Does a murderer "do anything special"?

 

It depends who he kills, really. If a person killed, say, the current Prime Minister, that would be a worry. But if a jobless junkie is killed, well, that's a bit more money the tax-payers get to keep, isn't it? Of course that's undone tenfold by the cost of sending the person to jail....

 

 

 

So it's ok for a jobless junkie to be murdered?

 

Quite frankly, yes. People need to realize that not all lives are equally valuable. Some lives are simply worth more than others and this baby's life is worthless. There's absolutely no way for it to contribute anything to society, so, logically, it should be euthanized.

 

This is absolutely barbaric.

 

 

 

Just because a homeless person (or for that matter somebody who lives in a tent in the woods, somebody who is severely disabled, or even just a couch potato) doesn't "contribute to society" in the same way that, say, a doctor or a fireman would doesn't mean we have the right to kill them. This is a horrible, horrible perspective.

 

 

 

As I have said before, even children who are severely disabled and do not live a full or healthy life bring a great deal of joy to the parents.

 

 

 

Let's take a step back, for a second. I hate to reduce this child to a mere pet, but it seems the best way for you dim-witted barbarians to understand the basics of happiness and life.

 

 

 

Say a mother has an animal which she loves dearly, and treats as a child rather than a pet. She is aware that this animal is greatly unintelligent, and will die in a short number of years (yet, even so, she sometimes deludes herself into thinking that the animal is more intelligent than it really is). The animal is sick, and the cost of keeping it alive is steep. Yet, even so, this animal brings her an incredible amount of joy, and she wishes to be with it for as long as she can.

 

 

 

Does she have the right to keep the animal alive, even at the cost of her own salary? Yes, of course.

 

Is it her decision to make? Yes, of course.

 

 

 

From our third-party perspective, it may seem most rational to just put down the animal, but it's ultimately not our call, nor should we have any say in the matter.

 

 

 

it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

 

An elderly person consumes medical resources. A celebrity consumes media resources. All children consume "their mother's resources."

 

 

 

This baby is not "taking" anything significant from us, no more than any other person or even animal would. So long as the parent continues to pay the costs of medical attention, there is no problem here.

Heh, funny stuff..

 

 

 

My sister, Lily, pointed this out to me, as my name is Faith. After presenting the news to me she jeered a bit, "haaaa haaa! How fitting!" (re: the brainlessness of the baby) I laughed it off and started reading the page, following links, so on, so forth, and I stumbled across Faith Hope's mother's friends, and then followed a link to another blog, which also was centered around a baby with Anencephaly, much like Faith Hope's story, except this baby has actually died. Her name is Lily.

 

 

 

http://lilyblessings.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

I showed this to my sister (who I previously mentioned, her name is also Lily) and she scoffed. I thought it was a strange coincidence and I wanted to share.

 

 

 

I have no solid thoughts on the matter, so I'm going to sit back and watch you guys debate.

I noticed something with the common morals going on in this thread.

 

Maybe not all animals are equally valuable, but I believe that humans are. I don't think we have the right to kill a human being regardless of what they may or may not be "worth".

 

Good guy in X-Men movies

 

 

 

Quite frankly, yes. People need to realize that not all lives are equally valuable. Some lives are simply worth more than others and this baby's life is worthless. There's absolutely no way for it to contribute anything to society, so, logically, it should be euthanized.

 

Bad guy in X-Men movies

Well, I highly doubt even if she wanted to, a doctor would euthanize the child. I am pretty sure they would be in a lot of trouble for killing a living human being, and probably have their license revoked. Beyond that, it is the mothers choice. Who cares if the child is expensive or a "hassle" to care for. It may be in fact, much easier to care for than a fully functioning infant (crying and such). The baby obviously is not in pain, because it lacks the basic brain functions for such a response, so let it live out the rest of its short life. It is in itself a miracle that it has lived now for nine weeks and more than likely as already stated, will die within a few months. I think that they should just let the baby die when it dies and not intervene.

