NationStates Jolt Archive


Abortion, infanticide, and parasitic heads

Karas
20-05-2005, 01:52
Leave it to Oprah to bring a new deminsion to a controversial topic.

For those who didn't watch Thursday's Oprah it was about a the first ever survivor of a rare medical condition known as a "parasitic head."

Not many babies are born with two heads. Only ten have been documented since medical professionals started documenting things. However, it does happen and it is a real problem.

Basicly, they are identical twins that don't speperate completely, like conjoined twins. However, in this case one fails to grow a body. The result is two heads sharing a single body. This includes a single heart, and single pair of lungs, a single set of kidneys, and a single liver.
Unfortunatly an infant's body cannot stand the strain of supporting two heads for very long. Usually both die.

In this case doctors were able to seperate the twins. The one without a body died as usually happens to babies who are decapitated.

Oprah asked thig big semantical question that people hide behind in the abortion debate. "Was the parasitic head a human being?" The doctor responded without hesitation "Yes."

She was a person with a name. She had dignity. She had a soul. That was the position of the doctors and the family and even religious authorities that had been consulted before the operation.
Yet, no one saw anything immoral or unethical with decapitating her. The doctors didn't beleive it violated their oath. The religious authorities didn't see any problems with it. The parents felt that it was the best decision.

It was sad, but far better than the alternative.


I am wondering how pro-chociers and pro-lifers feel about this.

Is there anyone who thinks that the babies' fate should have been left to God when both would surely die?

Is there a difference between intentionally killing an unborn clump of cells to save a mother and intentionally killing a living self-aware baby to save another?
Bottle
20-05-2005, 01:56
I am wondering how pro-chociers and pro-lifers feel about this.

Pro-choicer here.


Is there anyone who thinks that the babies' fate should have been left to God when both would surely die?

I don't believe in God, so I certainly don't think their fate should have been left up to God, any more than it should have been left up to Santa. I think it would have been wrong to not attempt to save the life of at least one of the infants.


Is there a difference between intentionally killing an unborn clump of cells to save a mother and intentionally killing a living self-aware baby to save another?
Yes, there is a difference, a very significant one. Both abortion and this separation are "moral," but abortion is "moral" for a different reason than this act was "moral."
Ph33rdom
20-05-2005, 01:58
I'm pro-life whenever possible. This time it wasn't possible, pray and save, they did what had to be done.
Myrth
20-05-2005, 01:58
How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
20-05-2005, 02:00
Leave it to Oprah to bring a new deminsion to a controversial topic.

For those who didn't watch Wensday's Oprah it was about a the first ever survivor of a rare medical condition known as a "parasitic head."

Not many babies are born with two heads. Only ten have been documented since medical professionals started documenting things. However, it does happen and it is a real problem.

Basicly, they are identical twins that don't speperate completely, like conjoined twins. However, in this case one fails to grow a body. The result is two heads sharing a single body. This includes a single heart, and single pair of lungs, a single set of kidneys, and a single liver.
Unfortunatly an infant's body cannot stand the strain of supporting two heads for very long. Usually both die.

In this case doctors were able to seperate the twins. The one without a body died as usually happens to babies who are decapitated.

Oprah asked thig big semantical question that people hide behind in the abortion debate. "Was the parasitic head a human being?" The doctor responded without hesitation "Yes."

She was a person with a name. She had dignity. She had a soul. That was the position of the doctors and the family and even religious authorities that had been consulted before the operation.
Yet, no one saw anything immoral or unethical with decapitating her. The doctors didn't beleive it violated their oath. The religious authorities didn't see any problems with it. The parents felt that it was the best decision.

It was sad, but far better than the alternative.


I am wondering how pro-chociers and pro-lifers feel about this.

Is there anyone who thinks that the babies' fate should have been left to God when both would surely die?

Is there a difference between intentionally killing an unborn clump of cells to save a mother and intentionally killing a living self-aware baby to save another?

Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.
Ph33rdom
20-05-2005, 02:01
How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make. Nah, they won't both equally connected to the spinal cord, one was parasitic (meaning it was developed but not grown in the proper place).
Jordaxia
20-05-2005, 02:04
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.

The baby was dead anyway. either 2 babies died, or one did. They took the only decision they could and saved all that they could.
Karas
20-05-2005, 02:05
How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make.

They were joined at the brain. One head was connected to the body, the other was connected to a underdevolped stump. They seperated the brains and used spin and bone from the one with the stump to close the hole in the other's head.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
20-05-2005, 02:07
The baby was dead anyway. either 2 babies died, or one did. They took the only decision they could and saved all that they could.

