However they also help provide for other people.

 

 

 

If the child needs any machines, it helps pay for more, if enough is spent from the money the mother is paying to buy a new machine, another person gets to use it.

 

 

 

Its not like they are one use only. And all this talk of hospitals give me a bad feeling in my stomach.

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 difference between a dying fish and this dying baby is the happiness gained from having that fish is much greater than the resources needed to keep it alive. That's not the case with this child. With the cost of medical care, necessities, child care, etc it's just not a good idea to keep it. The costs far outweigh the benefits.

 

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.

 

Again, these things all contribute to society, or their benefits outweigh their cost.

 

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.

 

Are you always that stupid?

 

 

 

If people have money to spend, don't get pissed when they get the things you want.

 

Personal insults, yay. I don't understand your argument either... Are you implying I want a brainless child?

I'll put this in the most simple form:

 

 

 

Some people are useless.

 

People die. Get over it.

 

The rest of the world doesn't give a crap about what you believe is right or wrong.

Let's look at it this way.

 

 

 

Machine X could keep the child alive for N days. It costs Y dollars to use the machine, upkeep, doctors, etc.

 

 

 

Mother pays the Y dollars. She continues to pay the Y dollars. Are you saying that she shouldn't be entitled to keep her child alive because you don't think she should?

 

 

 

Because in that case you're a [bleep] head.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because, I repeat, THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES THIS BABY IS USING HAVE A MUCH BETTER USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. All machine X can do is, essentially, keep a corpse breathing. There's no point to having machine X and the materials and labor used to produce it should have been used to make something else.

I'll put this in the most simple form:

 

 

 

Some people are useless.

 

People die. Get over it.

 

 

 

What you are suggesting is, in essence, murder.

 

 

 

Sure, people die, when the kid dies naturally, she'll grieve, then she'll get over it. However, you feel alot worse signing your kid's death warrent even though its not in any pain.

The baby CANNOT THINK! IT IS ALREADY DEAD! THERE IS NO POINT KEEPING IT ALIVE BECAUSE IT IS DEAD!

So, utilizing your logic, it should be okay to kill off those who have little time left to live, after all, they're only wasting resources.

I'll put this in the most simple form:

 

 

 

Some people are useless.

 

People die. Get over it.

 

 

 

What you are suggesting is, in essence, murder.

 

 

 

Sure, people die, when the kid dies naturally, she'll grieve, then she'll get over it. However, you feel alot worse signing your kid's death warrent even though its not in any pain.

 

It's not murder, though. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead. It will never ride a bike, go to kindergarden, or climb a jungle gym. All it will do is lay wherever its parent's set it down. This baby has no brain, it will not realize it's alive or dead.

So, utilizing your logic, it should be okay to kill off those who have little time left to live, after all, they're only wasting resources.

 

Yes, it should be. And I know that I would rather die than be a vegetable; a leech on society.

Depends what you classify as living though.

 

 

 

If their body functions in the basic way, then for all purposes, they are alive.

 

 

 

And Latios, thats fine with me, but hell, this kid won't know what it would be like to live or not, but hell, if he's bringing some joy to people, do you want to tear that away from someone?

Depends what you classify as living though.

 

 

 

If their body functions in the basic way, then for all purposes, they are alive.

 

 

 

And Latios, thats fine with me, but hell, this kid won't know what it would be like to live or not, but hell, if he's bringing some joy to people, do you want to tear that away from someone?

 

I would classify being alive as being able to interact with the world around you. This baby cannot.

 

This is forgetting plants, since the baby is practically already a plant. A very complex plant.

Depends what you classify as living though.

 

 

 

If their body functions in the basic way, then for all purposes, they are alive.

 

 

 

And Latios, thats fine with me, but hell, this kid won't know what it would be like to live or not, but hell, if he's bringing some joy to people, do you want to tear that away from someone?

 

I would classify being alive as being able to interact with the world around you. This baby cannot.

 

This is forgetting plants, since the baby is practically already a plant. A very complex plant.

 

 

 

I classify that as living.

 

 

 

To me, being alive and living are too different things. Living is being alive, but it involves being able to interact with the world around you.