I would be in no hurry to kill her. They should probably just let the baby's short life run its course, she won't live long. I agree with the standard procedure that is decribed in Wikipedia. Don't do it like with baby K, don't attach her to a resporator, just provide nourishment and comfort.

 

 

 

The mother does not want to accept the facts about this child, and she is turning to religion for comfort. That is completely understandable, and proabably not unusual.

 

In her latest blog post, I love her comments about the "internet terrorists." Under demonic forces, definitely.

 

 

 

What else can you expect if people are posting that the baby should die? I'm glad the mother is sticking with her decision, at least she cares about her baby, even though it'll probably die.

 

 

Good point. Some of the things said on this thread are ridiculous. And I forgot to mention - Props to her for persevering. (Or being stubborn, depending on how you want to look at it)

 

 

 

 

But it doesn't take nothing, it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

 

So you basically want to execute her for a "crime against society", which she has had absolutely no effect in? There are many people who have had much, much more negative effects on this world, yet they are still alive. Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

 

Not to mention she does actually have some positive influence. She makes her mother happy. Her happy mother probably makes other people happy. Killing the "baby" would barely lessen its negative influence (which I admit exists), and perhaps even increase it.

 

I don't even get why this is up for debate. It's obvious that you'd kill it if you were in her situation, and I probably would too - But we aren't in that situation. This woman is, this is what she's doing, and the choice is hers and hers only.

 

In her latest blog post, I love her comments about the "internet terrorists." Under demonic forces, definitely.

 

 

 

What else can you expect if people are posting that the baby should die? I'm glad the mother is sticking with her decision, at least she cares about her baby, even though it'll probably die.

 

 

Good point. Some of the things said on this thread are ridiculous. And I forgot to mention - Props to her for persevering. (Or being stubborn, depending on how you want to look at it)

 

 

 

 

But it doesn't take nothing, it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

 

So you basically want to execute her for a "crime against society", which she has had absolutely no effect in? There are many people who have had much, much more negative effects on this world, yet they are still alive. Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

 

Not to mention she does actually have some positive influence. She makes her mother happy. Her happy mother probably makes other people happy. Killing the "baby" would barely lessen its negative influence (which I admit exists), and perhaps even increase it.

 

I don't even get why this is up for debate. It's obvious that you'd kill it if you were in her situation, and I probably would too - But we aren't in that situation. This woman is, this is what she's doing, and the choice is hers and hers only.

 

The baby is a waste of resources that could be going to something or somebody that needs it more. The mother is fairly deranged as far as I can see "Can't wait to go for a stroll with faith" even though it cannot hear, talk, feel, think or even realise it exists.

 

In her latest blog post, I love her comments about the "internet terrorists." Under demonic forces, definitely.

 

 

 

What else can you expect if people are posting that the baby should die? I'm glad the mother is sticking with her decision, at least she cares about her baby, even though it'll probably die.

 

 

Good point. Some of the things said on this thread are ridiculous. And I forgot to mention - Props to her for persevering. (Or being stubborn, depending on how you want to look at it)

 

 

 

 

But it doesn't take nothing, it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

 

So you basically want to execute her for a "crime against society", which she has had absolutely no effect in? There are many people who have had much, much more negative effects on this world, yet they are still alive. Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

 

Not to mention she does actually have some positive influence. She makes her mother happy. Her happy mother probably makes other people happy. Killing the "baby" would barely lessen its negative influence (which I admit exists), and perhaps even increase it.

 

I don't even get why this is up for debate. It's obvious that you'd kill it if you were in her situation, and I probably would too - But we aren't in that situation. This woman is, this is what she's doing, and the choice is hers and hers only.

 

The baby is a waste of resources that could be going to something or somebody that needs it more. The mother is fairly deranged as far as I can see "Can't wait to go for a stroll with faith" even though it cannot hear, talk, feel, think or even realise it exists.

