If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Google)   Would you kill your own baby, who is doomed to die anyways, to save another? What if your baby refuses to die, putting both babies at risk? This isn't a question from your old Ethics class; it's a real problem for this Canadian couple   (google.com) divider line 235
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

28151 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2009 at 5:57 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-04-08 07:52:38 PM
My 3 year old is scheduled for heart surgery on the 15th so I'm really getting sick from these replies.
 
2009-04-08 08:00:39 PM
bigstoopidbruce: Yes, that is a heartbreaking decision that no parent should have to make.

Guess what?

No parent has to make it. Just let it take its course. Okay to let very sick baby die. Not okay to kill baby. Something may suck when it's over but that's already the case. Welcome to earf.



The problem being since the terminally ill baby is on a ventilator, it may never actually die. Artificial life isn't really life imho.

I know it doesn't mean much, but it sounds as if the parents had made peace with the fact that they were going to lose their daughter, and made the horribly hard decision to "pull the plug" in hopes of possibly helping another child survive and preventing another family from going through the awful pain they are.
 
2009-04-08 08:02:36 PM
vixis: I am for organ transplants except in the case of a person refusing to quit smoking who then needs a lung transplant or a drunk who ruins their liver. Those organs should be given to someone who deserves them.

And I hate people that say well you can have another baby. Yes you can but it doesn't make up for the one that died. I had 7 miscarriages before i carried a child then 3 more before the next child. And each one that i lost I still think about and wonder what their lives would have been like.


I don't think people are really saying that. It's just a matter of putting into perspective. If a 10 year old dies, I don't think anyone would say "well, replace it." But since the child in question is so young, the reaction to the loss is really a visceral, automatic one (I am sure it's still immense pain). You miss very young babies because of all of the things they could have been, while you miss children for all of the things they were. I think the latter is much more traumatic simply because you have had more time to bond with the child, but that isn't to say losing a baby isn't traumatic as well.

/I don't want to make your losses seem marginal because I don't actually believe that it's easy to replace babies (nor do I think most people think that way)
 
2009-04-08 08:03:13 PM
bigstoopidbruce:
No parent has to make it. Just let it take its course. Okay to let very sick baby die. Not okay to kill baby.


I don't know if I agree with this line of reasoning. I don't see how withholding treatment to allow death is anyway preferable to actively killing. If a baby was left outside to die of exposure we regard it as murder, likewise not feeding it, so how is this otherwise? Nature is, in those instances, just taking its course.

I'm not opposed to euthanasia, but let's call a spade a spade here. The act of taking a life begins with the decision to end a life. That is where the presumed moral transgression occurs. There are many reasons why people are murdered (in the sense of death by the wilful actions of another) some good, many bad, but it should be the intent that forms the ethical judgement, not the method. Obviously there is a spectrum of intent from purely self-defence or protecting others to outright hate or malice, and debate about what is acceptable in society is unavoidable, indeed, even necessary. But to adopt a passive position knowing full well the outcome will result in death, that's just weaselling out. Passing of the moral buck, as it were.

Look at it this way, when the Schiavo case occurred it took her 13 days from when the feeding tube was pulled to when she died of dehydration. 13 days to have her body fail, her mind go, well, if she wasn't a potato. Any way you slice it dehydration is a terrible, agonizing way to go. How is that possibly better, or more ethically sound than giving someone a shot and having them quickly drift off?
 
2009-04-08 08:07:04 PM
taobananaboat:

Well put.
 
2009-04-08 08:07:11 PM
You could just terminate the life of the brain dead baby but that would be immoral. I'm sure it goes against gods plan to let the first child live just long enough so the second child can die.

/Been reading a book on House and philosophy.
 
2009-04-08 08:10:04 PM
X1's Here: lordaction: I've skipped all comments so excuse me if this has already been posted.

In my ethics class the ultimate situation was the following:

If you do not kill a human being I will continue to kill one human being a week until you do.

What is the ethical choice?

Can't I just kill you? Wouldn't that solve the problem all the way 'round?


beat me to it. kill the person giving the ultimatum, easy.
 