I repeat, the ends do not justify the means.
Bottle
20-05-2005, 02:08
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.
Yes, because standing by and allowing somebody to die (when you absolutely could save them) is perfectly fine. Just leave it up to "God," so that you can sleep at night.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
20-05-2005, 02:10
Yes, because standing by and allowing somebody to die (when you absolutely could save them) is perfectly fine. Just leave it up to "God," so that you can sleep at night.

Ah, Abuse.
Jordaxia
20-05-2005, 02:11
I repeat, the ends do not justify the means.

...I'd agree if they both would have survived, but let me put it to you this way. I can't remember the precise name for it, but I freely admit that I'm obviously not the first person to come up with this scenario. Especially since most people have heard of it.

There are two people. You must choose which one will be shot. if you refuse to choose, both will be shot. What you have implied is that it is best that both are shot, because the end (saving one) does not justify the means (having to move through the moral quagmire of choosing one to save and one to kill.)
CthulhuFhtagn
20-05-2005, 02:11
I repeat, the ends do not justify the means.
So you'd rather that both kids died a horrible agonizing death, instead of one going painlessly?

Sadist.
Bottle
20-05-2005, 02:13
So you'd rather that both kids died a horrible agonizing death, instead of one going painlessly?

Sadist.
Hey, it's "God's" will that those children suffer horribly, and that humans make no effort to alleviate that suffering. Praise Jeebus.
Lunatic Goofballs
20-05-2005, 02:14
How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make.

The same way as they do when separating Siamese twins. If due to shared organs, there is a strong chance that only one will survive, they will err on the side of the healthiest twin. The one with the best chance of survival gets the biggest piece of liver, etc.
Ph33rdom
20-05-2005, 02:19
I repeat, the ends do not justify the means.
I first voted that they did right. Thinking that they were telling the truth that the second head was going to kill the primary head...

Then I found this, http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/186_bengalboy1.shtml

Damnit, I might have to change my vote. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but I understand it.
Gartref
20-05-2005, 02:27
Yet, no one saw anything immoral or unethical with decapitating her.
Well... she wasn't so much as decapitated, as de-bodied.




How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make.
I believe they used rock-paper-scissors.
Karas
20-05-2005, 02:54
These articles may have disturbing images.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011586/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205/?GT1=6190
Texpunditistan
20-05-2005, 03:05
The one without a body died as usually happens to babies who are decapitated.
Yeah. I hate those not usual times when the one without a body lives. Walking into the hospital nursery and seeing the living baby head floating in a nutrient vat it pretty creepy.

:p
Dakini
20-05-2005, 03:14
How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make.
I think they usually get rid of the one that isn't attached to the body.

Usually easier than cutting the one head off the body and sewing the one on the other side back on. I've never heard of one with two necks on the shoulders and truly sharing the body.
Myrth
20-05-2005, 03:26
I think they usually get rid of the one that isn't attached to the body.

Usually easier than cutting the one head off the body and sewing the one on the other side back on. I've never heard of one with two necks on the shoulders and truly sharing the body.

That would be kinda cool though. Double the baby with half the mess.
Myotoa
20-05-2005, 03:27
I personally would have to side with Einstein on this particular issue. There is always hope that by some strange chance both babies could survive. Hope springs eternal. No one has the right to play God and determine who should die. Besides,there is another aspect that we should consider. This is the long term effect of what would happen to the surviving baby. If he found out about this, it could psychologically damage him. He might feel guilty for being the one who survived while his brother did not, sorta like the survivor's guilt that plagues many veterans of Vietnam.
Chaos Experiment
20-05-2005, 03:45
I personally would have to side with Einstein on this particular issue. There is always hope that by some strange chance both babies could survive. Hope springs eternal. No one has the right to play God and determine who should die. Besides,there is another aspect that we should consider. This is the long term effect of what would happen to the surviving baby. If he found out about this, it could psychologically damage him. He might feel guilty for being the one who survived while his brother did not, sorta like the survivor's guilt that plagues many veterans of Vietnam.

The one with the body had suffered heart failure multiple times. It was orders of magnitude more likely to die than live.
Dempublicents1
20-05-2005, 19:45
I personally would have to side with Einstein on this particular issue. There is always hope that by some strange chance both babies could survive. Hope springs eternal. No one has the right to play God and determine who should die. Besides,there is another aspect that we should consider. This is the long term effect of what would happen to the surviving baby. If he found out about this, it could psychologically damage him. He might feel guilty for being the one who survived while his brother did not, sorta like the survivor's guilt that plagues many veterans of Vietnam.