 

 

 

I don't think this has to do with faith as much as you are saying. I think seeing her baby gives the mother joy, even though the baby is going to die in a couple months.

 

The baby is a waste of resources that could be going to something or somebody that needs it more. The mother is fairly deranged as far as I can see "Can't wait to go for a stroll with faith" even though it cannot hear, talk, feel, think or even realise it exists.

 

What waste of resources?

 

The mother's? I really doubt she'd donate the money she's spending to something more useful.

 

The doctors'? So you're saying whenever someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we should kill them ASAP, and not even bother treating them to relieve some symptoms?

 

Venomai had a good explanation - "This baby is not "taking" anything significant from us, no more than any other person or even animal would. So long as the parent continues to pay the costs of medical attention, there is no problem here."

Yikes, that's a terrible condition. Still, I support the mother for keeping it, it isn't something that's wired up to a machine, but it will never grow up to become a true person. That's a great pity, but that doesn't mean it should be denied life in an artificial manner.

 

 

 

Think of it this way, what is the point of a flower to us? It is a beautiful thing, something loved and cherished, and yet it serves no physical benefit to us. In fact, we'd probably be slightly better off if we never bothered with them. And yet millions of people around the world keep at least one flowering plant, because we appreciate what they are. Why deny that?

[hide=]

Does a murderer "do anything special"?

 

It depends who he kills, really. If a person killed, say, the current Prime Minister, that would be a worry. But if a jobless junkie is killed, well, that's a bit more money the tax-payers get to keep, isn't it? Of course that's undone tenfold by the cost of sending the person to jail....

 

 

 

So it's ok for a jobless junkie to be murdered?

 

Quite frankly, yes. People need to realize that not all lives are equally valuable. Some lives are simply worth more than others and this baby's life is worthless. There's absolutely no way for it to contribute anything to society, so, logically, it should be euthanized.

 

This is absolutely barbaric.

 

 

 

Just because a homeless person (or for that matter somebody who lives in a tent in the woods, somebody who is severely disabled, or even just a couch potato) doesn't "contribute to society" in the same way that, say, a doctor or a fireman would doesn't mean we have the right to kill them. This is a horrible, horrible perspective.

 

 

 

As I have said before, even children who are severely disabled and do not live a full or healthy life bring a great deal of joy to the parents.

 

 

 

Let's take a step back, for a second. I hate to reduce this child to a mere pet, but it seems the best way for you dim-witted barbarians to understand the basics of happiness and life.

 

 

 

Say a mother has an animal which she loves dearly, and treats as a child rather than a pet. She is aware that this animal is greatly unintelligent, and will die in a short number of years (yet, even so, she sometimes deludes herself into thinking that the animal is more intelligent than it really is). The animal is sick, and the cost of keeping it alive is steep. Yet, even so, this animal brings her an incredible amount of joy, and she wishes to be with it for as long as she can.

 

 

 

Does she have the right to keep the animal alive, even at the cost of her own salary? Yes, of course.

 

Is it her decision to make? Yes, of course.

 

 

 

From our third-party perspective, it may seem most rational to just put down the animal, but it's ultimately not our call, nor should we have any say in the matter.[/hide]

 

There's a commonality in your examples; everything is or has a potential to contribute to society. This child doesn't have that potential and it never will. A brain won't just appear in its head and say "HAI GUISE, SORRY IM LATE LULZ"

 

 

 

it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

 

An elderly person consumes medical resources. A celebrity consumes media resources. All children consume "their mother's resources."

 

 

 

This baby is not "taking" anything significant from us, no more than any other person or even animal would. So long as the parent continues to pay the costs of medical attention, there is no problem here.

 

Again, all of your examples contribute to society, while this child doesn't. The resources being used on the child can be better used other places.

 

 

 

 

But it doesn't take nothing, it takes resources from the doctors, the mother, the media, etc that would be used somewhere else. The child is impacting society in a negative way, which is all the more reason to euthanize it.

