Jesus take the wheel: Sextuplets keep dying

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I agree with Asher on this - these people's decisions make little sense. First, they have no patience, then they refuse to take the harsh decision necessary to see that some of their spawn has a future.

Another victory for fanaticism over common sense.

In fact, if they were aware of the facts that Guynemer pointed out, then they are nearly criminal in their decision if you ask me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There is your problem Asher. They are not excess fetuses to me, but people.

Well, that's your problem. You're letting your spirituality (I don't buy for a second this isn't religious in some way) interfere with rationality. It's a problem that's pandemic in American society, largely due to hardcore Christians.

Not quite the same. Hint: Who is making the decisions in each instance???

The adults, for better or for worse.

Coming from the videogame designer

Tell us all about your hard choices.

Since when was I a video game designer? Crackah please, they don't pay enough.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Please do [post]. At least two people here are actually interested in that.

Could you please resurrect LOTM's Big Gay Jewish Thread I started for purposes like this?

[Asher]

Originally posted by PLATO
In fact, if they were aware of the facts that Guynemer pointed out, then they are nearly criminal in their decision if you ask me.

I'm certain they were aware. It's precisely why the doctors recommended selective reduction. They knew the births would be premature, and they knew that this would cause problems.

[Patroklos]

Well, that's your problem. You're letting your spirituality (I don't buy for a second this isn't religious in some way) interfere with rationality. It's a problem that's pandemic in American society, largely due to hardcore Christians.

Oh aren't you so smart and intelligent, you can actually tell me what I think!

Obviously you have a lot of problems, not a new revelation.

The adults, for better or for worse.

So they decide to die (actually, just to take a greater risk), no one just kills them arbitrarily. Not the same scenario by a long shot.

Since when was I a video game designer? Crackah please, they don't pay enough.

Fine. What choices?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Oh aren't you so smart and intelligent, you can actually tell me what I think!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on.

Obviously you have a lot of problems, not a new revelation.

I'm not the one who'd doom all six fetuses because I don't have the balls to make a tough decision.

So they decide to die (actually, just to take a greater risk), no one just kills them arbitrarily. Not the same scenario by a long shot.

It is. It's a rational decision. You just aren't capable of making it, is all.

Fine. What choices?

We all make choices every day. I've chosen to come out to family and friends, I've chosen where to go to school, I've chosen where to work, I've chosen not to pretend to be heterosexual like many gay people do, etc. I've obviously never had to make a decision like this, but I'm clearly prepared to do so. Unlike you.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I'm not going to pull any punches in this post. Fair warning.

If, as the article states, these children were born 4.5 months early, that would put them at the 20-22 week gestation stage. It is absolutely unconscionable that her doctors even attempted to resuscitate these fetuses. The survivability odds at 20 weeks is nil; at 22, next to nil. And those who would survive would in no way live what we would call a "normal life." (I could be more precise if I knew their birth weights.)

If any survive, they will almost certainly have profound, irreversible brain damage, to such an extent that they will never be able to speak or otherwise communicate. They will also almost certainly require tracheostomies and gastrostomies to maintain their life. They will likely have other dysfunctions in other organs, depending on their NICU course.

Frankly, this smacks of physicians' best medical judgment being overwhelmed by their fear of bad publicity. Those children should have been allowed to pass without the torture they are now going through, and the endless suffering they will experience in the future.

What he said. What kind of sick twisted ****s would allow those six children to go through that kind of torture when they'll almost all die or at the very least to through constant horrific surgery and end up horrifically brain damaged as a best case scenario? And then they have the nerve to act morally superior about their disgusting acts.

[Patroklos]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on.

Nope, which makes your complete failure to figure it out so glaring.

I'm not the one who'd doom all six fetuses because I don't have the balls to make a tough decision.

Do you have the balls to kill four human being so that two can live? That is the decision they made. You have a different point of view.

It is. It's a rational decision. You just aren't capable of making it, is all.

Now your just being obtuse. The difference between the two scenarios posed is obvious. But if you insist, when are you headed over to Africa to cull the doomed HIV infected population so the rest don't starve?

We all make choices every day. I've chosen to come out to family and friends, I've chosen where to go to school, I've chosen where to work, I've chosen not to pretend to be heterosexual like many gay people do, etc.

Never had to choose who lives and dies though, that wasn't so hard.

obviously never had to make a decision like this, but I'm clearly prepared to do so.

No, I really don't think you are. And if anyone is thinking of giving you that power, they probably wouldn't after reading this

Unlike you.

Your so cute

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Do you have the balls to kill four human being so that two can live? That is the decision they made. You have a different point of view.

It's an easy choice. Two to live, or zero to live? Not that hard.

Now your just being obtuse. The difference between the two scenarios posed is obvious. But if you insist, when are you headed over to Africa to cull the doomed HIV infected population so the rest don't starve?