All sorts of things, natural and unnatural can cause psychological harm.

True story:

A woman gets married and has a son. She loves her son very much and raises him to adulthood. When he is older, he finds that he needs a kidney transplant. She, being his mother and wishing to help him, volunteers. However, when they check, she is not a match. This is rare, but not totally unheard of. She then urges her husband to be checked. He also is not a match. On top of that, according to the doctors, there is no way that these two adults could have produced this child. They do further blood tests and find that the father is indeed the father, but that the mother cannot be the mother of this man.

Well, obviously, she knew that this was not true, so they did more tests. They found that her entire reproductive system was not hers at all, but was that of a fraternal twin. While she had certainly gone through the pregnancy, her son was, in a way, actually her nephew. Not only did she have to wonder if she should feel guilty about being the one who survived to birth, but there was a question there of whether or not her own son was, indeed, her child.
Vaitupu
20-05-2005, 22:46
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.


i'm kinda curious...if you had the opportunity to end world hunger if you killed a person, would you do it?

I think I would, but it wouldnt be easy (yay for Mills philosophy of the gratest good for the greatest number)
DrunkenDove
20-05-2005, 23:14
i'm kinda curious...if you had the opportunity to end world hunger if you killed a person, would you do it?

I think I would, but it wouldnt be easy (yay for Mills philosophy of the gratest good for the greatest number)

And to carry this on to its logical conclusion: what about 10 people? 100? The entire population of a small, neutral country?
Drunk commies reborn
20-05-2005, 23:15
How'd they choose between the heads though? Flip a coin? Must have been a tough decision to make.
That would just be crazy. You can't choose who lives and who dies based on a coin toss. You kill the uglier one.
The Noble Men
20-05-2005, 23:32
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.

Yeah, tell that to the Inquisition. And the witch burnings. And the people who killed the heretics...
The Noble Men
20-05-2005, 23:36
Oh, and don't forget the Crusades!
Cyrian space
20-05-2005, 23:59
Really, this isn't much of a moral quandry. If the second baby could be saved, then she should have been saved. As that was not the case, and her eventual death was imminent, it was best to expediate the inevitable in order to save the other person. If I was trapped in a burning building, and had already been burned to the point where there is absolutely no chance I would survive, I would rather the other person in the building leave me and get out themself than carry me out, to no gain, and quite possibly die because they would not be able to move fast enough to escape themselves.
Old Havana
21-05-2005, 00:18
All sorts of things, natural and unnatural can cause psychological harm.

True story:

A woman gets married and has a son. She loves her son very much and raises him to adulthood. When he is older, he finds that he needs a kidney transplant. She, being his mother and wishing to help him, volunteers. However, when they check, she is not a match. This is rare, but not totally unheard of. She then urges her husband to be checked. He also is not a match. On top of that, according to the doctors, there is no way that these two adults could have produced this child. They do further blood tests and find that the father is indeed the father, but that the mother cannot be the mother of this man.

Well, obviously, she knew that this was not true, so they did more tests. They found that her entire reproductive system was not hers at all, but was that of a fraternal twin. While she had certainly gone through the pregnancy, her son was, in a way, actually her nephew. Not only did she have to wonder if she should feel guilty about being the one who survived to birth, but there was a question there of whether or not her own son was, indeed, her child.
Wow...
Ashmoria
21-05-2005, 00:22
I personally would have to side with Einstein on this particular issue. There is always hope that by some strange chance both babies could survive. Hope springs eternal. No one has the right to play God and determine who should die. Besides,there is another aspect that we should consider. This is the long term effect of what would happen to the surviving baby. If he found out about this, it could psychologically damage him. He might feel guilty for being the one who survived while his brother did not, sorta like the survivor's guilt that plagues many veterans of Vietnam.
so you would let both babies die in the hope that a one in a quintillion chance would let a parasitic HEAD live attached to another person?

im with cyrian, if both are going to die imminently without intervention, you save who can be saved and dont feel bad about not being able to save both.
Invisuus
21-05-2005, 01:50
All sorts of things, natural and unnatural can cause psychological harm.

