I've been reading up on various solutions to this problem.

 

 

 

I believe IBM is working on a computer project involving artificial neocortical columns, which imitates a layer of brain matter in information transfer.

 

 

 

Perhaps Faith can be the first to have a fully functioning brain of silica?

 

 

 

If she survives long enough, of course. Though the Blue Brain project is a long way off, still. And I don't know how up-to-date this book in my hand is.

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.

 

I would here bring up the point that 99.999999999999999% of the world's three year olds require more input then the output they provide.

 

 

 

Just about any child needs more input than what they contribute. If we let them live, they may end up with more output than input overall.

 

 

 

However, since it wasn't worded right, we should kill all children technically.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Again, I bring up the point of starting and ending with you.

 

 

 

Nobody would ever approve on mass genocide for the "economy", we'd do more damage having no people to grow up to stimulate and preserve the economy.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

So when somebody retires they're signing their own death?

 

 

 

You really can't be serious about that man. :|

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Society isn't a machine in which worn cogs are scrapped and replaced.

 

We have not become mechanical yet.

 

I think this is good. We should revel in our humanity for as long as it lasts. And that includes enjoyment of life beyond working for the greater hive.

 

 

 

Though giving up one's life for the many is admirable and what I believe should be done-- I like the idea that we have the choice to do so.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Its Springtime for Hitler and Germany.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Its Springtime for Hitler and Germany.

 

True. This is one of those situations where comparing someone's views to Hitler is becoming increasingly justified. I can't believe where this thread is going.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Its Springtime for Hitler and Germany.

 

True. This is one of those situations where comparing someone's views to Hitler is becoming increasingly justified. I can't believe where this thread is going.

 

 

 

I can see this thread getting locked before too long.

 

 

 

And Robert, I won't even say what Sworddude said, but we will start and end with you. Seriously, everyone drop the damn thing. Everyone's dark side here is pretty prevalent, and just about every one of you disgust me. I remember now why I hate OT so much.

 

 

 

So the baby doesn't contribute much, if at all(except immense joy to the mother, however delusional), it doesn't mean we need to kill it, just let nature take it's course. Seriously, the baby isn't hurting anything, and you all are going off as though the baby is a heretic and needs to be killed. I am [bleep]ing sick of this [cabbage].

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Its Springtime for Hitler and Germany.

 

True. This is one of those situations where comparing someone's views to Hitler is becoming increasingly justified. I can't believe where this thread is going.

 

 

 

I can see this thread getting locked before too long.

 

 

 

And Robert, I won't even say what Sworddude said, but we will start and end with you. Seriously, everyone drop the damn thing. Everyone's dark side here is pretty prevalent, and just about every one of you disgust me. I remember now why I hate OT so much.

 

 

 

So the baby doesn't contribute much, if at all(except immense joy to the mother, however delusional), it doesn't mean we need to kill it, just let nature take it's course. Seriously, the baby isn't hurting anything, and you all are going off as though the baby is a heretic and needs to be killed. I am [bleep] sick of this [cabbage].

 

There are 3 kinds of people in this thread.

 

The people who believe that keeping the baby alive is a waste of time.

 

The people who believe the mother should do what she wants.

 

And the people who believe that anyone who doesn't contribute to society must die.

 

 

 

Only one of those is actually evil.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

Its Springtime for Hitler and Germany.

 

True. This is one of those situations where comparing someone's views to Hitler is becoming increasingly justified. I can't believe where this thread is going.

 

 

 

I can see this thread getting locked before too long.

 

 

 

And Robert, I won't even say what Sworddude said, but we will start and end with you. Seriously, everyone drop the damn thing. Everyone's dark side here is pretty prevalent, and just about every one of you disgust me. I remember now why I hate OT so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comes with the territory.

 

Anonymity allows for all speech inhibitions to be carved away.

 

 

 

It is expected that people would act out on initial emotions alone when they post something.

 

It is normal to disgust and try to kill something seemingly unnatural--the same feeling of revulsion many of us get from watching a twitchy, antennae-flailing cockroach skitter amongst garbage.

 

 

 

It is not a good thing. But we tend to be less thoughtful of what happens to others when we impulsively post on the internet.

 

 

 

Many still want her to be dead even after much logical analysis. This still may be faulty, however, and perhaps all of our conclusions are premature.

 

 

 

I'm sure that after much thought and information transfer between us all, we could come to some sort of agreement based on our amassed data.

 

 

 

That's what fora are here for, I believe.

 

 

 

All of this discussion would have a greater point and perhaps yield more sensitive posts if the mother herself was a member here. Then we could actually effect change instead of aimlessly ramble, like I'm doing right now.

I still don't understand why you think it's wrong for a woman to keep her own baby alive when she is paying her own money to do so.

