Thread: Baby Faith

who are we to judge that which she loves or does not love?

"I already loved my daughter more than anyone else in the world. Even if she was unconscious like the doctors said and lived for only a few seconds or minutes --even if she was stillborn --it was worth it to me."

what happened to atheists being pro-choice? it was her choice regardless. it's her life, and her life alone. what right do we have to sit here and argue what her choice should have been?

nor are you considering that there are many religious people that don't see the point in going through with the pregnancy. as a lack of brain to them means, no way for a soul to enter the body. so this was a personal decision. not a religious decision.

I don't think faiths story is over, or what she has to tell us. whether medically, whether about motherhood, or what ever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

This is a very gray area,not because of the religious aspect, but because of the emotional aspect. Basically, the baby has instinct, and that's it. My understanding is that it will eat when food is presented and will breathe and use her bodily functions. For right now, that may be enough for the mother. But I think she's going to look at it much more differently when the child gets older and still has the same amount of brain function.

I really feel for this lady and don't envy her position. My wife and I would most likely choose to abort if we were given the same news, but you never know about this kind of thing until you are in the situation.

But the fact of the matter is, this child will never know she existed; her brain (to my understanding) will never develop to give her recognition of self or even recognition of life in general. So while I don't think the baby would care (or even realize) either way, I think the mother has the right to make the decision she made. I don't think it benefits it, but I'm not her.

As far as the religious side, honestly I think it's too fucked up to really comprehend. If she thinks that God thought it was a good idea to give her a baby with barely a brain then she needs to find herself a new god.

Originally Posted by juroara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

"She believed that God alone should decide how long the baby would live"
"the baby's mother argued her case on the grounds of religious freedom and the sanctity of life."

I'm not quite sure what you were getting at with posting the wiki article. Because the Baby K story does show that it was a religious issue for her. And where exactly did I say that she shouldn't have a choice? I don't think that her right to give birth is anyone's choice but hers and it should always be that way.

I don't quite understand where the debate is. It seems to me you're only arguing what you define as being a real person, as I see no attack against her choice to not abort the fetus. This thread, in that case, belongs either in the lounge, extended discussion, or philosophy as an opener to debating what can and cannot be a person.

And I agree that it was a personal decision regardless. "Religious freedom" sounds a lot like "pro choice" in this particular case. "Sanctity of Life" means what exactly, that life is valuable? Ok.

Oh, and if you want input on what I think of the fetus, sure, I'll say it's a fetus and not an actual person. It's not conscious.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

"She believed that God alone should decide how long the baby would live"
"the baby's mother argued her case on the grounds of religious freedom and the sanctity of life."

I'm not quite sure what you were getting at with posting the wiki article. Because the Baby K story does show that it was a religious issue for her. And where exactly did I say that she shouldn't have a choice? I don't think that her right to give birth is anyone's choice but hers and it should always be that way.

you keep bringing someones religion as if it is somehow your right to argue about it. this is not a religious matter

who cares what god made these woman convinced that they should keep the baby?

the issue is controversial on many levels, which was the point of Baby K. the doctors didn't see the point in helping the baby live because they deemed it dead. the mother did, she saw it as living. do you think its only religious mothers that have an instinct to love their child against all logic? The joke "only a mothers love" has a measure of truth in it.

do you need a logical reason to love something? does something have to be healthy to be loved? or even, alive? what is human? what is life? and is a child less than human worthy of life?

none of these mothers are ignorant that their child is doomed to death. all of them are told it will either die on the first day, or not live for more than ten days. So while you can feel sorry for Myah that she will spend the rest of her life with a nearly dead child, that's not the truth. Why does Myah share every day of Faiths life? Except out of the expecation that today can be the last day?

and if you read the stories of these mothers, the answer is the same. they did not choose to give life to these babies on the false hope that a miracle will magically grant their child many years of a healthy life. Many go through with the pregnancy BELIEVING their child will die shortly after birth.

So why do they do it?

Many, while claiming to be God believers, don't actually believe God will grant them a miracle

So why do they do it?

Many want to give their child EVERYTHING they can give, full knowing this babe isn't even going to live to childhood

So why do they do it?

"Towards 2:00 a.m., she starts crying and she can hardly breathe. I call the pediatrician who clears her respiratory passages. Then she calms down, but breathes with increasing difficulty and more slowly than previously. Just before 6:30 a.m., Christophe and I pray together and we put her life into God's hands. She breathes once more and then dies

............................

There is neither bitterness nor lamentation and I do not regret for one second the last months."

What can make us feel more human, then to love against all odds? Is it part of our evolution?

you were so focused on their beliefs that you thought the beliefs were the reason why. but where do these beliefs come from? but a human?

Originally Posted by juroara

you were so focused on their beliefs that you thought the beliefs were the reason why. but where do these beliefs come from? but a human?

Maybe you are right and I'm focusing on the wrong aspect.

I guess the religious angle seemed to me, even though it was never explicitly said, was life begins at conception. Therefore the mothers already believed they had a baby, not a fetus. So when the mother said that she was already in love with her baby, she meant it. She didn't mean, I'm in love with what I picture this fetus growing inside of me will be when it is born.

If I was told that my baby had this condition at 20 weeks old I would abort without hesitation and mourn for the idea that I had for what my baby was going to be. I wouldn't actually mourn a life because it never existed except in my expectations and my ideas.

So that is where I am getting the religious aspect. If you don't think there is one, then great. I wanted opinions

It's a waste, in my opinion. Technically it's not even a human, because a human is an animal and to be an animal you must be able to move (no), not produce food by photosynthesis (yes), respond to stimuli (no), have restricted growth (yes) and fixed bodily structure (yes). It's essentially a pet rock with a face.

Sorry if that seems heartless, but it's all I can say.

Originally Posted by Souperman22

It's a waste, in my opinion. Technically it's not even a human, because a human is an animal and to be an animal you must be able to move (no), not produce food by photosynthesis (yes), respond to stimuli (no), have restricted growth (yes) and fixed bodily structure (yes). It's essentially a pet rock with a face.

Sorry if that seems heartless, but it's all I can say.

Are you stupid? It is a human.

Even "technically" an animal or human which is rendered immobile due to a defect, is still animal or human.

Other than that, it would be hard to discuss this. So many things to consider. Ethics, philosophy and emotions." "

While I wouldn't go as far to say she is raising a fetus, I can definitely see where you are coming from. I would say that it is not a fully developed human being and would not benefit from living a life with any form of consciousness.

Also, if she's a Christian, does she really think the baby would be better off in this world without a brain or in heaven with Jesus?

It's a person, at least to me, because it is human. This is a semantics thread...I just know it.

Originally Posted by Souperman22

respond to stimuli (no)

Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur.

Actually, the baby can respond to stimuli.

The thing might as well be a house plant. There is nobody inside that head. Nobody is home. I don't think souls exist, but if they did, aren't they supposed to be minds? Well, that biological shell has no mind, so it clearly has no soul. It is nobody.

However, I can still understand why the mother would have trouble aborting it. The motherly instinct is very powerful even when it is not rational.

The mothers gonna have fun when she has to poop. When she gets older, she will poop anytime she has to because she knows no better. I'd of just let the baby die...what's the point?

This is unbelievable.

How creepy is it to be raising what is pretty much almost a corpse.

To me, it must be a lot like having a pet. The baby does respond to touch and sound (watch the video on the Blog).

People take care of children who are incapable of taking care of themselves even into the childs adulthood.
My mom's first child had spina bifida (sp). Mom left her with her mom, then the father showed up and took my sister. He ended up running off and left my sister in the care of his girlfriend.
The girlfriend was absolutely amazing. My sister couldn't walk, had the mentality of a young child even in her teens and she became very overweight. She also allowed my grandmother to have visitation. Patty (the girlfriend) was a tiny woman, but she could lift my sister out of her wheelchair by herself. She bathed her, loved her, changed her diapers.
My daughter lived until she was about 23.

You can't help loving your child, even if it has a very limited chance of suvival.

What I would like to know is why the baby has so many breathing problems? Is it a complication from lacking some parts of her brain or something else?

It also reminds me of the couple who had a stillborn, and they spent a while taking pictures with it in all different poses as if it were alive. The skin of the baby was blue.

This is all just really creepy to me. But obviously we can't fully appreciate the situation until we experience it ourselves.

I know of two women who had a miscarriage and had a funeral for the fetus! One of them even had pictures taken of the fetus "corpse" in a casket. That is so creepy I don't even want to be in the same building with people like that. My guess that it was all about getting a bunch of attention.

pictures are creepy!!

but funerals are normal

most women don't call it a fetus btw, they call it a baby. and even then, that baby has a name. keep that in mind. there are many woman who are excited to be pregnant from day one. they go to the doctor "how big is my baby?" "HE'S AN INCH NOW!" and they are like jumping up and down. and thats NORMAL. and the way it should be that a woman has a positive view of pregnancy, as the womb is the one thing we all share in common

I don't expect this forum to understand, as even the girls here don't respect their bodies

but yes a large number of people in this world, maybe not this forum, still hold the womb and the creation of a human, not just a fetus, a very sacred thing

Originally Posted by juroara

pictures are creepy!!


I don't expect this forum to understand, as even the girls here don't respect their bodies

Haha.
I agree, life is a sacred thing, this is a special forum though

Originally Posted by juroara

pictures are creepy!!

but funerals are normal

most women don't call it a fetus btw, they call it a baby. and even then, that baby has a name. keep that in mind. there are many woman who are excited to be pregnant from day one. they go to the doctor "how big is my baby?" "HE'S AN INCH NOW!" and they are like jumping up and down. and thats NORMAL. and the way it should be that a woman has a positive view of pregnancy, as the womb is the one thing we all share in common

I don't expect this forum to understand, as even the girls here don't respect their bodies

but yes a large number of people in this world, maybe not this forum, still hold the womb and the creation of a human, not just a fetus, a very sacred thing

I think they are mainly excited about what is on track to become a baby. An acorn is not an oak tree.

Someone said that this mother is taking care of her child. Is she really? There isn't anything there. Her child has no mind. She is only taking care of this kid in the same capacity that one might take care of their clothes or their car. There is no mind to really appreciate any of this "care" that body is receiving.

In Texas there was a case like this where a person was actually brain damaged and exhibited pretty much the same symptoms this child has. She was allowed to die but it was difficult to kill her because she could still do everything on her own. She was able to live without life support, and I'm not really sure how she ate. I'm not sure what they did to kill her, they may have starved her to death. Essentially because of this case the Law redefined what death was, and considered cases like this to be equivalent to death. What I'm trying to say is there are cases where after being alive someone was reduced to this state and was considered dead based on the law.

Personally I'm not extremely disturbed or concerned over this, though I'm sure I should at least be concerned on some level. If this child is suffering then it may be better to let the thing die. However, it doesn't seem like this child even can suffer. So it probably would have been best to abort the kid, since it existing benefits no one, not even itself. It could still be put to death in some places since letting it die now would not be considered murder in certain places.

This is a really strange story, I feel sorry for the mother.

I guess this kid can be called "the purest person on the planet" because she can not be corrupted by todays society.

I don't expect this forum to understand, as even the girls here don't respect their bodies

I am very confused about this statement. What are you referring to?

This is just speculation, but i was browsing for forums about this, and some are saying the reason why the fetus has the bandages on her head is because she has no skull in the back of her. Like i said....it's from some people at forums i visited via google, so take it with a grain of salt unless it's already stated that's the reason.