A cancer patient's body can choose to die, but that does not necessarily mean the cancer patient will be happy with that. My body can choose to decide to have a heart attack right now and kill me, and I KNOW it wouldn't have been me that decided to die. And by giving up on her, aren't we kind of deciding that she should die? But by not giving up on her, we're deciding she should live, aren't we? What right do we have either way? What right do we have to decide if she should keep trying or if she should die? Either way, the parents would be making the choice. The parents would have no choice but to make the choice. This is why I don't believe we should be quick to judge the parents as selfish, right, or wrong. And I defintely think I would care and my mindset would be different if the doctors were cutting me open for the purpose of helping me live or doing it just because they didn't like me and wanted to cause me pain. There is a difference.
yes, but this is a baby. like minus xero said, shes never experienced life without pain, and only by dying would the pain stop. shes doesnt have the knowledge to know that, so her body just decides for her. her parents made the choice to put her through excruciating pain, knowing she wont even stay alive for long. but to an 11 month old baby, it wouldnt really matter to her would it? and that was a rhetorical question.
After reading the article again, I think the parents should let the baby go. But I still won't judge the parents because I have no right, I'm not in their shoes nor have their faith, and also because... They obviously think that their baby has a real chance at living. They did not put her through excruciating pain knowing she won't even stay alive for long. They made the choice because they thought she'd be able to one day live a life without pain. It wouldn't matter to an eleven month old baby if someone was cutting her open just for the sake or torturing her or opening her up because they wanted to help her? Not seeing the logic here. Again, the pain would be the same, but I defintely still think it would matter, no matter how small or big you are Thanks for this startling observation, I never would've guessed myself. I answered it anyway to make a point. Must be my insanity
just because they believe it, doesnt mean its true. an 11 month old baby doesnt have the logic that older people do, ones that actually lived past their infancy. im basically just anwering all this with the same things ive stated before.
You said they put her through the pain knowing she won't even stay alive for long. I was responding to that and saying thats not true. If they say she is "a fighter" and will live through this, that must mean they think she will stay alive. Thats what I meant. Yeah, I understand you said a baby doesn't have the logic that older people do, ones that actually lived past their infancy. And I'm saying, as i've basically stated before , does that mean it doesn't matter to the baby whether their causing her pain to hurt or to heal her? I don't see how it can't matter. So if a baby was having her hand cut off in the Spanish Inquisition, or having it amputated to save her in the hospital, it doesn't matter to the baby either way, just because she doesn't have the logic we do? That absolutely makes no sense to me. On a slightly different note... I'm seeing some classic human behavior here. It seems like a lot of people feel the need to antagonize the parents, because they need someone to blame. And yet I'm certain the parents love the baby more than we do, know about her condition more than we do, know what she's going through more than we do, is dealing with the situation first hand. So, in short, they know much more than us, and a lot of us are pretending like we know more than what the parents know. Its them who see their daughter everyday, spend hours upon hours with her, and I believe we can't even begin to comprehend their current situation (or even the baby's) to the extent they do right now based on a newsclip that takes all but a minute to read. Not having gone through the same thing as the parents, nobody has a right to say that the parent's are being seflish, tormentors, or even plain wrong. Btw, I'm not saying that we can't have an opinion as to whether they should let go of the baby or not. I'm saying its wrong to think we're absolutely right and the parents are absolutely selfish and wrong, when their the ones who spend all that time with her and talk to the doctors, whereas we haven't even seen the baby.
minus xero: yeah, i was basically saying that she wouldnt even be able to tell the difference if doctors were hurting her to help her, or hurting her deliberately. goso88: jesus christ, its a baby. its kind of like what minus xero said, if you go up to say, a 1 year old, who hasnt learned to speak, and it has a wound, you put salt on it and it would cause the baby pain. do you think it knows that youre trying to help it? no. it just knows that its going through pain. you cant expect babies to know these things.
Ah, I see, therefore, putting salt on the wound to sterilize it would be oh-so-wrong. So it wouldn't matter to the baby, I suppose, if we just left her wound to get infected beacause putting salt in the wound would hurt. I think I see the logic now
hmm, thats funny, because that wasnt the point i was making. therefore, that comment was completely irrelevant. x2
Ok, time to take it step by step. The point you was making: The baby wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the pain someone who was trying to help her by putting salt on the wound was causing her than someone who was doing it to hurt her (speaking figuratively) The point I was making: It would still matter to the baby because if you didn't put salt on the wound, the wound would get infected (speaking figuratively) I'll refrain from rolling my eyes because thats getting pretty ridiculous.