2009-04-08 08:12:07 PM
Solution: double heart transplant while both are alive. Terminally ill baby gets the bad heart, otherwise-healthy baby gets the good heart.
 
2009-04-08 08:12:43 PM
Jane Doe: My 3 year old is scheduled for heart surgery on the 15th so I'm really getting sick from these replies.


Wow... best thoughts for your child, and you.

/Sense of humor in heavy times is commendable
 
2009-04-08 08:17:16 PM
vixis: I am for organ transplants except in the case of a person refusing to quit smoking who then needs a lung transplant or a drunk who ruins their liver. Those organs should be given to someone who deserves them.

And I hate people that say well you can have another baby. Yes you can but it doesn't make up for the one that died. I had 7 miscarriages before i carried a child then 3 more before the next child. And each one that i lost I still think about and wonder what their lives would have been like.


You just don't listen, do you.
 
2009-04-08 08:17:23 PM
We're all doomed to die.

It's scary that when you're incapacitated, the people who are supposed to be acting in your interest might be thinking about harvesting your organs.

It's scary that your refusal to die on schedule might considered a bad thing.

Not much I can do about it, but thankfully when my time comes, I'll have a liver nobody will want to kill me for.
 
2009-04-08 08:18:07 PM
centrifugal bumblepuppy: anencephaly

QFT -- i've never not GIS'ed. i regret this one.
 
2009-04-08 08:21:06 PM
Can we joke in this thread or was that reserved for the Italy quake thread?
 
2009-04-08 08:21:15 PM
how come the organ transplants such as kidneys and hearts have a lower risk of rejection than the face transplants

Internal organs are protected from a rather hostile external environment by several different mechanisms, some mechanical and some immunologic. The main mechanical barrier to infection is your skin. If you have a face transplant, you're replacing a huge chunk of that with "user hostile" skin that will be in direct contact with a pathogen-laced environment and in the context of a body that will be permanently immuno-suppressed (to retard the body's immunologic rejection of the graft).
 
2009-04-08 08:25:47 PM
most of these replies are actually heartfelt and kind
crazily enough
 
2009-04-08 08:29:03 PM
meehawl: how come the organ transplants such as kidneys and hearts have a lower risk of rejection than the face transplants

Internal organs are protected from a rather hostile external environment by several different mechanisms, some mechanical and some immunologic. The main mechanical barrier to infection is your skin. If you have a face transplant, you're replacing a huge chunk of that with "user hostile" skin that will be in direct contact with a pathogen-laced environment and in the context of a body that will be permanently immuno-suppressed (to retard the body's immunologic rejection of the graft).



Wow. My mind is officially blown. It's one of those things that people have absolutely no idea how it works, but the way you explained it perfectly makes you go 'Well, duh! I should have known that! That's what I get for falling asleep in my 8am Facial Transplants 101 class.'

/Not sarcastic.
//Seriously.
///I don't know what else to say. It's just an awful situation for those folks.
 
2009-04-08 08:30:25 PM
Galen_Rasputin: Gunther: Galen_Rasputin: Darwin would say let em both die. They are failures of genetic selection and should suffer the consequences.

No he wouldn't; he was a compassionate man who spent much of his life mourning his own daughter who died young.

/Yeah, I know what you meant.

No he was not. He was an Atheist who repented on his death bed, recanted all his works, and begged the Roman Catholic church for forgivness.


Oh no he was not! Darwin was born a Unitarian, then toyed with becoming an Angelican clergyman. His family discounted the whole "recanting" crap. the more you know (new window)
 
2009-04-08 08:33:32 PM
ttintagel: It may be heartless of me to say so, but surely there is no shortage of children who need a donor heart?

It's not that I don't feel horrible for the parents of the child awaiting a heart, but it's not like Kaylee's is going to go to waste and not save another child if she doesn't die in time to save this particular one.

/Easy for me to say, etc.


The problem is that if donor baby dies slowly, it will damage the heart, and the heart will not be fit to transplant to anyone.

Donor baby will die. There's no stopping it, sadly.

Her parents are just looking for a tiny spark of good to come out of there nightmare - that their clild's life was not wasted, and that she was able to do great good (save a child's life) in her very short and tragic life.
 
2009-04-08 08:34:33 PM
Would you kill your own baby

Never. Anyone who would is a total dipshiat.
 
2009-04-08 08:37:05 PM
doglover:

Don't get me wrong, it's sad to have this occur at all, but for fark's sake don't let the poor thing dehydrate to death! That's the worst part of the story.


very much This

I don't see the point of talking about the sanctity of life when we can't use our God-given logic to make the best out of a horrible situation like this.

We didn't make the rules, but we're stuck playing by them.
 
2009-04-08 08:41:20 PM
PersistantRash: If it was my daughter who had been an car accident or something and a baby could live but my daughter didnt have a chance... I'd sign what needed to be signed, I'd prolly be bawling like a lonely moose while signing those papers, but WTF else you gonna do? Just let both kids die?

Many people can't (or choose to not) think as rationally as you hypothetically would.
 
2009-04-08 08:44:09 PM
Ack. The Terry Schivo dehydration thing upset me so much - you all can be my witnesses that I've told Mr Namegoeshere that if it ever gets to that point for me, he is to sneak into my room and give me something quick and painless.

Living Will. Have one.
 
2009-04-08 08:51:36 PM
TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Would you kill your own baby

Never. Anyone who would is a total dipshiat.



just said I would, and I would. I'm going to have to argue that you are a cruel and greedy coont. If she was in a car accident and someone needed her heart NOW and she was already past the point of no return I would have them take her off artifical resperation or whatever to save that other kid. Not an easy thing I bet, and no matter how hard I think about it I could never be prepared for something like that, but I would sign those papers. When my old prof's daughter was born with most of her bits fused together (they had to cut holes for her to breathe) and they told him she wasnt going to live, he put her in the donor program and instructed them not to keep her on life support if somebody else's baby needed the parts. I guess there are just some of us out there who let logic rule and some who are cowardly idiots. In both cases the potential donor is going to die, thats the key to this question. From my POV it's GREEDY and CRUEL to want to keep your daughter alive and in agony for a few more days at the COST of saving another kids whole life. Why? So I can sit there and watch her gurgle through tubes until the inevitable time comes? WTF sense does that make? Some kind of slavish devotion to a higher power? Some kind of insane hope for a miracle? Really just how would you justify keeping your kid alive for a few days at the cost of the ENTIRE LIFE of another child?

/yes the whole family has donor cards, and you should to you greedy sonofabiatch
 
2009-04-08 08:54:59 PM
namegoeshere: Ack. The Terry Schivo dehydration thing upset me so much - you all can be my witnesses that I've told Mr Namegoeshere that if it ever gets to that point for me, he is to sneak into my room and give me something quick and painless.

In my house we call that sex
 
2009-04-08 08:59:48 PM
If you are very religious shouldn't you be happy knowing that God made the kid this way and its dying is part of his plan? I talked to a religious kid once and asked why god would make my younger bro die a few days after birth, he said it was original sin or a sin my mom committed in life.

If your kid is genetic garbage and can only live with machines and chemicals being jammed into it 24/7 then you should know the right thing to do is let it go. Think of how much money and time we waste on Terry Shiavo cases where it's obvious she will never be anything other than a science experiment. Being kept alive artificially is not living.
 
2009-04-08 09:02:23 PM
clusterfrak: namegoeshere: Ack. The Terry Schivo dehydration thing upset me so much - you all can be my witnesses that I've told Mr Namegoeshere that if it ever gets to that point for me, he is to sneak into my room and give me something quick and painless.

In my house we call that sex


LOLs :)
 
2009-04-08 09:09:42 PM
Baby killers. Disgusting animals wanting to murder their child to harvest its organs. That's about as logical as the pro murder advocates who claim a fetus with a heartbeat, fingernails and toenails isn't a living human being.

It's an evil, twisted world we live in.
 
