Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If we were somehow able to induce this in livestock, then people can stop bitching about animal cruelty.

At 4/20/09 07:06 PM, Digital-Terror wrote: If we were somehow able to induce this in livestock, then people can stop bitching about animal cruelty.

Forcing animals to have this condition sounds fairly cruel to me.

At 4/20/09 05:03 PM, Toukeman wrote: Why keep a baby alive that is technically dead? SHE HAS NO BRAIN. It is the same as keeping you dead grandfather in your house, without the smell. Its not like one day, she will miraculously grow a brain and go on Oprah to talk about her life.

why kill something that doesn't have the mental capacity to be miserable? it's sad from our perspective; however, the being itself is not sentient enough to in enough mental pain to warrant killing it. it's a human house plant. i feel worse for the parents.

At 4/20/09 05:03 PM, Toukeman wrote: Why keep a baby alive that is technically dead? SHE HAS NO BRAIN. It is the same as keeping you dead grandfather in your house, without the smell. Its not like one day, she will miraculously grow a brain and go on Oprah to talk about her life.

My thoughts exactly.

At 4/20/09 07:31 PM, letiger wrote: shes beautiful!

OI! Who left the front door open? The frogs are gettin' in!

Oh I see. She's missing her cortex. The part that lets us rationally think. Tis' sad though.

This is why you should be thankful.

At least we the chance to live...

give it a few days before big shot assholes like Degeneris and Oprah come in, funding projects because they want to ''help'' and not earn that beneficial kind-hearted dollar. honestly, what use is there to keep a child that technically has no future, no life. no nothing.

At 4/20/09 08:11 PM, DarkSytze wrote: give it a few days before big shot assholes like Degeneris and Oprah come in, funding projects because they want to ''help'' and not earn that beneficial kind-hearted dollar. honestly, what use is there to keep a child that technically has no future, no life. no nothing.

Sad but true. Poor thing was doomed from the start.

At 4/20/09 07:24 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 4/20/09 07:06 PM, Digital-Terror wrote: If we were somehow able to induce this in livestock, then people can stop bitching about animal cruelty.

Forcing animals to have this condition sounds fairly cruel to me.

Better than them having to be conscious during the whole ordeal, right?

those videos are horrifying. what an abomination.

At 4/20/09 07:58 PM, Thegluestickman wrote: Oh I see. She's missing her cortex. The part that lets us rationally think. Tis' sad though.

Wait... Can't the brain, when missing parts, train itself to use what it has as a substitute for the missing part? Like when A brain is missing the Math side of it, when doing math questions, the other sides all substitute into solving the questions?

I'm probably wrong, but I watched a documentary about thins 6 year old girl who had a tumor in her brain or something, and they removed the tumor side. The documentary explained how the brain will comprehend with the loss. (I watched it in 2005, so memories of it are faint).

Why not just put it down?

As long as she has a brainstem, which she does, she can stay alive but is pretty much a vegetable.

Poor baby, Why keep it alive? Not to be rude or anything but it will not become anything, It will just drain your money. Can it even eat / drink without choking / drowning?

At 4/20/09 11:01 PM, bigjuicy wrote: Why not just put it down?

I fear some people may misunderstand this, let me clear a few things up. What's the point in keeping it alive? Think about it, it's a vegetable, your actually doing it a favor if you ask me. I wouldn't want to be in a vegetative state.

At 4/20/09 07:24 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 4/20/09 07:06 PM, Digital-Terror wrote: If we were somehow able to induce this in livestock, then people can stop bitching about animal cruelty.

Forcing animals to have this condition sounds fairly cruel to me.

It's not cruel, Sensationalism. They have no consciousness, zero.

Also, that livestock thing wouldn't work. These things die.

I guess it's pathetic that she keeps it alive, appalling that she thinks it has some kind of "right to life", and stupid that she thinks it's a real baby. I'd kill it with fire?

At 4/20/09 11:01 PM, bigjuicy wrote: Why not just put it down?

Leave. Now.

In fact, you are all fucked up. Turning this discussion into some kind of religious debate, why don't you pull those sticks out of your asses and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

hopefully this will be a deterrent to all of you who use drugs. you take your brain for granted. well it is not!

........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
...this is the saddest thing ive evr heard of or read

I actually think they should kill it. It's just sad to see people trying to keep something alive, despite the fact that it has no ability to think, or do anything, really.

At 4/20/09 11:21 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

At 4/20/09 11:01 PM, bigjuicy wrote: Why not just put it down?

Leave. Now.

In fact, you are all fucked up. Turning this discussion into some kind of religious debate, why don't you pull those sticks out of your asses and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Read my above post idiot (I am not religious and was not part of any religious debate, just wanna clear that up)

At 4/20/09 04:56 PM, McFooFa wrote: She's alive, but technically doesn't exist.

Faith simply looks like a baby. She has no thoughts, no emotions and no consciousness.

This is really sad to think about. Makes me feel grateful. But I've never heard of this happening before!

I believe that, as far as it being cruel or immoral to keep this baby alive or just let it die, it should be very obvious to everyone here that the answer would be to let this baby live it's very short life until it dies. The purposeful killing of something for the sake of relieving it's misery I believe is only necessary, let alone an option, when the thing in question is on the brink of death and actually in suffering. Since the disorder is known to cause no pain, the only real option here is to let the baby die peacefully.

It seems people here are attached to the idea of this disorder causing suffering, rather than any actual suffering.

err, wtf?

At 4/20/09 05:02 PM, Chymeraxe wrote: How can she be living when she doesn't have a brain?

Did I miss something in science?

Well she does have a brain just mising the large lobes of her brain, she still has her midbrain and inner brain so she can still function at a very basic level.

Eh just decompose it or something its not even alive. Hell give it to some cannibals or child rapist so you know...THEY DON'T RAPE ANY REAL CHILDREN!

Oh, I fucking dare you guys to google image search anencephaly.

"Today, as I type this, Faith is 20 days old. Apart from a sterile dressing on her head that needs to be changed once a day, Faith lives a completely normal life. She isn't suffering or sickly, like you would expect. With no tubes and no machines supporting her life, she continues to thrive. She seems to function at the same level as any "normal" baby. In fact, she may be a little more advanced for her age. How many babies smile before they are born, start cooeing at one day old, and can sit up by 5 days old? I'm just saying!"

Really? Come on, woman. Just let this poor baby die in peace.

Stick this one in your gun.

This deals with brain tissue loss due to hydrocephaly associated with spina bifida (another neural tube disorder) but in skimming through it, should provide food for thought to the nay-sayers.