 

 

 

It's a waste of time and money on her part, but there's nothing really "wrong" with it, it's her money, her baby, and her choice.

I still don't understand why you think it's wrong for a woman to keep her own baby alive when she is paying her own money to do so.

 

 

 

It's a waste of time and money on her part, but there's nothing really "wrong" with it, it's her money, her baby, and her choice.

 

 

 

Yes, but some people feel she is wasting the time of the doctors and medication etc...

 

 

 

But as far as I see, she's paying them for a service which they are then required to provide, not a waste of time if they gain money.

I still don't understand why you think it's wrong for a woman to keep her own baby alive when she is paying her own money to do so.

 

 

 

I?

 

There is nothing wrong in the short run.

 

She is a source of joy in a very depressing time, and her movements are a symbol of hope.

 

Maybe she is all the mother has to even stay alive.

 

 

 

But the doctors, who I'm going to assume are right at this moment in time, have diagnosed anencephaly. Meaning that death is inevitable within a short period of time. The longest living baby with this condition was 2 years old, I believe.

 

 

 

It will be worse for the mother to create such a bond with this baby because she will be taken away so soon.

 

 

 

Though I see now that what's done is done, and there is no changing the situation. Unless the mother herself is convinced of reality, carries out the termination herself, and feels no sadness because she realizes that Faith is not alive.

 

 

 

You could allow natural death, but maybe the mother would have still attributed human qualities to the child at the time of death. That would be devastating.

 

 

 

I was simply trying to see what would've been best in the long run. But I am an objective spectator, and am not tangled in Myah's web of emotions. I do not have a choice in the matter, though I do wish to express my views here.

 

 

 

Maybe I can directly contact her, but something tells me she will not want to listen. And hey, there may be the slight chance that she is right, and that the doctors misdiagnosed Faith. But at present time, I do not trust her exclamations and put them down to delusion.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you?

 

 

 

But the doctors, who I'm going to assume are right at this moment in time, have diagnosed anencephaly. Meaning that death is inevitable within a short period of time. The longest living baby with this condition was 2 years old, I believe.

 

 

 

It will be worse for the mother to create such a bond with this baby because she will be taken away so soon.

 

 

 

That argument can be used for any terminally ill patient. If your daughter was diagnosed with a deadly cancer and she had six months to live, I doubt you'd think it would be in your best interest to have her die ASAP to "prevent the bond from becoming stronger and the loss from becoming greater".

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.

 

It is likely... a stressor as big as having a completely nonfunctional child is very likely to cause mental illness of some kind. And even if she is deluded and not at all mentally ill it is certainly possible that it could develop. Living in a fabricated reality (she thinks her child is functional, attributes random twitches as signs of it not being a vegetable, she isn't all there) for very long will have a harmful effect, such as manifestation of progressive mental problems.

 

 

 

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.

 

No, not suggesting that society or the government do anything. When I wrote that I was thinking of friends/family giving the push, not society. Something will give the push eventually, like the child dying or insurance refusing to pay (not sure if insurance is involved but since medical care is so expensive I am assuming so). I did not say that the child should be forcibly taken from her by the government, ideologically I would be strongly against that. I think she needs to be guided towards the most beneficial solution but it is not the government or society's place to do so, that's a slippery slope.

 

 

 

Also, stop with the "society's well being" argument. I don't give a damn about society. Only thing I have any real feeling for in this is the mother and her psychological well-being. The baby isn't a problem for society and I am not claiming that it is, make sure you correctly comprehend someone's argument before attempting to oppose it. It is a problem for the mother, and she fails to see that, and she needs to be helped to make the correct decision.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Schizophrenia is characterized by deficient capability to perceive the world around us. Delusional individuals, if left alone, can develop schizophrenia (it isn't a guarantee, and my wording was a little too absolute). I also never said she has a pre-existing case of "underlying" schizophrenia, like I said above, make sure you comprehend what you are opposing. Oh yeah, "realization of her own delusion" wouldn't trigger schizophrenia, it would prevent it.

 

 

 

And lastly, I told you I wasn't trying to diagnose her, I stated twice in my original post that I wasn't - I doubt you even read all of it. I was simply stating my opinion and I don't think I made myself look foolish - maybe to you, but you seem incapable of deriving meaning from my words. I think there is a fool here, but it isn't me.

 

 

 

EDIT: In case I haven't made it clear already I am going to state that I am not one of those who espouses Hitler-esque beliefs and I do not wish to be incorrectly labeled - especially when dealing with such potentially destructive beliefs. If you seem to think I do then it is either a failure of comprehension on your part or a poor choice of words on mine.

 

 

 

EDIT2: Hey, venomai - remember this? Probably not, you didn't read my whole post...

