Man kills newborn daughter because he couldn't afford to keep her
- Thread starter sb666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry to post three times on something that might not be related... but I have a thought experiment.
If someone loses a leg, they are no less human than people with two legs. On that we can all agree. If someone loses an eye, they are no less human than those with two eyes. You can lose almost any part of your body and still be a fully fledged human, deserving of all rights under the sun. You could, as have some soldiers, very, very sadly, lose all your limbs and almost your entire body, but if your brain is still there, you're still human. I mean, you wouldn't scorn a US or Australian or any Veteran of any nationality for that matter, just because they've lost parts of their body, would you?
But if someone loses a brain.... are they still human? You can lose almost your whole body but if your brain is still functioning, you are no less you. Your memories, personality, humour, wit and ability to feel pain and happiness are all still there.
Now what about someone who loses 90% of their brain? What about someone with CJD or Huntingtons - whose brain has mostly been irrecoverably destroyed by disease, yet retains juuuuuuust enough neural tissue to sustain autonomic functions. What about someone who has all their limbs, but is brain dead? Are they still really human?
I'd argue no. What gave them the spark of humanness is gone. Irrecoverably gone. You might be able to, in the future, regrown parts of the brain, but the unique combination of neural connections and patterns is irretrievably lost.
If your family member is brain dead or mostly brain dead.... would you stop life support? They can't feel anything. They're permanently not-conscious. They're not even unconscious because being unconscious implies the existence of a dormant conscious. If they have no frontal lobe, no occipital lobe, if 90% of their brain is just........ GONE, and gone forever, you have to ask yourself: are they already dead? The flesh lives on, but the mind is gone. And if the mind is gone.... is there any point to the life of the individual in question? Are they even still an individual if they have no higher or even lower brain functions? Blind, deaf, not even capable of thought - I know that I wouldn't consider myself still alive in those circumstances.
So if you agree with me that a brain dead patient is, for all intents and purposes, already dead, then is a brainless embryo really human?
And if you contend that the brain dead patient IS still human and alive because his or her heart is still beating and the cells are still dividing.... well technically an egg is a living cell. So is a sperm cell. Yet we don't call masturbation (sorry for the reference) mass murder and we don't call a period a murder either. And if you say "well, it's because those cells don't have a full set of chromosomes).... well, what about cell cultures? I've killed more HeLa Cells than you could shake a stick at. They were just as "alive" as a brainless embryo. Was it wrong to kill the HeLa cells? And if you say 'well, an embryo has potential to become a human', well, I'd argue that "POTENTIAL to become a human is not the same thing as BEING a human", just like how an acorn seed could BECOME an acorn tree, but you wouldn't call it an acorn tree.
If someone loses a leg, they are no less human than people with two legs. On that we can all agree. If someone loses an eye, they are no less human than those with two eyes. You can lose almost any part of your body and still be a fully fledged human, deserving of all rights under the sun. You could, as have some soldiers, very, very sadly, lose all your limbs and almost your entire body, but if your brain is still there, you're still human. I mean, you wouldn't scorn a US or Australian or any Veteran of any nationality for that matter, just because they've lost parts of their body, would you?
But if someone loses a brain.... are they still human? You can lose almost your whole body but if your brain is still functioning, you are no less you. Your memories, personality, humour, wit and ability to feel pain and happiness are all still there.
Now what about someone who loses 90% of their brain? What about someone with CJD or Huntingtons - whose brain has mostly been irrecoverably destroyed by disease, yet retains juuuuuuust enough neural tissue to sustain autonomic functions. What about someone who has all their limbs, but is brain dead? Are they still really human?
I'd argue no. What gave them the spark of humanness is gone. Irrecoverably gone. You might be able to, in the future, regrown parts of the brain, but the unique combination of neural connections and patterns is irretrievably lost.
If your family member is brain dead or mostly brain dead.... would you stop life support? They can't feel anything. They're permanently not-conscious. They're not even unconscious because being unconscious implies the existence of a dormant conscious. If they have no frontal lobe, no occipital lobe, if 90% of their brain is just........ GONE, and gone forever, you have to ask yourself: are they already dead? The flesh lives on, but the mind is gone. And if the mind is gone.... is there any point to the life of the individual in question? Are they even still an individual if they have no higher or even lower brain functions? Blind, deaf, not even capable of thought - I know that I wouldn't consider myself still alive in those circumstances.
So if you agree with me that a brain dead patient is, for all intents and purposes, already dead, then is a brainless embryo really human?