 

So you basically want to execute her for a "crime against society", which she has had absolutely no effect in? There are many people who have had much, much more negative effects on this world, yet they are still alive. Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

 

Not to mention she does actually have some positive influence. She makes her mother happy. Her happy mother probably makes other people happy. Killing the "baby" would barely lessen its negative influence (which I admit exists), and perhaps even increase it.

 

I don't even get why this is up for debate. It's obvious that you'd kill it if you were in her situation, and I probably would too - But we aren't in that situation. This woman is, this is what she's doing, and the choice is hers and hers only.

 

I never said the child committed a "crime against society." ( :roll: ) All the child is doing is draining resources that should be put to better use in other places (I feel like I'm repeating myself). Besides, the baby is doomed and all the mother is doing is setting herself up for more pain in the future when the child does die. Also, I would look up the term opportunity cost.

This disease is completely different from blindess, deafness mental illnesses or terminal cancer, it's nothing like it! So stop flaming people for wanting it dead replying with "But what about the blind ones? Ya gunna kill them too?!".

 

 

 

This baby has no brain, it can't see, hear, think and the movements? They will stop in a few more months, then the baby will become a complete vegetable, the mother who, depite doctors advice, continued with the pregnancy and has bonded with the child, whilst at the same time convinced herself that God will perform a miracle and grow the baby a brain. The baby isn't in pain but the mother will be, I think she's gone crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

Think of it this way, what is the point of a flower to us? It is a beautiful thing, something loved and cherished, and yet it serves no physical benefit to us. In fact, we'd probably be slightly better off if we never bothered with them. And yet millions of people around the world keep at least one flowering plant, because we appreciate what they are. Why deny that?

 

 

 

Of course flowers serve a purpose, they're there for the bees! Flowers make food for bees and sometimes humans aswell...We're not saying that everything has to serve a purpose to humans or else it should be killed.

The image on wikipedia looks like a frog :shock:

 

But if I was the mother, I would have aborted that baby before it lived. Although every life is precious, because it doesn't have a brain or conciousness, does it techincally count as a life?

 

It's the mothers problem though, and I use the word problem because it's not going to grow a brain, and personally I believe with vegetables euthanasia is the way to go, if the parent believes it's the best option.

This child doesn't have that potential and it never will. A brain won't just appear in its head and say "HAI GUISE, SORRY IM LATE LULZ"

 

 

 

I lol'd so hard at that, I feel like a bad person now.

Think of it this way, what is the point of a flower to us? It is a beautiful thing, something loved and cherished, and yet it serves no physical benefit to us. In fact, we'd probably be slightly better off if we never bothered with them. And yet millions of people around the world keep at least one flowering plant, because we appreciate what they are. Why deny that?

 

 

 

Photosynthesis -> Oxygen + ATP

 

 

 

ATP ->Energy for herbivores

 

 

 

Food Chain -> Energy for us.

 

 

 

No energy, we die.

 

 

 

I know this isn't the point you were trying to make, so I'll argue it as well. The flower is pretty and cheap. We have no bond with said flower, we don't spend resources that could save human life on that flower, and we don't feel enormous pain when said flower dies.

Think of it this way, what is the point of a flower to us? It is a beautiful thing, something loved and cherished, and yet it serves no physical benefit to us. In fact, we'd probably be slightly better off if we never bothered with them. And yet millions of people around the world keep at least one flowering plant, because we appreciate what they are. Why deny that?

 

 

 

Of course flowers serve a purpose, they're there for the bees! Flowers make food for bees and sometimes humans aswell...We're not saying that everything has to serve a purpose to humans or else it should be killed.

 

Hmm, yes, bad analogy. Any attempts to salvage it have made it worse, so I'll stop. I might think of a better one later, but I think you get my point. :oops:

 

 

 

Try to ignore the overly Christian ideas that the mother has, but even if you put God aside, she has a right to keep the 'child' because it is not suffering in any way. It is just 'being', and I can't think of any rational objection to this state. In fact, it must be remarkably peaceful.

