Mother gives birth to a baby with Anencephaly.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Baby should be put down, not going to do anything at all in her life, if live to even see her first birthday, I'd tell the mother to let go if it was me, I mean yeah, you love your children, especially when they're a baby, but this is a little far.

 

 

 

/end-thread.

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

I'm not productive :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

I remember you, but just for the sake of clowns on this forum, I don't consider skipping your English essay not productive, I consider not being able to even lift your arm not productive.

[llcoolguy972]

Baby should be put down, not going to do anything at all in her life, if live to even see her first birthday, I'd tell the mother to let go if it was me, I mean yeah, you love your children, especially when they're a baby, but this is a little far.

 

 

 

/end-thread.

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

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

 

 

 

On the other hand, killing it would be wrong.

 

No, "killing" it would just be. The child is not alive. It cannot function on its own; it is a hollow shell that happens to look like a baby.

 

It doesn't matter, every one of you disgust me, the lot of you are barbaric.

 

 

 

Put yourself in the mother's shoes. You carried a kid for nine months, only to find out it's anencephalic. Would you want it to die, or would you try to care for it for a bit?

 

 

 

Goddamn guys, try to understand this from their point of view.

 

I sympathize with this woman, I really do. No one should have to have a choice like this and I understand that her judgment may be clouded. The people around her do not deserve sympathy. They should be able to think logically and help her through this situation.

[Zierro]

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 remember you, but just for the sake of clowns on this forum, I don't consider skipping your English essay not productive, I consider not being able to even lift your arm not productive.

 

 

 

And what does "productive" mean? I didn't know life was supposed to be some sort of mission of efficiency.

[Riku3220]

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 remember you, but just for the sake of clowns on this forum, I don't consider skipping your English essay not productive, I consider not being able to even lift your arm not productive.

 

 

 

And what does "productive" mean?

 

She's multicellular and eukaryotic so she's more complex? Hell at least bacteria live to reproduce which is more than what Faith has done or will do.

[baalboy5]

Yeah where the father in all this by the way? Whats his view?

[Kenshinjapan]

Baby should be put down, not going to do anything at all in her life, if live to even see her first birthday, I'd tell the mother to let go if it was me, I mean yeah, you love your children, especially when they're a baby, but this is a little far.

 

 

 

/end-thread.

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

 

 

Exactly. By that logic, more than half of my school should be dead right now. If anything, this baby will drain less on society than most of them.

[WookieeMania12]

 

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.

 

 

 

Whats the point of killing a baby thats going to die in a couple of months? The mother doesn't want to kill her child, so she's going to let the child live as long as she can. I don't see why thats disagreeable with the lot here. Killing the baby would just be plain cruel and barbaric.

[llcoolguy972]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Whats the point of killing a baby thats going to die in a couple of months? The mother doesn't want to kill her child, so she's going to let the child live as long as she can. I don't see why thats disagreeable with the lot here. Killing the baby would just be plain cruel and barbaric.

 

What's the point of wasting a significant amount of time, money, and energy on something that's going to die in a couple of months. See, that works both ways. And I love all the "nazis" and "barbarians" that are being thrown around. Really shows something about your maturity.

[killerbeer0]

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

You are aware that when I mean someone, I also mean a few elderly people that need medical support to live a bit longer. I think the Third Reich is calling you for duty.

 

 

 

Why should the elderly spend society's money (yes, society's money: medicare, social security, etc.) to live longer? Those resources could be better spent to help potentially productive members of society.

 

 

 

And holy [cabbage] 5 posts had been submitted since I started this post...

[venomai]

There's a difference between the choice to abort a potential LIVING baby, and the "choice" to euthanize this empty shell of a human. All it can do is drain resources, nothing more. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead.

 

There is little difference. Both are choices to be made by the mother, and both include a living human.

 

 

 

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

 

The baby is a living organism, i.e. she is alive. Whether she is an intelligent person is irrelevant to whether we ought to kill her against the mother's wishes. Refer to my earlier post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored.

 

 

 

Baby should be put down, not going to do anything at all in her life

 

Who cares what the baby will or will not do? She brings a great deal of joy to those close to her, and she brings hope to many others. If the mother is happy to care for an unintelligent child at her own expense, there is no reason we should deny her of that right.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Since you're going to be a smart-[wagon], let me say this. If you have no brain, you need to be killed, not because I'm mean, or rude, because I'm serious, think about it, this baby is not going to be able to grow up and have a house of her own with a husband, it's not going to happen, I'm not saying if you don't have a house of your own you need to die, that was just an example.

[wild_goat_14]

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.

 

 

 

Bacteria has a purpose. This empty shell doesn't. :|

[killerbeer0]

Whats the point of killing a baby thats going to die in a couple of months? The mother doesn't want to kill her child, so she's going to let the child live as long as she can. I don't see why thats disagreeable with the lot here. Killing the baby would just be plain cruel and barbaric.

 

 

 

Uhh, she isn't "letting it live" she's forcing it to live because she can't take the stress of losing a child, and keeping the hellspawn is a pathetic manifestation of the mother's denial. Let it die.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

You are aware that when I mean someone, I also mean a few elderly people that need medical support to live a bit longer. I think the Third Reich is calling you for duty.

 

 

 

Why should the elderly spend society's money (yes, society's money: medicare, social security, etc.) to live longer? Those resources could be better spent to help potentially productive members of society.

 

 

 

And holy [cabbage] 5 posts had been submitted since I started this post...

 

 

 

I can't wait to hear you say that when you're 80. See how young people declare you unworthy of living just because you have lived your life to the fullest and helped out your own society.

[Zierro]

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.

 

 

 

Bacteria has a purpose. This empty shell doesn't. :|

 

 

 

And what is that purpose...?