 

 

 

So really, the baby is "alive" to me, but it isn't "living".

The baby CANNOT THINK! IT IS ALREADY DEAD! THERE IS NO POINT KEEPING IT ALIVE BECAUSE IT IS DEAD!

 

 

 

Listen to this very carefully:

 

 

 

THE MOM IS PAYING THE MEDICAL BILLS FOR HER BABY! WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR HER BABY.

 

 

 

Judging by what you are assuming, we should kill people that are about to die anyway. While we're killing babies with no brains, lets go pay a visit and pull the plug on that 104-year old lady thats gonna die in a couple weeks. I think they're "wasting" our money as well. Real quick, there's this cancer victim thats about to die, lets go put that person to sleep. Yup, we're really wasting resources on people that are about to die. That sounds like something Hitler did when he came to power (I'm gonna wait to see how many people respond to the Hitler sentence).

 

 

 

 

It's not murder, though. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead. It will never ride a bike, go to kindergarden, or climb a jungle gym. All it will do is lay wherever its parent's set it down. This baby has no brain, it will not realize it's alive or dead.

 

 

 

Its not murder to kill someone that doesn't have a brain but still is a living breathing person? Its not murder to kill someone who can't ride a bicycle? Well then, I think I'm gonna go butcher some "leeches" real quick because they can't do things normal people can.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it should be. And I know that I would rather die than be a vegetable; a leech on society.

 

 

 

A leech? What is she doing that is leeching? Her mom is paying for the medical bills, its coming out of her money. God, I have to repeat this several times.

 

THE MOM IS PAYING THE MEDICAL BILLS FOR HER BABY! WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR HER BABY.

 

This is what I wanted to hear. It's good that tax-payers don't have to pay for it. It's her god damn plant and we shouldn't force anything on her. Though if it was me I wouldn't want a plant coming out of my vagina.

 

 

 

So to summerize:

 

-Baby doesn't suffer because it doesn't think.

 

-Mother pays for everything.

 

 

 

It's kinda like an object now. You don't tell somebody else to throw away their lamp because it doesn't affect you.

The baby CANNOT THINK! IT IS ALREADY DEAD! THERE IS NO POINT KEEPING IT ALIVE BECAUSE IT IS DEAD!

 

 

 

Listen to this very carefully:

 

 

 

THE MOM IS PAYING THE MEDICAL BILLS FOR HER BABY! WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR HER BABY.

 

 

 

Judging by what you are assuming, we should kill people that are about to die anyway. While we're killing babies with no brains, lets go pay a visit and pull the plug on that 104-year old lady thats gonna die in a couple weeks. I think they're "wasting" our money as well. Real quick, there's this cancer victim thats about to die, lets go put that person to sleep. Yup, we're really wasting resources on people that are about to die. That sounds like something Hitler did when he came to power (I'm gonna wait to see how many people respond to the Hitler sentence).

 

Ooo big letters, I can do that too. THERE'S SUCH A THING CALLED OPPORTUNITY COST.

 

 

 

 

It's not murder, though. For all intents and purposes, this child is dead. It will never ride a bike, go to kindergarden, or climb a jungle gym. All it will do is lay wherever its parent's set it down. This baby has no brain, it will not realize it's alive or dead.

 

 

 

Its not murder to kill someone that doesn't have a brain but still is a living breathing person? Its not murder to kill someone who can't ride a bicycle? Well then, I think I'm gonna go butcher some "leeches" real quick because they can't do things normal people can.

 

This baby isn't a person. All it is is a poop machine. Insert food -> collect poop. That's all it does. That's all it ever will do. Nice non sequitur, too. :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

Yes, it should be. And I know that I would rather die than be a vegetable; a leech on society.

 

 

 

A leech? What is she doing that is leeching? Her mom is paying for the medical bills, its coming out of her money. God, I have to repeat this several times.

 

Yes, isn't repetition annoying? It doesn't matter that its mom is paying the bills, all the products/services that are being wasted on it should be used somewhere else.

 

Let's look at it this way.

 

 

 

Machine X could keep the child alive for N days. It costs Y dollars to use the machine, upkeep, doctors, etc.