True story:

A woman gets married and has a son. She loves her son very much and raises him to adulthood. When he is older, he finds that he needs a kidney transplant. She, being his mother and wishing to help him, volunteers. However, when they check, she is not a match. This is rare, but not totally unheard of. She then urges her husband to be checked. He also is not a match. On top of that, according to the doctors, there is no way that these two adults could have produced this child. They do further blood tests and find that the father is indeed the father, but that the mother cannot be the mother of this man.

Well, obviously, she knew that this was not true, so they did more tests. They found that her entire reproductive system was not hers at all, but was that of a fraternal twin. While she had certainly gone through the pregnancy, her son was, in a way, actually her nephew. Not only did she have to wonder if she should feel guilty about being the one who survived to birth, but there was a question there of whether or not her own son was, indeed, her child.


HOLY SHIT, true story? You have any links to this or anything?
Lord-General Drache
21-05-2005, 01:58
Pro-choicer here.


I don't believe in God, so I certainly don't think their fate should have been left up to God, any more than it should have been left up to Santa. I think it would have been wrong to not attempt to save the life of at least one of the infants.


Yes, there is a difference, a very significant one. Both abortion and this separation are "moral," but abortion is "moral" for a different reason than this act was "moral."

I'm agree with Bottle. Though I'd take it further to state that if you can save the life of one, when the lives of both were in doubt, by sacrificing the other, I would do so. By taking the easy way out (and that's precisely what it is, to me) of saying "God will be the judge and allow them to live, or take their souls", you wash your hands clean, and very likely doom a being that could have the potential to live a full life.
The Cat-Tribe
21-05-2005, 02:01
Pro-choicer here.


I don't believe in God, so I certainly don't think their fate should have been left up to God, any more than it should have been left up to Santa. I think it would have been wrong to not attempt to save the life of at least one of the infants.


Yes, there is a difference, a very significant one. Both abortion and this separation are "moral," but abortion is "moral" for a different reason than this act was "moral."

Bottle is right. Of course.
The Cat-Tribe
21-05-2005, 02:10
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.

Speaking of bullshit ....

Despite your slogan, you are not taking a moral stance. You are simply refusing to make a moral decision -- and, in so doing, being immoral.

You are saying you would deny medical treatment to an innocent person whose life would be saved.

Your "ends" of psuedo-moral dogma do not justify the means of allowing the savable infant from an agonizing death.
[NS]Simonist
21-05-2005, 03:38
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.
Another Catholic here (probably far less "fervent"....)

THIS is absolutely cowardly neutraility. If you can't even back up your stance (which apprently is just that you wouldn't even take logic into consideration) with anything, and KNOWING that it's going to piss people off, why go into it?

For instance, you want some of my proof that tragedies happen for a reason, be it good or bad?
Isaiah 45:7
Jeremiah 32:42
Lamentations 3:38
Job 2:10
Romans 8:28

I'm going to avoid really getting into my views on this topic, but I think amputation was the right way to go. As aforementioned, one has to consider the greater good in a situation like this.
Robot ninja pirates
21-05-2005, 03:53
I don't understand how someone can support letting two people die when one could be saved, because they are "pro-life".

You're not a supporter of life, you're just another over-zealous Christian who has latched onto a cause and is determined to let babies live, no matter how many people you need to kill to do it. Get off your high horse.
Keruvalia
21-05-2005, 03:58
Is there anyone who thinks that the babies' fate should have been left to God when both would surely die?


I'm pro-choice and believe in God.

I believe Allah was very smart to let us learn all about medical stuff in order that we find the best ways to take care of ourselves.

The right decision was made.
New Genoa
21-05-2005, 04:06
They should've aborted both.
New Genoa
21-05-2005, 04:07
Yeah, tell that to the Inquisition. And the witch burnings. And the people who killed the heretics...

How is this relevant to the conversation at hand? Because he's Catholic you need to bring up things that he didn't partake in? I guess I can blame Soviet gulags on all the atheists since Stalin himself didn't believe god, eh?
Sel Appa
21-05-2005, 04:16
I want to see one of them survive and see how they decide which way to go.
New Genoa
21-05-2005, 04:18
I want to see one of them survive and see how they decide which way to go.

Why not just give the decapitated head the body of a dead midget?
Karas
21-05-2005, 05:10
They should've aborted both.

There were three babies, one of which was perfectly fine. They didn't know they were having triplets untill the conjoined twins were born. They thought that they were having healthy twins.
The Alma Mater
21-05-2005, 06:52
Is there a difference between intentionally killing an unborn clump of cells to save a mother and intentionally killing a living self-aware baby to save another?