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".

So, I don't know what to say here... "look before you leap" maybe?

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

 

 

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you?

 

 

 

But the doctors, who I'm going to assume are right at this moment in time, have diagnosed anencephaly. Meaning that death is inevitable within a short period of time. The longest living baby with this condition was 2 years old, I believe.

 

 

 

It will be worse for the mother to create such a bond with this baby because she will be taken away so soon.

 

 

 

That argument can be used for any terminally ill patient. If your daughter was diagnosed with a deadly cancer and she had six months to live, I doubt you'd think it would be in your best interest to have her die ASAP to "prevent the bond from becoming stronger and the loss from becoming greater".

 

 

 

My daughter and I would have already had a life together, and I would've loved her. I would want to savor her remaining moments. The bond would already be at it's greatest, and I would have something capable of bonding to actually love.

 

 

 

This baby is a new addition to Myah's life. It could have been regarded as either object, or new being. I believe it to be an object, incapable of ever being considered human.

 

 

 

She chose to see it as a person. And is bonding with something that can't bond back. She will feel like I would with my hypothetical cancer-ridden daughter if this continues, as in, she would be emotionally ravaged.

 

 

 

It would cause unnecessary emotional pain for her to create an attachment with this object and have it ripped away. It would be better for her to realize that Faith may as well be a teddy bear, and move on to another child who can actually appreciate her love.

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

So when somebody retires they're signing their own death?

 

 

 

You really can't be serious about that man. :|

 

No. Someone who has retired has serviced their country for many years and deserve respect.

 

 

 

 

 

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you?

 

No, because I am not a waste of resources. I am capable of contributing to society.

 

 

 

Nobody would ever approve on mass genocide for the "economy", we'd do more damage having no people to grow up to stimulate and preserve the economy.

 

When the hell is the last time you ever saw someone with Down's Syndrome stimulating our economy?

 

I fail to see how anyone could accept stem cell research and not this. This is killing people today for a better future tomorrow. Eventually we could completely eliminate diseases like Down's Syndrome and Autism.

Nobody would ever approve on mass genocide for the "economy", we'd do more damage having no people to grow up to stimulate and preserve the economy.

 

When the hell is the last time you ever saw someone with Down's Syndrome stimulating our economy?

 

I fail to see how anyone could accept stem cell research and not this. This is killing people today for a better future tomorrow. Eventually we could completely eliminate diseases like Down's Syndrome and Autism.

 

 

 

I believe they can actually be taught to do some menial jobs, which in turn help to stimulate the economy.

 

 

 

Name me one exsisting government that will approve your mass genocide, without causing a war.

 

 

 

[bleep]ing nazis.

[hide=]

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

So when somebody retires they're signing their own death?

 

 

 

You really can't be serious about that man. :|

 

No. Someone who has retired has serviced their country for many years and deserve respect.

 

 

 

 

 

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you?

 

No, because I am not a waste of resources. I am capable of contributing to society.

 

 

 

Nobody would ever approve on mass genocide for the "economy", we'd do more damage having no people to grow up to stimulate and preserve the economy.

 

When the hell is the last time you ever saw someone with Down's Syndrome stimulating our economy?

 

I fail to see how anyone could accept stem cell research and not this. This is killing people today for a better future tomorrow. Eventually we could completely eliminate diseases like Down's Syndrome and Autism.

[/hide]

 

 

 

That which is evil in the name of good is worse then what is genuinly evil. If we start wiping out whole swaths of our population pretending its going to work your going to see the reality; there will always be a bottom end of society, and unless you intend to kill everyone you wont stop that. Sure is convienent that you use contribution to society as your parameter, maybe the person put in charge will decide only the top 1% for intelligence can truly contribute; seems like that would screw over a lot of people who are a whole lot more useful then you.

[hide=]

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

So when somebody retires they're signing their own death?

 

 

 

You really can't be serious about that man. :|

 

No. Someone who has retired has serviced their country for many years and deserve respect.

 

 

 

 

 

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you?

 

No, because I am not a waste of resources. I am capable of contributing to society.

 

 

 

Nobody would ever approve on mass genocide for the "economy", we'd do more damage having no people to grow up to stimulate and preserve the economy.

 

When the hell is the last time you ever saw someone with Down's Syndrome stimulating our economy?

 

I fail to see how anyone could accept stem cell research and not this. This is killing people today for a better future tomorrow. Eventually we could completely eliminate diseases like Down's Syndrome and Autism.