And if you contend that the brain dead patient IS still human and alive because his or her heart is still beating and the cells are still dividing.... well technically an egg is a living cell. So is a sperm cell. Yet we don't call masturbation (sorry for the reference) mass murder and we don't call a period a murder either. And if you say "well, it's because those cells don't have a full set of chromosomes).... well, what about cell cultures? I've killed more HeLa Cells than you could shake a stick at. They were just as "alive" as a brainless embryo. Was it wrong to kill the HeLa cells? And if you say 'well, an embryo has potential to become a human', well, I'd argue that "POTENTIAL to become a human is not the same thing as BEING a human", just like how an acorn seed could BECOME an acorn tree, but you wouldn't call it an acorn tree.
This is the problem with freedom of reproduction, even poor stupid people can procreate. Everyone wants to fuck, no one wants to use a condom, and no one wants the responsibility that comes with having a child.
"POTENTIAL to become a human is not the same thing as BEING a human", just like how an acorn seed could BECOME an acorn tree, but you wouldn't call it an acorn tree.[/quote]
I agree with that statement. What is more important, a being already in existence or one that is nothing but potential? The ability to reason is what makes us human in a sense. Did Descartes once say, "I think therefore I am?" There are fetuses that are born with only the brain stem. Enough to control breathing, heart beat, and body temperature but are they alive?
The sad part about this story is the that there were other options that would have ended up much better than this. He could have used the Baby Moses laws that every state has and dropped the child at any hospital, police station, fire department and relinquished all parental rights without consequences but he didn't. He could have discussed things over with his long time girlfriend before the child was born but he didn't. They could have practice better birth control but they didn't. She could have gotten an IUD, tubes tied, etc. They could have terminated the pregnancy but didn't.
He's going to be convicted and what can be taken from this is how NOT to handle a situation like this.
I agree with that statement. What is more important, a being already in existence or one that is nothing but potential? The ability to reason is what makes us human in a sense. Did Descartes once say, "I think therefore I am?" There are fetuses that are born with only the brain stem. Enough to control breathing, heart beat, and body temperature but are they alive?
The sad part about this story is the that there were other options that would have ended up much better than this. He could have used the Baby Moses laws that every state has and dropped the child at any hospital, police station, fire department and relinquished all parental rights without consequences but he didn't. He could have discussed things over with his long time girlfriend before the child was born but he didn't. They could have practice better birth control but they didn't. She could have gotten an IUD, tubes tied, etc. They could have terminated the pregnancy but didn't.
He's going to be convicted and what can be taken from this is how NOT to handle a situation like this.
I really wish I had not read that. I've said it once I'll say it again I hate the people but I do like persons.
What a f***ing moron. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of couples dying to claim a baby as their own. He could've easily dropped it off at an adoption house/orphanage and the newly born baby would have had a family in weeks. For free.solidsnake101023 said:
This is literally at least the 2nd or 3rd most fucked up thing I've ever heard. I am so glad that Pennsylvania has the death penalty.
What can I say? I hope he's insane, because I'd hate to think this was the act of a sane man. There's little redemption for him if he thinks this is justified and he is healthy.
First of all, great post. This is an excellent example of how science can and SHOULD be used to solve ethics problems. We shouldn't base these things just on religion or our natural instinct, as these are often in accurate or restrictive.Korolev said:
Oh, and another reason to ban late-stage abortions is that they also present a serious health risk to mother.
However, one little detail:
Not quite. Yes, after the nervous system and the brain have started forming there is nervous impulses but these do not represent human sentience. I would say that the limit for abortion should just past this point, right before meaningful brain signals.Korolev said:
Again, this is just a detail in an anotherwise great post.
If you don't draw a distinction between "baby out of womb" and "baby in womb" (I don't, as babies are babies) then yes. Just yes.OmniscientOstrich said:
Anywho... I'm speechless. This is me logging out for the night, I think... I need to go vomit...
I will remember to my dying day every minute of the 12 hours I was in labour with my daughter. I remember holding her in our hospital room when she was born and I spent 4 hours just watching her breathe in utter awe. She looked like Churchill crossed with a boiled chicken but she was beautiful with her corona of coppery curls. If you can take a look at a newborn and not feel a surge of hope for the future, I feel sorry for you.JoJoDeathunter said:
And I'm not wading into the abortion debate. I also believe in family planning. There is a reason I have ONE child and a tubal ligation.