I've heard about so many of these cases and read quite a few news articles on the subject and am now seeing several YouTube videos about it. The more recent one depicting a child with anencephaly that recently turned 2. This child is being kept alive with numerous drugs and constant doctor's visits. They call this child a "miracle" baby.
I've debated this topic in one of my philosophy classes a couple years ago. I had a long winded argument against keeping babies with anencephaly alive if the mother knows well in advance. Most of the class was against me and I asked them what it means to be human. Most replied with what basically amounted to a baby with motor functions. Now I'm sure all of us know by now that the brain stem controls our basic motor functions. There is no thought behind it.
My main point that I made after that was:
If you are going to suggest that a human shell without a brain is still a human because the basic motor functions show that it is organic and alive, I would ask all of you what you consider the trees right outside the window to be. As these trees can do more than this baby who was supposed to be human. The trees can grow, reproduce, and thrive for a long period of time. Yet, the trees have no thought processes either. Technically speaking, your definition of "human" allows me to say that these trees are more than human.
I offended some obviously, but they got the point since no one rebutted. I'm not trying to be harsh here. I think it supremely selfish of a mother to choose to birth a child that will without a doubt be born without a brain. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine how difficult this would be for me. However, it would hurt unfathomably more to see my child in this state being kept alive with a slew of drugs.
I've debated this topic in one of my philosophy classes a couple years ago. I had a long winded argument against keeping babies with anencephaly alive if the mother knows well in advance. Most of the class was against me and I asked them what it means to be human. Most replied with what basically amounted to a baby with motor functions. Now I'm sure all of us know by now that the brain stem controls our basic motor functions. There is no thought behind it.
My main point that I made after that was:
If you are going to suggest that a human shell without a brain is still a human because the basic motor functions show that it is organic and alive, I would ask all of you what you consider the trees right outside the window to be. As these trees can do more than this baby who was supposed to be human. The trees can grow, reproduce, and thrive for a long period of time. Yet, the trees have no thought processes either. Technically speaking, your definition of "human" allows me to say that these trees are more than human.
I offended some obviously, but they got the point since no one rebutted. I'm not trying to be harsh here. I think it supremely selfish of a mother to choose to birth a child that will without a doubt be born without a brain. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine how difficult this would be for me. However, it would hurt unfathomably more to see my child in this state being kept alive with a slew of drugs.
"We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
