A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

two headed baby



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old February 11th 04, 08:28 PM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #62  
Old February 11th 04, 08:41 PM
Jenn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby

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
  #63  
Old February 11th 04, 09:25 PM
geopelia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby


"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


  #64  
Old February 11th 04, 09:38 PM
Jenn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby

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



ultrasound rarely results in any real options -- and routine ultrasound
is a huge waste of medical resources in a poor country [or in a rich one
that spends lots on some people and little on others more needy]

what appropriate option? the only option was aborting the defective
fetus or hoping for the best with surgery after birth --
  #65  
Old February 11th 04, 11:06 PM
geopelia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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



ultrasound rarely results in any real options -- and routine ultrasound
is a huge waste of medical resources in a poor country [or in a rich one
that spends lots on some people and little on others more needy]

what appropriate option? the only option was aborting the defective
fetus or hoping for the best with surgery after birth --


With a seriously defective foetus, the mother would be advised to have an
abortion, but it is her choice.
Surely ultrasound would have picked up the second head?

Is there any better way than ultrasound for discovering serious defects
before birth?




  #66  
Old February 12th 04, 12:27 AM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby

In article , geopelia says...


"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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



ultrasound rarely results in any real options -- and routine ultrasound
is a huge waste of medical resources in a poor country [or in a rich one
that spends lots on some people and little on others more needy]

what appropriate option? the only option was aborting the defective
fetus or hoping for the best with surgery after birth --


With a seriously defective foetus, the mother would be advised to have an
abortion, but it is her choice.
Surely ultrasound would have picked up the second head?

Is there any better way than ultrasound for discovering serious defects
before birth?


My guess is that the mother did not receive ultrasound - many people in the U.S.
do not have the coverage and can't afford the ultrasound. And that the
condition was discovered upon birth.

What the family would have done if the condition were discovered on ultrasound
isn't obvious either, of course.

So I'm not sure how ultrasound pertains.

Banty

  #67  
Old February 12th 04, 01:03 AM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby

In article , Jenn says...


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]


It strikes me that you're personally repulsed by the incident, and therefore
conclude that any others' interest would have to be pathological. There's
nothing wrong with your personal reaction, but there's a lot wrong with your
conclusions concerning others.

First of all, except possibly for a few truly sick people, I can't imagine that
you truly mean others' interests in this are "pornographic" - I think you
probably mean "prurient". Not the same thing at all. Surely there are people
with prurient interest in these things, but it doesn't follow that therefore any
presentation of exactly what this twinning was about should be witheld from
view.

Moms2Aries and dragonlady are right - at least in the news that I follow, which
is pretty much the mainstream outlets, the pictures were factual, but not
presented in a way to incite prurient interest. I saw pictures of the mother
bottle-feeding her infant, with the extra head uncovered. If you've seen other
presentations in the tabloids, then I must wonder why you've chosen *those* news
outlets.

There is a lot of interest that people have in medical news, including instances
like these, which is *not* prurient.

Banty

  #68  
Old February 12th 04, 02:29 AM
geopelia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby


"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:06:27 +1300, "geopelia"
wrote:

With a seriously defective foetus, the mother would be advised to have an
abortion, but it is her choice.


I'd have to seriously wonder about any doctor that would "advise" a
woman to abort a baby. Presenting it as an option, maybe. But
definitely not advise her.

Surely ultrasound would have picked up the second head?


More than likely, but given the economics of the family (about $200
monthly household income), it's not obvious that it was even an
option. Many women in the US don't have ultrasounds due to the cost.

Is there any better way than ultrasound for discovering serious defects
before birth?


Well, yes. Other tests are better, imo, but invasive and also
expensive.

Nan


Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals? Surely it would be routine today.
As for "advising" a woman with a grossly defective foetus to abort, wouldn't
that be a doctor's duty? She couldn't be forced to do so of course, but she
could be helped to see that it is the right thing to do.
Think of the baby as a real person, and consider what kind of life it would
have. Doctors may congratulate themselves on performing medical miracles,
but the patient has to live with the consequences.

Geopelia




  #69  
Old February 12th 04, 02:59 AM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

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


Read what I said again. I said I have a specific interest in subjects
related to twinning -- and understanding the variety of things that can
happen.

There may also be people with specific interests in, for example,
facial-cranial birth defects. That doesn't make them twisted or sick or
particularly interested in what is sad and weird. It means they have a
specific interest.

Perhaps you have no natural (but unusual) phenomenon that fascinate you.
Others do. There isn't anything wrong with that.

Or perhaps you don't understand that we are able to look at a baby with
a deformity and see NOT something "sad and weird" but a real human
person with an unusual problem. I don't think this is any sadder than
any other congenital condition that requires surgery, nor any sadder
than any other baby who does not survive the necessary surgery.

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

  #70  
Old February 12th 04, 03:00 AM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default two headed baby

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baby survives after hit-and-run driver drags stroller a mile Le Mod Pol General 57 February 12th 04 12:17 AM
Co-sleeping question [email protected] General 13 January 24th 04 12:34 AM
mom and baby (10 mos) both on Zithromax, any chance to breastfeed? C Du General 36 December 24th 03 08:21 PM
Coping w/o a highchair, w/hyper baby Nevermind General 18 December 16th 03 03:26 AM
RECALL: Baby Walkers Truffles General 7 September 13th 03 03:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.