Latest ethical dilemma...

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

...Siamese twins. OK - so if you were the parent of siamese twins, and you had the option of trying to separate them at birth, would you?
What if this meant that one of them would die - would you let them grow up as freaks or sacrifice one so that you could have a 'normal' child?
If so, what would the criteria for choosing which one to let live be? Would you choose the cutest or the healthiest, or the one that you felt you had established more of a bond with?
What if you were one of those really freaky people (that apparently exist, although I have yet to see documentation, send me your info if you have it...please) who have 'absorbed' their twin, and then bits of it start to grow as you mature...how would you feel about having you dead half brother/sister start growing out of your stomach when you hit puberty?
What if it actually started talking to you - like that ugly fuck in total recall - would you decapitate the hideous wee beasty, or try to bond with it? (OK, now I am getting far fetched I know, I am just looking for motives etc.)
Your thoughts will be much appreciated.

[focusedrage]

hmm....chances are they would die when they started getting older anyways, right? If so, then yes, I would say to go ahead and seperate them at birth...and I dont think you have a choice of who lives...usually one is dependent on the other for most of its organs, you have to seperate the one that is just "taking" from the other sibling...otherwise, he will most likely end up causing both of them to die anyways...you sacrifice one for the whole...

I am guessing you are talking about siamese twins whom are sharing organs - and usually...one of the twins has less then the other and is essentially "leeching" off of the other...and will end up killing him in the end anyways...If it is a case where they could live to be old, then most likely, they each have there own set of vital organs, and could be seperated w/o much chance of either of them dying....

Make sense? It is 2 a.m. so, if not...ooops...I'll post when it isn't so late!!! hehehe

<embed src="http://www.tyler.net/llundberg/signature.swf" width="500" height="75">

[3MTA3]

FR...even though hes almost as much of a cocksucking ally girl as RW, wins the prize...Id say it likens to women whos lives are threatened by their babies...the woman lives, the baby gets the rusty coat hanger and a job sitting on a high school science labs shelf(pleasant imagery no??)...if I had a twin who was conjoined and started growing and speaking to me, Id have it killed and removed immediately cause Its gross as fuck... It has no potential to lead a fulfilling life(this argument does not extend beyond the confines of this discussion)... It would watch me make love and jerk off... Its gross as fuck...Hope that clears things up for yas...wench...

------------------
[insert lame quote/comment here]

[Minimaul]

I'd kill them. I'd cut them with my machete.

Then I'd kill the mother of them for makin' such ugly things.

Then I'd get drunk and masturbate to some japscat.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/minimaul666/adu2.gif" border=0>

[estero]

<font color=pink>I would seperate them. Not because *I* wanted a 'normal' child, but so they could live a 'normal' life. We live in a cruel world filled with stigmatization over anything that is different. How could they ever date.. or marry for that matter. I would want to give them a chance to live a happy life. Perhaps they would be happy as one, but odds are, that they would not.

Who would I choose? I wouldn't. I would have them perform the operation, and which ever one died, it would be God's will, not mine. Perhaps they would both live, you never know.

AND THAT IS MY TWO CENTS.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/mamacita_kaye/images/kaye3.jpg" border=0>

[John the barstard]

I think Muffy has brought this one up after the Jodie and Mary story, which was in the courts of England not so long ago.

In that case it was certain that Mary, being a little parasitical, was sure to die after the operation.

The perants did not want the operation to go ahead, but it was taken to court.

The courts ruled that Mary must die to allow Jodie to live.

Just to twist it a little, put yourself in Jodie's shoes, and let Jodie be the one to decide. If you had the decision, would you let the person who was closest to you, in every possible way, be murdered just so you could live longer?

Sure cut out a cancer that offends you, but a human?

------------------

Edit: the sig looked like shit

[This message has been edited by John the barstard (edited 02-18-2001).]

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by John the barstard:
I think Muffy has brought this one up after the Jodie and Mary story, which was in the courts of England not so long ago.
[/quote]
Guilty.

I have to study this as it has completely blown apart a great chunk of law.
For years, those studying the legal system (under the commonwealth), are introduced to this topic via the case of the cannibal sailors, the ratio of that case being that under no circumstances is it ok to take the life of another, even if it means preserving your own (abrig) - And then we have the defence of neccessity - where it is supposedly ok to do this if it is the lesser of two evils - the court order to separate the twins, effectively an order to kill mary - has created many new aspect to the theory of criminal law.
I'm just exploring (because it is my job to) the ethics of man playing the role of 'god' when it comes to making this sort of decision, against the parents wishes - Which is the greater of two evils?
The autonomy of the parent needs to be taken in to account, but so does the welfare of the children, but this also includes Mary's right to even have a chance at life.... heavy shit.

[Pianomahnn]

Muffy my dear, the only dilemmas you need to deal with are when to come to my place...

Kill em' both. Save the one who would survive the trauma of living life as a freak. (SPF opinion)

Now, I'm not in that situation, and hope I never am. I say keep em connected. Wait, no I don't. Oh shucks, this is too hard, and I'm not even there...

------------------
I live on freedom. So should you.

Freedom Lives Within (http://www.pianomahnn.com)

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Pianomahnn:
Kill em' both[/quote]
I thought you were a libertarian babe? Isnt this kind of against your beliefs?

[gone~away]

haha.. a poser libertarian... just to get in good with muffy is it??

lol...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/goneaway64/gasiglogo.jpg" border=0>

[3MTA3]

Muffy...your applying a rigidity to the cases like a code law system would...most law today is case law where precidents may be used but dont really have any bearing on the case unless they are of an identical nature(or very similar at least)...cannibalism for survival and conjoined twin seperation dilemmas are completely seperate...

Kaye...wouldnt it be Gods will that they stay that way?? Or wouldnt it be his will that they both die?? Im a religious man myself, but God has little place in a debate like this...its like getting pregnant out of wedlock and then vehemently declaring that abortion is wrong...you can have all or none...this "Ill take these beliefs and live by them, as long as they suit my needs/desires" shit is what has given most organised religion a bad name...no offence intended...

------------------
[insert lame quote/comment here]

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 3MTA3:
Muffy...your applying a rigidity to the cases like a code law system would

As opposeded to the colloidal/lapidary system we now have???

...most law today is case law where precidents may be used but dont really have any bearing on the case unless they are of an identical nature(or very similar at least)...cannibalism for survival and conjoined twin seperation dilemmas are completely seperate...
Yes, I am fairly familiar with how the legal system works http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/tongue.gif... but cases like the cannibal sailors are a matter of jurisprudence rather than just precedent... hence the need for a philosophical study of it... yeah?