2009-04-08 09:17:29 PM
Mija: Baby killers. Disgusting animals wanting to murder their child to harvest its organs. That's about as logical as the pro murder advocates who claim a fetus with a heartbeat, fingernails and toenails isn't a living human being.

It's an evil, twisted world we live in.


1/10
 
2009-04-08 09:19:19 PM
DrRatchet: As a (fairly) new father, I can't even read shiat like this anymore. Damn, I feel for everyone involved...

no kidding, eh? I can't even imagine how I could even continue living if I found out my kid was dying, nevermind having to make a choice like this.

My 7 month old son is sleeping in his car seat next to me right now... gonna hug him a little harder tonight.
and I'll remember how lucky I am to have a healthy (except for deathly allergies) 3 year old daughter the next time she throws a fit.

Mija
I am VERY pro-life, but this situation is so different. The kid is dying... the other kid will ALSO die without the transplant... so either 1 dies now, or they both die later.

I'm curious... do you think it is murder when someone takes a brain dead person off life support?
 
2009-04-08 09:23:48 PM
Mija: Baby killers. Disgusting animals wanting to murder their child to harvest its organs.

More organs is more human.
 
2009-04-08 09:27:41 PM
I hate how the local media are glomming on to this. THEIR BABY IS DYING. Leave. Them. The. Fark. Alone.

/Former journalist.
 
2009-04-08 09:29:35 PM
Alyna_jf: no kidding, eh? I can't even imagine how I could even continue living if I found out my kid was dying, nevermind having to make a choice like this.

My 7 month old son is sleeping in his car seat next to me right now... gonna hug him a little harder tonight.
and I'll remember how lucky I am to have a healthy (except for deathly allergies) 3 year old daughter the next time she throws a fit.


This is why I have nothing but awe and respect for pediatric oncologists. I could not think of a suckier career than face everyday knowing that you are gonna have to tell some kids or parents that their kid is going to die. Why does it seem ever kids get cancer they get the really bad ones?
 
2009-04-08 09:29:56 PM
studebaker hoch: NYCNative

Asshole troll is an asshole.

Coming from a New Yorker,

. . . and seconded by a Canadian who lives just outside Toronto.

I'll take that as a compliment.


That is a sad truth.
 
2009-04-08 09:30:17 PM
Salieri_82: I hate how the local media are glomming on to this. THEIR BABY IS DYING. Leave. Them. The. Fark. Alone.

/Former journalist.


I agree.

/Former cannibal.
 
2009-04-08 09:32:07 PM
"The heart must stop beating for five minutes before she can be legally declared dead and the transplant can begin."

Clearly it's a procedural issue, not an ethics issue. If it were an ethics issue they would be allowed to make their own choice and put the baby down to enable the transplant.

Personally though, the parents of the kid with the heart problems should just put their own kid down and have another. Why raise a kid who is going to have to take medication to stay alive and will have a diminished life? It's inhumane and disgusting. Both parents need to let their kids go and have new ones that are healthy.
 
2009-04-08 09:34:00 PM
clusterfrak: Why does it seem ever kids get cancer they get the really bad ones?

As opposed to the really fun ones?
 
2009-04-08 09:37:01 PM
PersistantRash: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Would you kill your own baby

Never. Anyone who would is a total dipshiat.


just said I would, and I would. I'm going to have to argue that you are a cruel and greedy coont. If she was in a car accident and someone needed her heart NOW and she was already past the point of no return I would have them take her off artifical resperation or whatever to save that other kid. Not an easy thing I bet, and no matter how hard I think about it I could never be prepared for something like that, but I would sign those papers. When my old prof's daughter was born with most of her bits fused together (they had to cut holes for her to breathe) and they told him she wasnt going to live, he put her in the donor program and instructed them not to keep her on life support if somebody else's baby needed the parts. I guess there are just some of us out there who let logic rule and some who are cowardly idiots. In both cases the potential donor is going to die, thats the key to this question. From my POV it's GREEDY and CRUEL to want to keep your daughter alive and in agony for a few more days at the COST of saving another kids whole life. Why? So I can sit there and watch her gurgle through tubes until the inevitable time comes? WTF sense does that make? Some kind of slavish devotion to a higher power? Some kind of insane hope for a miracle? Really just how would you justify keeping your kid alive for a few days at the cost of the ENTIRE LIFE of another child?