You're correct, we are practicing classic human behavior. We have the need to be involved and have our say, and push it onto others, without knowing the full situation. It's in the nature of all humans. It's like watching football and saying 'oh they should have done that.' The thing is, we aren't there, and we have no way of comprehending it. So how can we judge? So I guess it's pretty much your own opinion and that's it. There's no point in trying to argue it (although it gives some people enjoyment doing so), we all have our opinions and no one can change it. As for the salt metaphor, I meant it in a different context. When you put salt in the wound, it hurts more, but should heal. However, in the baby's case, 'putting salt on the wound' still causes excruciating pain, but does it really help in her case?
1. i was proving a point in which you said "does that mean it doesn't matter to the baby whether their causing her pain to hurt or to heal her? I don't see how it can't matter." 2. whether or not trying to keep her alive helps in the long run, it wont last that long, and she would just have to live that period of time with more pain. minus xero: yeah, i was just using your salt/wound thing as another example in a different perspective
Right, if its in that perspective, it makes a lot more sense *no saracasm*. Like with the football anaolgy, we don't necessarily know. I don't think there is much hope for the baby. But I don't know much about this case, and so I don't want to be swift to judge. Btw, I know I'm answering another rhetorical question, if anyone ever feels the need to point that out . Oh, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, and thats not my point for arguing. But I do have a point: mental stimulation. And enjoyment, as you said. Its not everyday you get to particiapte in a heated debate, and I derive pleasure from heated debates. That wasn't what you said before. Here you were telling me the baby can't tell the difference between pain thats meant to help her and pain thats meant to just hurt her, so it wouldn't matter. I responded to that by saying it would matter to the baby because otherwise the baby would get infected, so in my defense, I think my response was pretty relevant. (Xero did make that point, however, and if that was the point you intended to make and I just misunderstood you, my response to that is up there earlier in this post.)
Well it's good to know that I'm not going crazy. Maybe I'm at the stage in my life when I start using invalid metaphors. As towards Pyromaniak's comments, I see no valid reasoning. You assume that having the baby know whether or not it's being helped would really matter, when it really doesn't. Again you're using my salt metaphor, but in a totally different and nonlogical context. As for your baby and it's wound, it's scientifically proven that salt can sterilize the wound and make it better. It goes through pain but it would soon realize that this lessened the pain later on. In my version (the original) of the metaphor, I use 'putting salt on the wound' as just a term to cause excruciating pain, as it is often connected with. Such as when you say "don't put salt on the wound" when someone rubs it in that you lost at a game. It doesn't really help, and in the baby's case, the metaphor is valid. Because this horrible pain that the baby is experiencing is not doing anything to help her at all, but just prolonging the agony. In your case, the salt will, in the long run, help her, while in my case, it doesn't. To goso88: I also don't expect to change anyone's opinions at all, but it's just the fun of debating. I've heard some very credible points on the opposite end and it's very enjoyable to have such an intellectual discussion in a world of 'd00d wtf j00 hax0rz t3h game yo.' :whistle: Speaking of which, has there been any update on the condition of the baby?
I'm speaking to Pyromaniak, for totally butchering my salt metaphor/analogy/thingy (I was never great with literary terms).
Lol, ok, well, you said as towards Pyromiak's comments, and I did make comments toward Pyromiak, so I assumed you were addressing me and talking about my comments towards Pyromiak. If that made any sense. Bleh. Its english ><;;
to minus xero and goso88: my whole salt/wound example had absolutely nothing to do with your salt/wound example. the only relation it has is that its with the same situation. i was trying to prove a coompletely different point, i couldve used some other example, but frankly, i couldnt think of anything else. i have no idea how you cant understand what i was saying. "if you go up to say, a 1 year old, who hasnt learned to speak, and it has a wound, you put salt on it and it would cause the baby pain. do you think it knows that youre trying to help it? no. it just knows that its going through pain. you cant expect babies to know these things." i was stating that the baby cant tell the difference what your sole intentions are, whether its to help it or to hurt it, it just knows its in pain. it had nothing to do with whether or not you should or shouldnt do it. i never said i assume that the baby knows that, that was goso88. that example i used was to contradict that. god, i hope you realize what i was saying, so i can at least be spared anymore explaining. reading things properly without jumping to conclusions is cool.