Poll: Your child is born without a brain. Would you raise it regardless?

Recommended Videos

Duck Soup

New member
Oct 24, 2009
61
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
You may as well try and get a few months of love and memories in there before the little bugger passes on.
Everything you said basically summed up all that was going through my mind when I saw this thread and the responses. I am actually quite disturbed by the number of people saying they would "kill it". Assuming it's ok to kill HIM just because he's disabled. My family unfortunately went though this sort of thing before. My nephew was a surprise so we didn't know he had this problem until a few days after he was born. Then it was only a matter of keeping him comfortable and happy until he passed on 4 months later.

I think what a lot of people aren't taking into account is that if you don't know about your child's disability before he/she is born then ending his/her life is no longer an option. This is still your child and you will do everything you can to help them survive. It's just our natural instinct. Now, if you knew before hand that your child would be born without most of his brain and wouldn't live past a year then abortion MAY be an option. But it is a much tougher decision than most people seem to realize. Abortion has it's risks to the health of the mother as well. I suppose the question is more "what would you do if you had to choose between aborting your child with a risk to the mother's health and having your child for a few precious months even if your heart is broken at the end?" From experience I can tell you that those will be the happiest and most heart wrenching months of your life. But you will have the memories and will always love that child even after they have passed.

I wouldn't trade those 4 months of love and bonding I had with my nephew for the world, even if it meant taking away the pain and sadness our family went through and is still going through. And I am glad we didn't know about his condition before he was born.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Um, yeah. I'd probably end my child if it were born like this. What makes it uniquely human is gone.

Blablahb said:
Spakka said:
Umm... Just no.
The baby does have a brain - the brainstem. This is very primitive, and responsible for most of the things that keep you alive - e.g. breathing. It's just the rest is missing. True death = brainstem death.
According to your definition of life, the pump I use for my camping bed is alive....

The normal definition is being a self-sustaining organism and having conciousness. A body without a brain has no conciousness.
Jesus Christ, your camping bed has a brainstem? Kill it with fire!
 

Duck Soup

New member
Oct 24, 2009
61
0
0
TheDoctor455 said:
Umm...

literally having no brain = DEAD.

Everything about the body (including the order that it'll shut itself off in) is geared towards keeping the brain alive.

So if there is literally no brain in there... you don't have a baby there. You have a tiny corpse.
They didn't say so in the video but what is more likely is that he only grew PART of his brain and he still has a bit there. He can still experience certain things, like they said he knows when his mothers is near. He is still a human being he just won't be able to learn to do somethings. If it is the condition I think it is, there can be a lot of variation from case to case on how much of the brain survives. Since he has lived so long I would say he still has some of the more important parts of his brain. Not the part that controls vision and possibly not the part for hearing but other parts he may have.

People who are saying he's just an empty corpse have never been around a child with this condition. He is still a child. He acts exactly like other infants. He knows when you talk to him or hold him. He can still experience most things. He is not an empty shell. It's hard to describe but you can tell that he is still present and can experience things just like any other infant. And when you see that there is no question, you cannot kill him. Not after he is born anyway.
 

Judgement101

New member
Mar 29, 2010
4,156
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Does the child literally have no brain?

As in no chance of actually being a person, just an expensive drain on funds?

I'm curious, because if the child has no brain, then they really aren't a person, there's nothing there that makes them a person.

So no, I wouldn't keep that child.
Pretty much this...granted when I first heard about this, I thought the parents were raising a corpse...
 

LastArchAngel

New member
Dec 30, 2012
4
0
0
Even with the fact that he/she wouldn't be able to do and process things and ideas like the lot of us can, I couldn't see myself killing it. On the other hand, I think that would be selfish of me to do because the poor thing is suffering and really might be better to take that out. It wouldn't be euthanasia I believe, but more like cutting him/her off of life support. But, really, you don't know how you'll react until you're in that situation.
 

invadergir

New member
May 29, 2008
88
0
0
Think of it this way. Say someone you loved had stage 3 cancer that has already spread to the brain. There is no hope. You can do all the treatments but it will accomplish nothing but prolong the inevitable, another year of pain and illness at best.

Are you killing them by deciding that the treatment is less humane than to just let them go in peace?
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
invadergir said:
Think of it this way. Say someone you loved had stage 3 cancer that has already spread to the brain. There is no hope. You can do all the treatments but it will accomplish nothing but prolong the inevitable, another year of pain and illness at best.

Are you killing them by deciding that the treatment is less humane than to just let them go in peace?
No, I don't think so.
If they are conscious enough to take the choice for themselves they can do as they please for all I care.

But if it was me in that hospital bed I really hope my family would let me die in peace instead of living in agony, chained to a bed, for a year.

Same goes if I'm ever comatose for good.
 

Whispering Cynic

New member
Nov 11, 2009
356
0
0
Is it, or will it ever become self-aware and capable of taking care of itself? Will it ever be able to function as a sentient being, as a human? No? Then terminate it, because attempting to raise it would just be a pointless waste of time and resources.

If a "child" doesn't have any higher brain functions (and it's kinda hard to have those with no brain) I see no reason to keep it alive.
 

Spartan Altego

New member
Aug 7, 2012
79
0
0
Kill it. There's no brain, therefore no thought or reason capabilities, therefore not human. It's basically a shell. I'd feel worse about stepping on a spider than killing something that is less sentient than an ant. If nothing else, I'd give it away to somebody who wants it, because it's a literal drain on resources with absolutely nothing to give back.

Que moral guardian outrage.

Edit: Also that baby is fucking ugly. And I feel sorry for the parents taking care of it, assuming it's still alive.
 

SadisticFire

New member
Oct 1, 2012
338
0
0
It would be kinda sad to view it from the outside, but without a brain, it can't suffer or feel pain. It's just kinda...there. Like a rock, but made of organic tissue and drains funds from you. It would be better dead then alive for everyone involved. But that's me being the heartless witch I am.

Oh yeah since it seems some people don't understand how it's 'alive' it said the stem was still there. A lot of the organ control is actually in the stem, not the brain itself. So it can still 'live' just not be aware.
 

Flunk

New member
Feb 17, 2008
915
0
0
Literally no brain? Then yes, I would kill it. But it should really die of it's own accord. I think they're being a little over the top by saying he didn't have a brain. he would have to have something to keep his heart pumping and lungs breathing.

Very, very underdeveloped brain, now that's a really fine line and I'm not touching it.

P.S. The brain stem is part of the brain.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
Uhhh....no, I've had to live with enough mental illnesses around me to say not a chance, not because it's worn on me but because there's nothing going on in the childs head, the child cannot ever think or become more than what is now. It's not going to feel love or show love it's just ...that.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Without a brain, it's only a lump of meat with basic bodily functions. There's no reason to suffer through caring for it, as it will never appreciate it, never even understand anything as it doesn't have a consciousness, and it will most likely die within days. It'll only cause suffering for its parents. It's only alive in the sense a chicken is 'alive' when it moves after you decapitate it.
 

emissary666

New member
May 6, 2009
59
0
0
Yay, anencephaly! That's my favorite birth defect! (I'm a medical enthusiast, I like these thing in a "that's interesting" sense not "we need more brainless babies)
I'd probably let it die. Without higher functioning, it would never be capable of experiencing life in a meaningful way beside potentially being able to feel or hear on a solely technical level.