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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 $200 monthly household income), it's not obvious that it was even an option. Many women in the US don't have ultrasounds due to the cost. Is there any better way than ultrasound for discovering serious defects before birth? Well, yes. Other tests are better, imo, but invasive and also expensive. Nan Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public hospitals? Surely it would be routine today. As for "advising" a woman with a grossly defective foetus to abort, wouldn't that be a doctor's duty? She couldn't be forced to do so of course, but she could be helped to see that it is the right thing to do. Think of the baby as a real person, and consider what kind of life it would have. Doctors may congratulate themselves on performing medical miracles, but the patient has to live with the consequences. Geopelia |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
two headed baby
In article ,
Jenn wrote: In article , dragonlady wrote: In article , Jenn wrote: In article 8StWb.8573$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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |