It would be my kid. I brought them into this world, I'd do whatever I could to keep them in it, or if it comes to that, to ease their passing.
Poll: Your child is born without a brain. Would you raise it regardless?
- Thread starter lucky_sharm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How the fuck does that work? How does a human live without a brain?
Best solution for society would be to pulp down for valuable resources, seeing as a person without a brain is essentially on the same level of sentience as a sea sponge.
CAPTCHA: braaains!
Now come on captcha, that's just being a cruel ************.
Best solution for society would be to pulp down for valuable resources, seeing as a person without a brain is essentially on the same level of sentience as a sea sponge.
CAPTCHA: braaains!
Now come on captcha, that's just being a cruel ************.
I like you. And I agree - while there is a significant difference between killing someone and allowing them to die, the psychological effects on a person can be distressingly similar.Vitagen said:
Wao - why haven't I seen you before? You think things through, you say funny things, you do stream-of-consciousness posting, you are generally awesome. Keep on keeping on, and I'd like to see you more around these parts.Vitagen said:
Anyways, those things are truly very complicated. In regards to personhood/abortion, the only consistant ideas I have seen are 1) the Vatican's "babies are people from conception, killing people is wrong" and 2) a person I forgot who said essentially that "humans are not the only 'persons'. Aliens, animals, robots, etc. could be too, so long as they have certain qualities. Personhood is having a number of these qualities, and something that doesn't isn't a person. Babies and fetuses do not have these qualities. Killing non-persons is not inherently wrong, therefore killing babies isn't wrong."
Distressingly, I find the second[footnote]NOTE: the second FULL argument, not my brief summary[/footnote] argument to be more plausible. However, because I had brought this child into the world, I feel it would be my duty to help him or her as much as I could, and to "pull the plug" or "stop the medication" only when there is no more hope for survival and they are going through immense suffering.
So he's basically a zombie...
I wouldn't, whats the point? He/She will NEVER, EVER, EVER have a normal life, they are ONLY a burden. Besides, no brain, no emotions, no thoughts...shit, no feelings.
A human without a functioning brain is barely a human at all, only a human in terms of biology.
I wouldn't, whats the point? He/She will NEVER, EVER, EVER have a normal life, they are ONLY a burden. Besides, no brain, no emotions, no thoughts...shit, no feelings.
A human without a functioning brain is barely a human at all, only a human in terms of biology.
When I first saw the thread title, i thought Stupid question is stupid. After seeing that video, and reading the article the 2nd poster posted, I don't know what to think about this subject anymore, and I don't even know what to think about what I know about people anymore.
Now my brain hurts...
Now my brain hurts...
It really pisses me off when people call something like this a miracle. A miracle? A baby is born horribly deformed and will never, ever live properly, and they call it a miracle? Fuck that, and fuck them.
Well... seeing as the only thing the blob could do is possibly feel sensations I would put it out of its misery. Nothing good can come of it.
Ultimatly what makes us human is our brain, since the child has no brain it doesn't even qualify as being a shell of an actual person so no, I wouldn't keep him/her, or it.
As cold and unsettling as it is, I don't think i'd raise the kid. It's not a person. It's not like someone that has suffered massive brain damage and ended up like that in an accident, someone that you've known for years or anything. There was never really anything there.
Honestly, I think it's best for everyone.
The kid may as well be a machine - an imitation of life.
Honestly, I think it's best for everyone.
The kid may as well be a machine - an imitation of life.
I'd kill the child simply because it wouldn't be able to develop, and as such, serves no actual purpose. It would actually be more a negative thing, considering it would still drain numerous resources, as well as time, and would die very early in the first place. Might as well put the pitiful thing down sooner rather than later, doing so would benefit every party.
This is a tough cookie. From our point of view, it doesn't have a life. It's just a sack of flesh drawing air and producing urine and feces. That's it. From Nicholas' pseudo-POV, there's no problem whatsoever. He's not conscious, ergo he can't formulate the things he's missing. He can't yearn for them or wish he had them. He just *is*. He lives in the moment and doesn't care about how healthy or unhealthy his condition is.
From our point of view, euthanizing him seems like the obvious choice. From his point of view, nothing's wrong. He won't even die afraid or confused, because he doesn't have the capacity to formulate fear or confusion!
I know he actually did die but if he hadn't, I'd say it comes down to the parents and their decision. Although personally, if I'd seen what was coming up with routine examinations, I would've had an abortion. He has no quality of life as we define it and he's a drain on his mother's own time and resources.
It really boils down to personal ethics. Either you're convinced he has a soul and you grow attached to him, or you see him as a sack of flesh without much in the way of personality.
From our point of view, euthanizing him seems like the obvious choice. From his point of view, nothing's wrong. He won't even die afraid or confused, because he doesn't have the capacity to formulate fear or confusion!
I know he actually did die but if he hadn't, I'd say it comes down to the parents and their decision. Although personally, if I'd seen what was coming up with routine examinations, I would've had an abortion. He has no quality of life as we define it and he's a drain on his mother's own time and resources.
It really boils down to personal ethics. Either you're convinced he has a soul and you grow attached to him, or you see him as a sack of flesh without much in the way of personality.
I would let him live, simply because I don't believe any of us are in a position to decide whether or not someone/something gets the right to exist, even if all they do is merely exist.
Any degree of existence in my eyes is an existence worth experiencing if the only alternative is non-existence.
Any degree of existence in my eyes is an existence worth experiencing if the only alternative is non-existence.
Help someone else how, exactly? By learning to grow them a new brain, or learning to transplant the brain of another person into its body? If there's nothing but a brainstem present then to do that would essentially mean transplanting a new person into that body (and that sounds way too farfetched to ever work anyway). A person in this child's condition can't be helped, because the vital component that makes them a person is missing. Best you could ever do with something like that is keep it alive until the entire body could be used to save the brain of another child with total organ failure or something like that.Ieyke said: