagnosis (I hesitate to use this word since I cannot actually expect to diagnose anything due to my lack of a medical degree or any formal training, I'm simply making informed guesses). A possible classification is that of acute stress disorder, however this is a more ambiguous classification and more of a category than a distinct illness. Despite this it can be shown that she exhibits many of the general symptoms (they vary more as classifications get more specific) of acute stress disorder. Her withdrawal into a fabricated reality to escape the stress of her situation is the main example, but her absolute and extreme responses to criticism can also be seen as evidence of a stress disorder.

 

 

 

To conclude this lengthy and time-consuming post I'll state once again that this is logical conjecture based on informal yet extensive self-education and that I am not qualified to make an actual diagnosis (which is why I'm uncomfortable using that word). I also must include that I truly feel for this woman and that in some ways (denial) I can sympathize with her plight... This sympathy does not, like with some others here, lead me to believe that she should be left to make the decision herself. She is incapable of rationally acting in the interest of her long-term psychological health and she needs to be pushed to give up on her lost cause so the healing process can begin. When convinced to do so she is likely, almost assured, to lapse into a major depressive episode or worse as a result of the trauma from having to confront reality. However this is necessary for her long-term well being, the other option is to allow her delusional state to evolve into schizophrenia.

 

 

 

P.S. Don't attack me on the basis that I lack empathy for the child or that I am cruel and heartless. I am concerned for the one human being in this situation and harsh action is necessary, it isn't a lack of empathy that I am displaying, it's rather a lack of misdirected empathy. You are welcome to dispute the scientific points in this post though, but be sure to dispute them in a scientific way rather than attacking my personal qualifications (or lack thereof); there's a reason I openly acknowledged them, you can think of it as "flame-proofing".

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.

 

You are a sick, sick child

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.

 

You are a sick, sick child

 

You are a sad, sad person.

but it is likely that somewhere there is another, more appropriate, diagnosis

 

Have you considered none at all? Not everybody who is deluded about one thing or another must suffer from a mental disorder.

 

 

 

She is incapable of rationally acting in the interest of her long-term psychological health and she needs to be pushed to give up on her lost cause so the healing process can begin.

 

Are you f***king kidding me?!

 

 

 

People who are pyschologically dependent on cigarettes or other drugs may not be very capable of making a "rational" decision regarding drug use, but that doesn't mean it's the government's job to force Nicotine patches and rehabilitation on them against their wishes. What you are suggesting is essentially attempting to improve society's well-being by deciding for them what is best, and then forcing that decision on them regardless of their wishes and legal rights.

 

 

 

This entire thread has been a revolting display of Off-Topic's dark side. Nazism has been brought up a number of times not because of Goodwin's Law, but because some of the views expressed here mirror those of Hitler and other totalitarian regimes.

 

 

 

However this is necessary for her long-term well being, the other option is to allow her delusional state to evolve into schizophrenia.

 

Delusions do not "evolve into schizophrenia." :thumbdown:

 

 

 

It's absolutely laughable to assume that this individual must have an unsurfaced case of schizophrenia -- something that is nearly if not entirely undetectable given what little information we have about her -- and then to assume that the realization of her own delusion -- assuming it ever occurs -- will trigger this underlying schizophrenia.

 

 

 

I encourage you to stop trying to diagnose this woman before you make yourself look any more foolish.

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.

 

You are a sick, sick child

 

You are a sad, sad person.

 

 

 

You said so yourself - that's 'economically' speaking. What about morals, ethics, human rights?

[hide=]

but it is likely that somewhere there is another, more appropriate, diagnosis

 

Have you considered none at all? Not everybody who is deluded about one thing or another must suffer from a mental disorder.

 

 

 

She is incapable of rationally acting in the interest of her long-term psychological health and she needs to be pushed to give up on her lost cause so the healing process can begin.

 

Are you f***king kidding me?!

 

 

 

People who are pyschologically dependent on cigarettes or other drugs may not be very capable of making a "rational" decision regarding drug use, but that doesn't mean it's the government's job to force Nicotine patches and rehabilitation on them against their wishes. What you are suggesting is essentially attempting to improve society's well-being by deciding for them what is best, and then forcing that decision on them regardless of their wishes and legal rights.

 

 

 

This entire thread has been a revolting display of Off-Topic's dark side. Nazism has been brought up a number of times not because of Goodwin's Law, but because some of the views expressed here mirror those of Hitler and other totalitarian regimes.