 

 

 

Why is nobody answering my questions about life being some sort of mission?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

She doesn't have all the qualities that a corpse has.

[Joes_So_Cool]

levant to whether we ought to kill her against the mother's wishes. Refer to my earlier post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored.

 

 

 

Baby should be put down, not going to do anything at all in her life

 

Who cares what the baby will or will not do? She brings a great deal of joy to those close to her, and she brings hope to many others. If the mother is happy to care for an unintelligent child at her own expense, there is no reason we should deny her of that right.

 

 

 

Never said we should deny her of any rights, I gave my opinion, I personally think this baby should be put down.

[Riku3220]

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

You are aware that when I mean someone, I also mean a few elderly people that need medical support to live a bit longer. I think the Third Reich is calling you for duty.

 

 

 

Why should the elderly spend society's money (yes, society's money: medicare, social security, etc.) to live longer? Those resources could be better spent to help potentially productive members of society.

 

 

 

And holy [cabbage] 5 posts had been submitted since I started this post...

 

The senior citizens get money from us because they've made their contribution to society and deserve to live a comfortable life because of it.

[llcoolguy972]

There's a difference between the choice to abort a potential LIVING baby, and the "choice" to euthanize this empty shell of a human. All it can do is drain resources, nothing more. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead.

 

There is little difference. Both are choices to be made by the mother, and both include a living human.

 

There is a big difference. It's like saying we have the choice to cremate a corpse, so we also have a choice to cremate a living person. This baby is "living" simply by reflex. It isn't aware it's breathing, it doesn't know its heart is beating, it is simply a reflex.

 

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

 

The baby is a living organism, i.e. she is alive. Whether she is an intelligent person is irrelevant to whether we ought to kill her against the mother's wishes. Refer to my earlier post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored.

 

I didn't see what your other post had to do with this, but simply because its an organism doesn't mean it should be kept alive. If an animal was born with this syndrome, it would die, there wouldn't be any effort to maintain the "life" because there is none.

[killerbeer0]

I can't wait to hear you say that when you're 80. See how young people declare you unworthy of living just because you have lived your life to the fullest and helped out your own society.

 

 

 

I won't live that long (I'll kill myself either on purpose or by accident) and I don't care about society enough help it. You falsely assume that I view death negatively, instead I see it as a very defined thing right between good and bad.

 

 

 

I didn't say they are unworthy of living. But if they "lived their [lives] to the fullest and helped out society" they shouldn't ride on someone-else's paycheck to stay alive past their own body's ability to function. They'd be undoing their contribution to society. Selfish [bleep]s spending my hard earned money on their daily dialysis and [cabbage] like that. Do your part and die, I will.

[WookieeMania12]

 

 

 

So, if somone isn't productive, we might as well put them down?

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

You are aware that when I mean someone, I also mean a few elderly people that need medical support to live a bit longer. I think the Third Reich is calling you for duty.

 

 

 

Why should the elderly spend society's money (yes, society's money: medicare, social security, etc.) to live longer? Those resources could be better spent to help potentially productive members of society.

 

 

 

 

Wow, isn't that great? Todays generation doesn't want to help the elderly.

 

 

 

Whats the point of killing a baby thats going to die in a couple of months? The mother doesn't want to kill her child, so she's going to let the child live as long as she can. I don't see why thats disagreeable with the lot here. Killing the baby would just be plain cruel and barbaric.

 

 

 

Uhh, she isn't "letting it live" she's forcing it to live because she can't take the stress of losing a child, and keeping the hellspawn is a pathetic manifestation of the mother's denial. Let it die.

 

 

 

Its going to die eventually. I'm sorry if you can't understand this, the mother is not going to knife the baby. Even though the baby is going to die, its one of the mother's joy to care for the child. She's paying for the baby, whats the problem with that exactly?

 

 

 

Since you're going to be a smart-[wagon], let me say this. If you have no brain, you need to be killed, not because I'm mean, or rude, because I'm serious, think about it, this baby is not going to be able to grow up and have a house of her own with a husband, it's not going to happen, I'm not saying if you don't have a house of your own you need to die, that was just an example.

 

 

 

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. Like many people said, the baby is a symbol of joy for the mother and close friends/relatives. Let them enjoy it while they can instead of recommending the baby to be put down. What would be the point or purpose of putting the baby down?

[Joes_So_Cool]

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.

[llcoolguy972]

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.

 

 

 

Bacteria has a purpose. This empty shell doesn't. :|

 

 

 

And what is that purpose...?

 

 

 

Why is nobody answering my questions about life being some sort of mission?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

She doesn't have all the qualities that a corpse has.

 

She can't have a life, she'll never be able to. She doesn't have a brain to do ANYTHING. I'm not saying life has a clearly defined purpose, but she won't be able to go through it. Also, I wasn't saying she was a corpse, I was simply refuting your argument that just because something's more complex, it's therefore alive.

[Zierro]

The senior citizens get money from us because they've made their contribution to society and deserve to live a comfortable life because of it.

 

 

 

How do you know that every senior citizen put in more than what they took? Just because you're old doesn't mean you definitely contributed something to get to this point. There are plenty of bums, criminals, couch-potatoes, and WoW players around who contributed squat.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[wild_goat_14]

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.

 

 

 

Bacteria has a purpose. This empty shell doesn't. :|

 

 

 

And what is that purpose...?

 

 

 

Why is nobody answering my questions about life being some sort of mission?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

This is, by scientific description, a human. But it is not a sentient human being. It is, for lack of a better term, as someone said, an organic poop machine.

[killerbeer0]

Killing it would only cause emotional damage to the mother.

 

 

 

This is gonna mess her up badly either way.