[/hide]

 

 

 

That which is evil in the name of good is worse then what is genuinly evil. If we start wiping out whole swaths of our population pretending its going to work your going to see the reality; there will always be a bottom end of society, and unless you intend to kill everyone you wont stop that. Sure is convienent that you use contribution to society as your parameter, maybe the person put in charge will decide only the top 1% for intelligence can truly contribute; seems like that would screw over a lot of people who are a whole lot more useful then you.

 

 

 

The way you put it sounds like Death Note.

 

 

 

Killing the criminals for the greater good. However, Kira was seen as a criminal himself, even worse for considering himself a "God".

[hide=]

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

 

So when somebody retires they're signing their own death?

 

 

 

You really can't be serious about that man. :|

 

No. Someone who has retired has serviced their country for many years and deserve respect.

 

 

 

 

 

What if someone came up to you and said you are a waste of resources? Does that justify them murdering you?

 

No, because I am not a waste of resources. I am capable of contributing to society.

 

 

 

Nobody would ever approve on mass genocide for the "economy", we'd do more damage having no people to grow up to stimulate and preserve the economy.

 

When the hell is the last time you ever saw someone with Down's Syndrome stimulating our economy?

 

I fail to see how anyone could accept stem cell research and not this. This is killing people today for a better future tomorrow. Eventually we could completely eliminate diseases like Down's Syndrome and Autism.

[/hide]

 

 

 

That which is evil in the name of good is worse then what is genuinly evil. If we start wiping out whole swaths of our population pretending its going to work your going to see the reality; there will always be a bottom end of society, and unless you intend to kill everyone you wont stop that. Sure is convienent that you use contribution to society as your parameter, maybe the person put in charge will decide only the top 1% for intelligence can truly contribute; seems like that would screw over a lot of people who are a whole lot more useful then you.

 

 

 

The way you put it sounds like Death Note.

 

 

 

Killing the criminals for the greater good. However, Kira was seen as a criminal himself, even worse for considering himself a "God".

 

 

 

best manga ever, difference is kira killed people who had commited crimes(and casualties to continue his plan). The other main difference was that Kira's plan had a chance of ending crime as opposed to Robert's plan which is just going to involve killing people until the end of time.

God Robert, I sure hope you never hold a position of power... :?

No, because I am not a waste of resources. I am capable of contributing to society.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter. The point is that they claimed you are a waste of resources in their eyes and to them your rebuttals don't matter at all - much like our rebuttals of "the baby contributes happiness" doesn't matter to you. I guess what I'm trying to say here is you're no more of a supreme judge than anyone else. This is the same foundation of Hitler's ideals. Call me immature but it's true.

 

 

 

My daughter and I would have already had a life together, and I would've loved her. I would want to savor her remaining moments. The bond would already be at it's greatest, and I would have something capable of bonding to actually love.

 

 

 

This baby is a new addition to Myah's life. It could have been regarded as either object, or new being. I believe it to be an object, incapable of ever being considered human.

 

 

 

If the emotional bond has the capability of "peaking" then what makes you so sure that the mother and daughter's bonds hasn't already reached this point? You say that she is a new addition to her life. Well in the eyes of a 70 year-old-man, couldn't he just as easily say that your daughter is merely a new addition to your life and shouldn't be put on the same level as the much longer bond he's had with his daughter?

 

 

 

She chose to see it as a person. And is bonding with something that can't bond back. She will feel like I would with my hypothetical cancer-ridden daughter if this continues, as in, she would be emotionally ravaged.

 

 

 

It would cause unnecessary emotional pain for her to create an attachment with this object and have it ripped away. It would be better for her to realize that Faith may as well be a teddy bear, and move on to another child who can actually appreciate her love.

 

 

 

She is a person and whether she bonds back or not is besides the point. People have had emotional attachments to mentally handicapped people, animals, and even inanimate objects since the beginning of time. This doesn't mean people who cherish their pets need to give up loving them because pets don't live long and cannot love them back.

 

 

 

In a sense, we're all setting ourselves up for emotional pain, unless we completely isolate ourselves from society and become hermits. There are going to be losses in everyone's lives, especially in the context in which we're speaking.

 

 

 

there will always be a bottom end of society

 

 

 

Great point. =D>

Wow.

 

 

 

This happens a lot, I learn something or hear something on the television, and then I see it in the news.

 

 

 

Anyway, I was watching Unsolved Mysteries, and it was talking about this mummified mini-human, that scientists believe had Anencephaly.

 

 

 

Anyway, I think she made the wrong decision.

 

 

 

But, it really depends on your mind set, it's like adopting a mortally-ill dog (sorry to sound so blunt). The chances of this baby living for very long are minuscule, so I wonder if she's in the mindset that she'll lose it sooner, rather than later.

 

 

 

However, terminating the pregnancy could be just as traumatic, depends on your views of what is alive, and what isn't.

 

 

 

Touching story regardless.