So my mother got mad at me for referring to this




as an "it". She seems to think that once you're born you're automatically a person. And apparently I should be more sympathetic have a congenital cephalic disorder (hydrocephalus) of my own. but I told her that it doesn't have a brain therefore it doesn't think or feel, and so it's not a person. I also told her the woman that gave birth to it was selfish because all that time and medicine should have gone to actual children. What do you guys think? Is being "alive" enough to establish the title person? Am I being unnecessarily harsh?

The mother may be selfish but its not like you can turn love off, especially towards your own kids.

(February 10, 2014 at 11:16 am)Insanity Wrote: The mother may be selfish but its not like you can turn love off, especially towards your own kids.

Well that was my point it's not really a kid, it's a body. Cases like this is why they shouldn't restrict the donor access of anencephalic "infants". People could have used those organs, and that medicine.

So my cousin who overdosed on heroin, who was completely brain dead, wasn't a person? He was an "it" because his brain didn't function? OR my daughter who was found to lack brain function when she was in utero?

This makes absolutely no sense to me... how can you call that baby an "it" and just write it off like it means less than dog shit. To me this seems heartless and just insulting. Abortion in these situations is completely subjective. It depends on the mother, her family, and her options at the time. Not everyone terminates pregnancies with birth defects. I did, but I would never judge another for their choices on terminating or not. I had an induction abortion at 27 weeks and I considered my daughter to be a person. I wasn't ready or even able to bring a severely mentally and physically disabled person into this world and neither was her father, his family, or my family. She was a person, not an it, I saw her... So, I take this as an insult when you call this baby an "it".

How could you be so insensitive? I think you should really think about using a little more empathy and being more sensitive to people's feelings on the matter. You never know who you are talking to or who knows more than you on these subjects.

(February 10, 2014 at 11:25 am)No_God Wrote: So my cousin who overdosed on heroin, who was completely brain dead, wasn't a person? He was an "it" because his brain didn't function? OR my daughter who was found to lack brain function when she was in utero?

This makes absolutely no sense to me... how can you call that baby an "it" and just write it off like it means less than dog shit. To me this seems heartless and just insulting. Abortion in these situations is completely subjective. It depends on the mother, her family, and her options at the time. Not everyone terminates pregnancies with birth defects. I did, but I would never judge another for their choices on terminating or not. I had an induction abortion at 27 weeks and I considered my daughter to be a person. I wasn't ready or even able to bring a severely mentally and physically disabled person into this world and neither was her father, his family, or my family. She was a person, not an it, I saw her... So, I take this as an insult when you call this baby an "it".

How could you be so insensitive? I think you should really think about using a little more empathy and being more sensitive to people's feelings on the matter. You never know who you are talking to or who knows more than you on these subjects.

It didnt have a brain. Holo-anencephalia means it only had a brainstem. That's a LOT different than ODing on heroine. Your family member had a brain with functions and thoughts, my point is that how can something be a "person" without the ability to think?

NG's relative lost the ability to think, and therefore was "without the ability to think", just like this "non-person" you speak of.

Because it is a living human being that has been born. In the United States that baby has the same rights (personhood) as you and I no matter what his or her cognitive abilities or disabilities may be.

I don't see how this is a hard subject to grasp.

(February 10, 2014 at 11:43 am)c172 Wrote: NG's relative lost the ability to think, and therefore was "without the ability to think", just like this "non-person" you speak of.

Losing the ability to think and never having it in the first place are two different things.

---

Let's see if i can state the question again. "If you don't have a brain are you a person?"

I don't mean to be an asshole about this but it really hits home with me. It would be a shame if this little baby was robbed of it's dignity and defined as "not a person".