As Bottle said: yes. However, in this specific situation I wouldsay this was not a question relating to abortion, but to euthanasia.

Explanation:
- A human being, incapable of making a decision on his own, would surely die in the very near future in a painfull and uncomfortable matter. There was nothing that could be done to prevent this, and the person was already suffering.
-To prevent further suffering, it was decided to euthanise this human being.

That this person happened to be a second head on another persons body is not even relevant for this decision to be made.
Dempublicents1
23-05-2005, 14:21
HOLY SHIT, true story? You have any links to this or anything?

No, learned about it in a class. The family involved wasn't really comfortable with the whole thing, so I doubt they ever put anything up online about it.

This type of chimerism is not unheard of. This woman's case was simply very odd, in that it was her reproductive system that was affected.
Jester III
23-05-2005, 14:39
There is always hope that by some strange chance both babies could survive. Hope springs eternal. [snip] This is the long term effect of what would happen to the surviving baby. If he found out about this, it could psychologically damage him. He might feel guilty for being the one who survived while his brother did not, sorta like the survivor's guilt that plagues many veterans of Vietnam.
Of course there is that chance. Nothing is for sure, all we "know" is just based on empiricism and theories. But would you bet, say, your eyes that tomorrow the sun will rise in the north?
About the later psychological damage, you would want the baby to die now in order that it doesnt develop psychopathic state later it its life? Wow, talk about priorities...
Bottle
23-05-2005, 14:46
Bottle is right. Of course.
Well geez! Everybody is just so durn friendly around here :).

Has the cowardly Catholic left this thread already? I was really hoping to hear more of that fellow trying to defend negligent homicide in polite and God-friendly terms...
Werteswandel
23-05-2005, 15:05
Fervent Catholic Here.

That is absolute utilitarian bullshit. You can not dileberately, and intentionally kill and innocent person, regardless of how many lives it will save. It is not morally justified. The ends do not justify the means.
"... and God wept."
Maniacal Me
23-05-2005, 15:30
<snip>
I am wondering how pro-chociers and pro-lifers feel about this.
Pro-life.

Is there anyone who thinks that the babies' fate should have been left to God when both would surely die?
No.

Is there a difference between intentionally killing an unborn clump of cells to save a mother and intentionally killing a living self-aware baby to save another?
No, it's exactly the same argument. (Should one die or should both die?)

The abortion debate centres around whether a mother should be able to abort the foetus because she doesn't want it. Although both sides do try to move the goalposts.
Pro-choice: What about rape/incest/mother's life?
Pro-life: Those are a statistical rarity!
Pro-life: What about partial birth abortion?
Pro-choice: Those are a statistical rarity!
The Cat-Tribe
23-05-2005, 18:49
Pro-life.

No.

No, it's exactly the same argument. (Should one die or should both die?)

The abortion debate centres around whether a mother should be able to abort the foetus because she doesn't want it. Although both sides do try to move the goalposts.
Pro-choice: What about rape/incest/mother's life?
Pro-life: Those are a statistical rarity!
Pro-life: What about partial birth abortion?
Pro-choice: Those are a statistical rarity!

1. Those who are pro-choice do not support choice only when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest.

2. "partial birth abortion" is a fictional term invented by the anti-choice movement. There is no such medical procedure.

3. Late-term abortions are already illegal in the US states except to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Bottle
23-05-2005, 19:13
1. Those who are pro-choice do not support choice only when the mother's life is in danger or when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest.

2. "partial birth abortion" is a fictional term invented by the anti-choice movement. There is no such medical procedure.

3. Late-term abortions are already illegal in the US states except to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Yeah, you beat me to it. The discussion actually tends to go more like this:

Anti-choice: [Insert a bunch of untrue, inaccurate, or misinformed claims about abortion]
Pro-choice: Actually, that's not quite true.
Anti-choice: You eat babies and Jesus hates you.

Okay, so that's not quite a fair characterization. I'm cranky today.
[NS]Simonist
23-05-2005, 20:03
Yeah, you beat me to it. The discussion actually tends to go more like this:

Anti-choice: [Insert a bunch of untrue, inaccurate, or misinformed claims about abortion]
Pro-choice: Actually, that's not quite true.
Anti-choice: You eat babies and Jesus hates you.
Man, and am I ever sick of being called a baby-eater....
And being called pro-death. Any lifers out there ever used that term? DON'T. I'm not pro-death, or I'd have killed you already.