There's a commonality in your examples; everything is or has a potential to contribute to society. This child doesn't have that potential and it never will. A brain won't just appear in its head and say "HAI GUISE, SORRY IM LATE LULZ"

 

If a sick and dying pet fish "has potential to contribute to society," then an anencephalic baby, or for that matter any unintelligent thing (including certain technologies) sure as hell can contribute to society.

 

 

 

Baby K, as well as other anencephalic babies, have given us a completely new perspective in the bioethics debates. They contribute plenty to their family: they bring them a great deal of joy, even if only for a short period of time. Anencephalic babies contribute a great deal to scientific research and help to broaden our understanding of birth disorders (as well as how to prevent them). To say that these babies "contribute nothing" is clearly incorrect and very much unsupported.

 

 

 

In any case, whether or not something "contributes to society" is completely irrelevant. The term is vague and subjective. And, even if we could objectively "rank" the productivity of a certain thing or individual, it would be no grounds for killing individuals.

 

 

 

The resources being used on the child can be better used other places.

 

The same could be said about most uses of television, fatty foods, video games, decorative flowers, pets, etc. Hell, one could argue that the resources used on a healthy third or fourth child could have been better spent on other things.

 

 

 

We have no bond with said flower, we don't spend resources that could save human life on that flower, and we don't feel enormous pain when said flower dies.

 

See my earlier post for a better analogy.

 

 

 

We're not saying that everything has to serve a purpose to humans or else it should be killed.

 

So why even suggest killing a baby that brings so much joy to her mother?

 

The baby is a waste of resources that could be going to something or somebody that needs it more. The mother is fairly deranged as far as I can see "Can't wait to go for a stroll with faith" even though it cannot hear, talk, feel, think or even realise it exists.

 

In that point of view, North America is wasting a lot of resource by eating most of the world's food. I think the death of a brainless kid really isn't the starting point to equality around the world.

So why even suggest killing a baby that brings so much joy to her mother?

Because it's useless.

 

 

 

In that point of view, North America is wasting a lot of resource by eating most of the world's food. I think the death of a brainless kid really isn't the starting point to equality around the world.

Yeah; we should start killing Americans!

So why even suggest killing a baby that brings so much joy to her mother?

Because it's useless.

 

 

 

Alot of thing that bring joy have no real practical use. Are you suggesting we destroy them all?

 

 

 

This includes TIF.

So why even suggest killing a baby that brings so much joy to her mother?

Because it's useless.

 

 

 

Alot of thing that bring joy have no real practical use. Are you suggesting we destroy them all?

 

 

 

This includes TIF.

 

It's a form of entertainment which we pay to access (internet costs). By paying for this data, money can be used for other things (though most of the time it simply makes rich men richer). It also consumes little resources (energy, which we have nuclear plants for, and the deep vacuum of space to dump it in).

So why even suggest killing a baby that brings so much joy to her mother?

Because it's useless.

 

 

 

Alot of thing that bring joy have no real practical use. Are you suggesting we destroy them all?

 

 

 

This includes TIF.

 

It's a form of entertainment which we pay to access (internet costs). By paying for this data, money can be used for other things (though most of the time it simply makes rich men richer).

 

 

 

And if she's paying for the medical care, where's the harm?

That the baby's still a goddamn vegetable, lol.

 

 

 

I guess a question here is, "Why on Earth should we even keep it alive?". Don't use that excuse "It brings joy" because it only does so to one person. And don't use that excuse "So why don't we kill off TIF?" because it brings joy to hundreds of people every day.

And TIF is no better.

 

 

 

Listen, we can go around in circles on this, but as long as she's paying it somehow, I honestly don't give a damn. The money goes towards the pay for the hospital staff and new medical equipment/supplies, correct?

Most of the time, a person will pay a set amount of money each year for medical care. It would not make a difference if a baby was serviced or not.