/yes the whole family has donor cards, and you should to you greedy sonofabiatch


Oh look, a moron on the internet trying to tell me what I should be doing. Who are you trying to impress, really? Also, why would you mention daughters only. We also have something on THIS planet called the male sex. Go get hit by a Chevy Suburban at 70 MPH, you pretender, you sexist, you faux-righteous asshole.

randazza.files.wordpress.com

...and choke on a homeless guys dick while you're at it.
 
2009-04-08 09:37:52 PM
antialias: clusterfrak: Why does it seem ever kids get cancer they get the really bad ones?

As opposed to the really fun ones?


OK made me laugh but it seems from my personal experience that kids get the ones that are less succesful to treat than adults under 50.
 
2009-04-08 09:39:43 PM
If her brain is ruined then there is nothing there but meat. The only thing live meat is good for is spare parts. That sounds evil, but it is an evil world. It's also more easily said than done, I'm sure.
 
2009-04-08 09:41:17 PM
taobananaboat
No parent has to make it. Just let it take its course. Okay to let very sick baby die. Not okay to kill baby.

I don't know if I agree with this line of reasoning. I don't see how withholding treatment to allow death is anyway preferable to actively killing. If a baby was left outside to die of exposure we regard it as murder, likewise not feeding it, so how is this otherwise? Nature is, in those instances, just taking its course.


I think there's a difference between treating a baby like a healthy baby, and putting baby on life support. Pretty much all babies will die if they're abandoned (unless it gets adopted by wolves). I guess you could say it's natural for a mother to give birth, feed, and care for her baby. It's unnatural for a mother to give birth, and then hook her baby up to a bunch of machines that can breathe for her baby.

I'm not opposed to euthanasia, but let's call a spade a spade here. The act of taking a life begins with the decision to end a life. That is where the presumed moral transgression occurs. There are many reasons why people are murdered (in the sense of death by the wilful actions of another) some good, many bad, but it should be the intent that forms the ethical judgement, not the method. Obviously there is a spectrum of intent from purely self-defence or protecting others to outright hate or malice, and debate about what is acceptable in society is unavoidable, indeed, even necessary. But to adopt a passive position knowing full well the outcome will result in death, that's just weaselling out. Passing of the moral buck, as it were.

I see what you're saying here, but can anyone be sure of anything 100%? If I were the parents I would take the baby off life support because that's no way to live. I'd know 99% that the baby would not survive, but in the back of my mind I would still hope that some miracle would allow the baby to survive on its own. If I have the Baby euthanized I would be taking away its right to fight for its life, under cruel conditions maybe, but still a chance. Also, if the baby doesn't survive I wouldn't consider pulling the plug the reason for its death; instead I would consider having... plugged the plug a scientific prolonging of its life. If I choose to have the baby euthanized while on life support, I'm making the life/death choice.

Look at it this way, when the Schiavo case occurred it took her 13 days from when the feeding tube was pulled to when she died of dehydration. 13 days to have her body fail, her mind go, well, if she wasn't a potato. Any way you slice it dehydration is a terrible, agonizing way to go. How is that possibly better, or more ethically sound than giving someone a shot and having them quickly drift off?

You raise many good ethical questions. No doubt, having Schiavo starve for 13 days was the less humane decision, but is shooting her in the head the more ethical choice? If you say yes to that you're going to be traveling down a very slippery slope. That kind of thinking is a lot like someone else we all know. Just because something is cruel, or inhumane does not mean it's not ethical. Still, not saying I have the correct answer, I just think there is a difference from taking someone off life support, and having them euthanized. The result maybe the same, but the actions are different.

And yes, I get the whole, "if you let the baby die 'naturally' the heart may not be suitable for a transplant". That's part of the whole cruelty scenario. I don't think it's unethical to take a baby off life support, and then have another baby die because a healthy heart is not available for transplant. It would be unethical to euthanize a baby, even if it was to save another babies life. Organ harvesting is another slippery slope.

