In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article 8StWb.8573$uV3.18726@attbi_s51,
"Mom2Aries" wrote:

--
Cadie and Aries
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
| In article aAiVb.115596$U%5.596787@attbi_s03,
| "Mom2Aries" wrote:
|
| Read the article. Nothing can follow this little girl around,
she
| died
7
| hours after the operation
|
| --
| Cadie and Aries
| | this is a total pander --- why do people have to see these
pictures
| | except for the usual pornographic reasons? think how this
child is
| | going to love this following her around for the rest of her
life --
| | pictures once publized are forever
|
|
|
|
| and this is relevant because? presumably everyone hoped the baby
would
| survive -- and it is sad that she didn't -- to exploit her by
| distributing these pictures is abusive IMHO -- would you really
display
| your child as a freak as was done in this case


Because everyone was responding to the article, saying those
pictures
will
follow the little girl around forever... showing that they had not
read
it.
IMO, the whole thread could have been shortened and wouldn't have
driven
some people crazy if anyone would have just READ the article they
were
responding to, which said, on top of the picture, that the little
girl
died
after surgery.

I think it's funny (and slightly annoying) how people are going to
argue
over a point that is completely invalid, IE. how the little girl
will
feel
having those pictures taken and publicized. And I also don't see
how
it's
any of your (a collective your) business what these people allowed
in the
papers.

that points was posted BEFORE the surgery and before she died --

How was she displayed as a freak? I don't recall any of the
headlines
stating "Come look at the 2 headed freak baby". It was an article
about
a
rare medical occurrence, without pictures to document it's truth, it
goes
in
the garbage never to be looked at again, and forgotten... or never
believed
in the first place. It's not like they put the pictures up in a
tabloid,
like some people have done.

people 'interested' in these pictures are disgusting -- it is nothing
but porn -- of course they were in the tabloids and all over the
news --
where was the 'need to know' how was anyone's life improved by
getting
to look at the freak? bad behavior all around. [I give the parents a
pass here because they were probably exploited by the press]



I would disagree with this. Some of us have a long standing interest in
all subjects ralated to twinning -- and that includes what causes both
fraternal and identical twinning, and all of the variations that can
occur with both. That means we are interested in conjoined twins, and
that includes parasitic twins. I don't think that's pornographic -- but
then, I seldom find any picture of what a real person looks like
pornographic. This baby was a real person -- and that's really what
she looked like.

meh


well you will be happy to know then that there are whole books that will
allow you to look at people, fetuses etc with birth defects and
deformities -- they are published for the non scientist because of the
tremendous need for 'interested people' to get a look at something sad
and weird

The internet sites and books intended for medical persons are better, they
give the scientific facts as well as the pictures. They are published to
help and educate, not for shock value.
I would advise a pregnant woman not to look at them. It can't possibly
affect her baby, but it may affect her peace of mind.
Today with ultrasound many defects can be discovered early and appropriate
action taken. How was this condition missed for this unfortunate baby?
Doesn't her country have ultrasound?

Geopelia



What I read was that they knew something was wrong, but thought it was a
tumor. Ultrasound isn't necessarily that fine.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care