The difference here is obvious:
- those people are alive
- it is not the case thatkilling X amount of the people will permit the others to live

It's a truly awful argument. But it is useful to illustrate how little you understand of the situation.

Never had to choose who lives and dies though, that wasn't so hard.

Some fetuses are more developed than others. It is medically very easy to determine what the best odds would be. You play to those odds.

No, I really don't think you are. And if anyone is thinking of giving you that power, they probably wouldn't after reading this

On the contrary, I'd be far more concerned with you being in a position like this than me. I'd make a decision that would be medically best, while you would doom all six fetuses while twiddling your thumbs cause "gosh darn, this is so hard!"

[Bosh]

Do you have the balls to kill four human being so that two can live? That is the decision they made. You have a different point of view.

Basically they knew before they got the fertility treatment that this could happen. That's the decision they made. They shouldn't blather on about god's will after monkeying around so much with human reporduction.

[Asher]

I'm not getting any love for the awesome thread title.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus Christ, I just realized what is going on in this thread.


Asher... is making sense.

I need to lie down in a dark, cool room, and reassess my outlook of the universe.

Asher makes sense a lot of the time. You have to in order to be a good troll; otherwise you're just another Kidicious.

I'm not getting any love for the awesome thread title.

I think it's great.

[Patroklos]

It's an easy choice. Two to live, or zero to live? Not that hard.

It is easy, so why do you have such a hard time applying that rational evenly through all situations?

The difference here is obvious:
- those people are alive
- it is not the case thatkilling X amount of the people will permit the others to live

It's a truly awful argument. But it is useful to illustrate how little you understand of the situation.

Are fetuses not alive? You may be able to argue they are not human yet, but they are alive.

If I kill all the HIV infected people in Africa will the disease not stop spreading? Will the countries in question not be able to feed their populations amongst other things? If we are playing the numbers, removing the HIV population is the only logical solution.

And of course the most important distinction between the two scenarios is who is choosing to kill you, some one else or you? That is where your comparison is woefully lacking.

Some fetuses are more developed than others. It is medically very easy to determine what the best odds would be. You play to those odds.

So the children are automatically ****ed if your in charge of the sinking ship then, right?

However, the odds for four of them is zero. I glad you feel justified in volunteering to forfeit their lives for others. You would have made a great infantry officer in WWI.

On the contrary, I'd be far more concerned with you being in a position like this than me. I'd make a decision that would be medically best, while you would doom all six fetuses while twiddling your thumbs cause "gosh darn, this is so hard!"

Interesting, since all had/have a chance at life, how are they doomed? What if all the fetuses were equal Asher? What do you do then?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is easy, so why do you have such a hard time applying that rational evenly through all situations?

Because the same conditions do not hold?

Are fetuses not alive? You may be able to argue they are not human yet, but they are alive.

Depends on your definition of alive. Under-developed organisms being kept alive by machines on the fast-track to death is "alive" in some books -- not in mine.

If I kill all the HIV infected people in Africa will the disease not stop spreading? Will the countries in question not be able to feed their populations amongst other things? If we are playing the numbers, removing the HIV population is the only logical solution.

This is not practical in any way, nor is it an extension of the same logic except in that you seem to think I enjoy murdering people...

And of course the most important distinction between the two scenarios is who is choosing to kill you, some one else or you? That is where your comparison is woefully lacking.

It doesn't matter. Do you understand the concept of a rational decision? It doesn't matter who makes the decision, because only one really makes sense.

So the children are automatically ****ed if your in charge of the sinking ship then, right?

What? I'd put the children in the boat. It's the rational decision.

However, the odds for four of them is zero. I glad you feel justified in volunteering to forfeit their lives for others. You would have made a great infantry officer in WWI.

What do you not understand? Seriously. Four of them are going to die anyway. The question is, why do you want the other two to die as well? That's a bit odd to me. You're the only one here that's in favour of having zero survivors -- or you don't understand the science behind this here...

Interesting, since all had/have a chance at life, how are they doomed?

Because they were all born WAY TOO prematurely due to complications arising from having all six fetuses. Perhaps this is the part that you still do not understand.

The reason all of them are on the fast track to death right now is because they refused to abort several of them. The reason they are all premature is there was so many of them. They are too young to be viable in any meaningful way. They will never become fully developed human beings. All of them are doomed because of this decision that you support.

What if all the fetuses were equal Asher? What do you do then?

They are never equal. Don't waste my time.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've read various articles on it. I thought it was widely known they were religious lunatics.

Is their any one you would consider a sane person if they believed in God?

I have a couple points, first, the fertility drugs created this situation in the first place. If they were not used, this problem wouldn't have come about.

Secondly, I can't fault the mom for doing the best she could. Selective reduction is a wonderful euphemism. If I had six like this I would try my best to save all of them.

Third, I feel sad for the family that have lost three children already. Why is this something to be happy about and to gloat that she has lost 3 of her kids?