While writing all this I imagined having a baby off life support, and watching as it struggled to breathe. It would be incredibly hard, if not impossible, to not yell at the doctors to get a respirator, an iron lung, anything that would extend its life. How's that for hypocrisy?
 
2009-04-08 09:44:20 PM
clusterfrak: antialias: clusterfrak: Why does it seem ever kids get cancer they get the really bad ones?
As opposed to the really fun ones?

OK made me laugh but it seems from my personal experience that kids get the ones that are less succesful to treat than adults under 50.


Just guessing here, but it seems that when you're young, your body fights off most of the mutations/they don't multiply enough to cause cancer, unless it's a very serious case. once you get older, your body is not going to fight off the cancers, even the less severe ones.
 
2009-04-08 09:44:41 PM
And that Latimer story has made my soul hurt. Thanks, jerks.
 
2009-04-08 09:45:57 PM
What a sad sad story. Hard enough to make that kind of choice, but then have her continue living after life support is turned off is torture. Hopefully not too long.
 
2009-04-08 09:46:26 PM
TeddyRooseveltsMustache: PersistantRash: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Would you kill your own baby

Never. Anyone who would is a total dipshiat.


just said I would, and I would. I'm going to have to argue that you are a cruel and greedy coont. If she was in a car accident and someone needed her heart NOW and she was already past the point of no return I would have them take her off artifical resperation or whatever to save that other kid. Not an easy thing I bet, and no matter how hard I think about it I could never be prepared for something like that, but I would sign those papers. When my old prof's daughter was born with most of her bits fused together (they had to cut holes for her to breathe) and they told him she wasnt going to live, he put her in the donor program and instructed them not to keep her on life support if somebody else's baby needed the parts. I guess there are just some of us out there who let logic rule and some who are cowardly idiots. In both cases the potential donor is going to die, thats the key to this question. From my POV it's GREEDY and CRUEL to want to keep your daughter alive and in agony for a few more days at the COST of saving another kids whole life. Why? So I can sit there and watch her gurgle through tubes until the inevitable time comes? WTF sense does that make? Some kind of slavish devotion to a higher power? Some kind of insane hope for a miracle? Really just how would you justify keeping your kid alive for a few days at the cost of the ENTIRE LIFE of another child?

/yes the whole family has donor cards, and you should to you greedy sonofabiatch

Oh look, a moron on the internet trying to tell me what I should be doing. Who are you trying to impress, really? Also, why would you mention daughters only. We also have something on THIS planet called the male sex. Go get hit by a Chevy Suburban at 70 MPH, you pretender, you sexist, you faux-righteous asshole.



...and choke on a homeless guys dick while you're at it.


I have never said this on FARK before but you are an absolute DICK I hope you Die In A Fire. I hope that I would have the will to do the right thing to put my child out of misery and save anothers. Fine you want to be greedy and hope for that million to one shot but that is like basing your retirement on the lottery. The fact that you would let yoour child waste at the cost of another is soulless and inexcusable. You should do the world a favor and get hit by a chevy Suburban you sociopath.
 
2009-04-08 09:48:18 PM
clusterfrak: antialias: clusterfrak: Why does it seem ever kids get cancer they get the really bad ones?

As opposed to the really fun ones?

OK made me laugh but it seems from my personal experience that kids get the ones that are less succesful to treat than adults under 50.


Yeah I know what you meant, I was just trying to lighten up a very sad thread.

I dunno, maybe it just seems like it's worse because they're kids, and it's sadder when bad things happen to kids.
 
2009-04-08 09:53:28 PM
You know they even denied Latimer parole because he said he wouldn't have done it any differently. Oooh it makes my blood just boil when I see special interest groups politically posturing saying that his daughter was valued less because he made this impossibly difficult decision to terminate her life in which she constantly suffered pain. That she wasn't considered valuable so her father threw her away. Those jerks should only spend an hour in his shoes as he spent all those years with his daughter.

rant rant rant

kunibob: This situation is horrible. I can't imagine what either set of parents must be going through right now. I wish euthanasia was legal, though I understand why it's not (too many grey areas.)

bigbadideasinaction: RemyDuron: Ouch. That just seems like God's farking with you.