 

 

 

Mother pays the Y dollars. She continues to pay the Y dollars. Are you saying that she shouldn't be entitled to keep her child alive because you don't think she should?

 

 

 

Because in that case you're a [bleep] head.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because, I repeat, THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES THIS BABY IS USING HAVE A MUCH BETTER USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. All machine X can do is, essentially, keep a corpse breathing. There's no point to having machine X and the materials and labor used to produce it should have been used to make something else.

 

Yeah, well guess what. Every piece of bread you've eaten in your entire life could have gone to a starving child in Africa. But it didn't. Why? Some people can afford what they want, others cannot. This mother has the right to keep her child alive, and by all means she will.

 

The bread that I ate allowed me to survive so I can go to school and eventually have a career. And, like I previously stated, not all lives are worth the same. The starving child in Africa doesn't have the potential I do, so the bread did go to the best use. Also, simply being able to afford something doesn't mean you should waste it. If I had enough money to buy a fleet of H3s and have them idling 24/7 that would just be wasteful. The products that I would be WASTING would have a much better use somewhere else, as does everything that's being thrown at this baby.

 

Its not murder to kill someone that doesn't have a brain but still is a living breathing person? Its not murder to kill someone who can't ride a bicycle? Well then, I think I'm gonna go butcher some "leeches" real quick because they can't do things normal people can.

 

 

 

Argument invalid: it is not a person, it is simply an organism. A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality. So therefore it is not a person. It is a human being in the simplest genetic terms but nothing more.

 

 

 

I don't say it deserves to die, but it doesn't deserve to be artificially kept alive. Should be left alone to die naturally, let mother nature decide instead of delaying the inevitable.

 

 

 

Argument invalid: it is not a person, it is simply an organism. A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality. So therefore it is not a person. It is a human being in the simplest genetic terms but nothing more.

 

 

 

Everybody is an organism, what do you mean? Even though the baby doesn't have a brain, its still a person without any advanced genetic terms.

Don't use that excuse "It brings joy" because it only does so to one person.

 

It brings joy and hope to those around her -- including siblings, parents, and extended family -- as well as those not related to her (i.e. many readers of her blog).

 

 

 

Even if only one person loves their unintelligent pet or baby, they are entirely free to extend it's life at the expense of their own salary, even if others feel that doing so is ultimately "futile."

 

 

 

The difference between a dying fish and this dying baby is the happiness gained from having that fish is much greater than the resources needed to keep it alive. That's not the case with this child. With the cost of medical care, necessities, child care, etc it's just not a good idea to keep it. The costs far outweigh the benefits.

 

The baby, as is the case with Faith Hope, brings an incredible amount of happiness to the family, and this happiness is much greater than the (material) costs needed to keep her alive. Hence the reason they continue to spend the time and money to keep her alive.

 

 

 

Furthermore, let us assume the fish requires a substantial amount of medical attention, as the analogy would not be complete otherwise. (I have met people who spend thousands to extend the lives of their pets.)

 

 

 

It may be more economically wise to let the fish die, but you are in no position to dictate to people what they ought to view as important in their life. If they didn't regret their decision, then who are you to tell them otherwise?

 

 

 

Again, these things all contribute to society, or their benefits outweigh their cost.

 

I have explained how both of these assumptions are incorrect. The baby does not "contribute nothing," nor do the costs necessarily outweigh the (subjective) benefits.

 

 

 

You also have yet to explain how a pet fish "contributes to society" more so than Baby K or any other anencephalic baby. And, as I've pointed out, even if you can explain such a thing, it would not justify the killing of these babies.

 

 

 

THE PRODUCTS/SERVICES THIS BABY IS USING HAVE A MUCH BETTER USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. All machine X can do is, essentially, keep a corpse breathing. There's no point to having machine X and the materials and labor used to produce it should have been used to make something else.

 

The materials and labour used to produce collectable action figures, for example, could have been better spent elsewhere. But, just because I feel that collecting action figures is "useless" or "futile" doesn't mean that everybody else feels the same.

For all intents and purposes, this child is dead.

 

The child is very much a living human, even if she does not meet the intelligence standard of other humans.

 

 

 

all the products/services that are being wasted on it should be used somewhere else.

 

However, since these babies clearly bring a substantial amount of joy and hope to the parents as well as many others, and furthers scientific understanding of anencephaly if not birth disorders in general, these services are clearly not being "wasted."

 

 

 

A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality.

 

This is incorrect. We are each born with individuality, as can be seen in our genes, physical appearance, etc. Whether or not intelligence is needed for personhood, it certainly is not the only defining feature of individuality.

 

 

 

Argument invalid: it is not a person, it is simply an organism. A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality. So therefore it is not a person. It is a human being in the simplest genetic terms but nothing more.

 

 

 

Everybody is an organism, what do you mean? Even though the baby doesn't have a brain, its still a person without any advanced genetic terms.

 

 

 

To be a "person" one needs to have individuality, which requires higher brain function. Everyone is an organism, and almost all humans are also self-aware individuals as well. This baby is an organism too, but it is not a "person", it's a human shaped (almost) mass of unintelligent flesh and bone with a metabolism, nothing more.

From many of the videos posted on the blog, it actually does seem the baby is more complex than the disease discription would make her out to be. She does seem to possibly have some sense of feel / touch, as she seems to respond to her mother touching her in certain places. Perhaps she just has an extremely light case of it?

From many of the videos posted on the blog, it actually does seem the baby is more complex than the disease discription would make her out to be. She does seem to possibly have some sense of feel / touch, as she seems to respond to her mother touching her in certain places. Perhaps she just has an extremely light case of it?

 

 

 

She has a brain stem, which I believe allows her to feel some, but the rest of the brain is gone. There is nothing else there. It can feel(very little), it can breathe(sometimes), and it can digest food. Oh, and it can probably blink. THAT'S IT.

 

 

 

Argument invalid: it is not a person, it is simply an organism. A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality. So therefore it is not a person. It is a human being in the simplest genetic terms but nothing more.

 

 

 

Everybody is an organism, what do you mean? Even though the baby doesn't have a brain, its still a person without any advanced genetic terms.

 

 

 

To be a "person" one needs to have individuality, which requires higher brain function. Everyone is an organism, and almost all humans are also self-aware individuals as well. This baby is an organism too, but it is not a "person", it's a human shaped (almost) mass of unintelligent flesh and bone with a metabolism, nothing more.

 

 

 

I disagree. Even though the only thing the baby has is a brain stem, she is still a person with extremely limited capabilities.

 

 

 

Argument invalid: it is not a person, it is simply an organism. A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality. So therefore it is not a person. It is a human being in the simplest genetic terms but nothing more.

 

 

 

Everybody is an organism, what do you mean? Even though the baby doesn't have a brain, its still a person without any advanced genetic terms.

 

 

 

To be a "person" one needs to have individuality, which requires higher brain function. Everyone is an organism, and almost all humans are also self-aware individuals as well. This baby is an organism too, but it is not a "person", it's a human shaped (almost) mass of unintelligent flesh and bone with a metabolism, nothing more.

 

 

 

I disagree. Even though the only thing the baby has is a brain stem, she is still a person with extremely limited capabilities.

 

She has zero capabilities.

 

 

 

Argument invalid: it is not a person, it is simply an organism. A person is defined as an "individual human being", without higher brain function it is impossible to have any individuality. So therefore it is not a person. It is a human being in the simplest genetic terms but nothing more.

 

 

 

Everybody is an organism, what do you mean? Even though the baby doesn't have a brain, its still a person without any advanced genetic terms.

 

 

 

To be a "person" one needs to have individuality, which requires higher brain function. Everyone is an organism, and almost all humans are also self-aware individuals as well. This baby is an organism too, but it is not a "person", it's a human shaped (almost) mass of unintelligent flesh and bone with a metabolism, nothing more.

 

 

 

I disagree. Even though the only thing the baby has is a brain stem, she is still a person with extremely limited capabilities.

 

She has zero capabilities.

 

 

 

She can move, breath, and eat. Thats about it.