If that had happened in America or Europe I wonder if some group would have opposed the inner twins removal as a human rights violation or something.Originally Posted by masamuneehs
If that had happened in America or Europe I wonder if some group would have opposed the inner twins removal as a human rights violation or something.
i was thinking exactly that. earlier today i was telling this to a friend of mine, and then his friend came over and i tried to explain to them. and the friend asked me, "so, wait, he was like pregnant?" And I said no so she asked, "But if it was alive inside of him all that time, that makes it just like a child, right?"
And I found myself saying this: "No, no... You know, I wonder, I don't think so, no, no it couldn't be human. I mean... It just, it was alive and everything and grew up inside of him; but I don't think it's human. Not quite. I mean, all the parts are there like in a human, but something's missing. I don't think you can call that human."
I mean, it was as old as he, 36 years old. But it could not communicate, it could not interact with the outside world. Literally, that guy's "twin" is what I'd have to call a "sub-human". It's not another animal, but it's not quite human.
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
The twin wasn't alive for 36 years, it can only survive for so long inside his stomach.
perhaps you didn't read? You seem to have missed the pertinent part.,,
They do not go into detail about the "twin's" condition, but it sounded like it had been living inside of him for some time afterwards, maybe even right up to the moment they removed it.Sometimes, however, as in Bhagat's case, the host twin survives and is delivered.
And thinking on it some more, removing the "twin" is the only ethical move possible. If you don't remove the twin, the man dies and the "twin" dies as well because it has been living off of it. There's really no other option and I can't imagine even the most staunch pro-Lifers arguing that saving one life should require sacrificing another.
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
It survived past his birth and for sometime inside him, but it was not alive for 36 years...
Since you're sounding quite pompous, perhaps you need to take a biology course. The so called twin is actually considered a type of tumor, it develops tissue and in very rare cases can even develop organs, but is never actually an organism. Basically it sounds like in this case bits and pieces of foetus developed, even surviving past the birth of the host twin, surviving meaning the tissues developed using the hosts blood stream for nutrients etc. To think there was an actual twin surviving for 36 years inside of another human is stupidity. Where did you go to school?
Last edited by SK; Sat, 04-28-2007 at 02:29 AM.
There's no question of it being alive. Some argue even viruses are living organisms. This thing inside the man was practically a tumor, but it was certainly living tissue. However, I didn't get the impression from the article it was anything more than a collection of permanently underdeveloped parts of a human. Removing it would rather equal to removing a mutated third hand than removing a human (or a fetus).
There's a difference between being "alive" and being "sentient"
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