Reminds me of a story I heard on the BBC about a guy, in Canada I think, who killed his 14 year old daughter who had been brain damaged her whole life (he said that, at one point, she could turn herself over in bed without assistance, that was the extent of her physical abilities, and that went away when they shoved this weird metal rods along her spine to stop it curving). He said he felt that the surgeries were becoming mutilations and that she was spending almost all her time in pain. That, although she was never terribly expressive, that you could tell when she hurt, and in the final days she was either in pain or so doped up she was numb to everything. He was convicted of murder IIRC.

Terrible situation and a terrible miscarriage of justice IMO.

/Sorry to risk a threadjack

That was Robert Latimer (new window)

I still get so angry when I think about that case. If someone kept a dog alive in the conditions his daughter was in, people would be up in arms, demanding he euthanize it. We treat animals better than we treat humans.
 
2009-04-08 09:58:26 PM
I GISed anencephaly once.

I had nightmares of "frog babies" (for lack of a better descriptive term) for days afterwards.

...

Things like this are terrible, and I don't even know if I would ever be able to get through something like that...
 
2009-04-08 09:59:03 PM
Glad I'll never have to worry about my babies being doomed to die, as they are all immortal, unlike lesser babies.
 
2009-04-08 10:04:39 PM
clusterfrak: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: PersistantRash: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Would you kill your own baby

Never. Anyone who would is a total dipshiat.


just said I would, and I would. I'm going to have to argue that you are a cruel and greedy coont. If she was in a car accident and someone needed her heart NOW and she was already past the point of no return I would have them take her off artifical resperation or whatever to save that other kid. Not an easy thing I bet, and no matter how hard I think about it I could never be prepared for something like that, but I would sign those papers. When my old prof's daughter was born with most of her bits fused together (they had to cut holes for her to breathe) and they told him she wasnt going to live, he put her in the donor program and instructed them not to keep her on life support if somebody else's baby needed the parts. I guess there are just some of us out there who let logic rule and some who are cowardly idiots. In both cases the potential donor is going to die, thats the key to this question. From my POV it's GREEDY and CRUEL to want to keep your daughter alive and in agony for a few more days at the COST of saving another kids whole life. Why? So I can sit there and watch her gurgle through tubes until the inevitable time comes? WTF sense does that make? Some kind of slavish devotion to a higher power? Some kind of insane hope for a miracle? Really just how would you justify keeping your kid alive for a few days at the cost of the ENTIRE LIFE of another child?

/yes the whole family has donor cards, and you should to you greedy sonofabiatch

Oh look, a moron on the internet trying to tell me what I should be doing. Who are you trying to impress, really? Also, why would you mention daughters only. We also have something on THIS planet called the male sex. Go get hit by a Chevy Suburban at 70 MPH, you pretender, you sexist, you faux-righteous asshole.



...and choke on a homeless guys dick while you're at it.

I have never said this on FARK before but you are an absolute DICK I hope you Die In A Fire. I hope that I would have the will to do the right thing to put my child out of misery and save anothers. Fine you want to be greedy and hope for that million to one shot but that is like basing your retirement on the lottery. The fact that you would let yoour child waste at the cost of another is soulless and inexcusable. You should do the world a favor and get hit by a chevy Suburban you sociopath.


Hey, loser. I was making a general statement that I would never kill my child. Since you misunderstood you now look like a big fool, don't you? Go drink battery acid.
 
2009-04-08 10:06:46 PM
doglover: 10min_game_misconduct: kunibob:

I still get so angry when I think about that case. If someone kept a dog alive in the conditions his daughter was in, people would be up in arms, demanding he euthanize it. We treat animals better than we treat humans.

This, this, and this

/penalties are worse for abusing animals than children too
//social stigma is worse too

citation needed


Britney Spears and/or Michael Jackson v Michael Vick.

Done.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report