two headed baby

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