 

 

 

However this is necessary for her long-term well being, the other option is to allow her delusional state to evolve into schizophrenia.

 

Delusions do not "evolve into schizophrenia." :thumbdown:

 

 

 

It's absolutely laughable to assume that this individual must have an unsurfaced case of schizophrenia -- something that is nearly if not entirely undetectable given what little information we have about her -- and then to assume that the realization of her own delusion -- assuming it ever occurs -- will trigger this underlying schizophrenia.

 

 

 

I encourage you to stop trying to diagnose this woman before you make yourself look any more foolish.

[/hide]

 

 

 

What is the point of this thread if we cannot speculate and offer our viewpoints on what should be done?

 

 

 

Obviously we are not there to physically administer psychiatric tests or terminate the child ourselves. But we are going off information that we have now and trying to come to conclusions. We are discussing.

 

 

 

Sure, some would say it is foolish to speculate without every detail of a situation, but that is what this thread is for. Some show their pity for all parties involved. Others show outright hatred of the unnatural. Others try to objectively weigh the situation and come up with a long-term solution, and others show their dismay.

 

 

 

Either way, we're expressing our thoughts at that very moment. Of course we cannot judge with absolute certainty. We are not omniscient.

 

 

 

But we judge anyway, because it is what our brains our designed to do. We know that there is a chance that we are wrong, but we say what we think anyway. That's the point, remember?

 

 

 

Saying that-- your thoughts are acknowledged, as they should be.

Interesting posts by Myah.

 

 

 

Faith was only supposed to live for a few minutes and be totally unconscious. When she was born the doctors realized that she was totally conscious and acting like a normal baby (she could obviously feel, hear, and has reflexes beyond the brain stem's capabilities) and suspected that she was misdiagnosed. A neuro-surgeon was consulted and he ordered a CAT scan for Faith. He and 2 other specialists were amazed to find that she did only have a primitive brain. There only explanation was "There are some things we just can't explain..."

 

from reddit

 

 

 

Be VERY careful what you write about my daughter and I. Those of you who have suggested killing/raping my infant daughter, do you really think your identity can't be traced and criminal charges laid against you? Still think it's funny? Bottom line: find a way to permanently remove that disgusting forum and those incriminating comments before I take them to the police. I am really not bluffing.

 

from her blog

What's rape got to do with her daughter?

 

 

 

Just wondering, where does she say that 'God will perform miracles' for Faith?, because lots of people keep using this as a point.

 

 

 

Her Christianity is a factor in her life (chose not to kill her child) but I don't think she is keeping her child purely because God will perform miracles. As other people have said, she is already attached to her child. I think any mother (including non-religious ones) would keep their child as long as possible even if they were born with a disorder/disability if they were already attached to their child.

Rape? What the hell?

 

 

 

Anyway, the post about the primitive brain is interesting.

 

Since Faith has access to a pure human larynx, her consciousness/consciousness of animals sharing mental capacity might be able to be gauged. She can... speak (or maybe try and form words. Depends on her brain development. This would disprove the biological machine theories and all of that mechanistic thought)

 

 

 

Any details about her brain?

 

 

 

Hmm, maybe she'll turn out to be 'productive' after all. I guess the word anencephaly in title is now... false?

Rape? What the hell?

 

 

 

Anyway, the post about the primitive brain is interesting.

 

Since Faith has access to a pure human larynx, her consciousness/consciousness of animals sharing mental capacity might be able to be gauged. She can... speak (or maybe try and form words. Depends on her brain development. This would disprove the biological machine theories and all of that mechanistic thought)

 

 

 

Any details about her brain?

 

 

 

Hmm, maybe she'll turn out to be 'productive' after all. I guess the word anencephaly in title is now... false?

 

I don't think it would be false because the majority of her brain, skull and scalp is probably still absent.

Rape? What the hell?

 

 

 

Anyway, the post about the primitive brain is interesting.

 

Since Faith has access to a pure human larynx, her consciousness/consciousness of animals sharing mental capacity might be able to be gauged. She can... speak (or maybe try and form words. Depends on her brain development. This would disprove the biological machine theories and all of that mechanistic thought)

 

 

 

Any details about her brain?

 

 

 

Hmm, maybe she'll turn out to be 'productive' after all. I guess the word anencephaly in title is now... false?

 

 

 

She's missing a large portion of her brain which is for thinking and stuff. The bit of brain she does has controls her reflex actions, breathing and her heart. I've read every post in her blog and there's no doubt that she's insane. Anyone who disagrees with her child is the spawn of the devil himself.