parasitic twin?

Question

Last night I was watching the Discovery Health Channel where a baby was born with an identical head attached to hers. This other head (with no limbs and only part of a spine) had a different brain but basically used the normal twin's resources to exist. This "parasitic twin" as they call it did not have it's own lungs, nor heart but showed it's own individuality. Although it couldn't make sounds it demostrated emotion and reflexes.
My question is, for those who believe that we as humans have a soul,
1.do you think that this partial attachment was considered a human being although it couldn't function without the other twin's blood supply and organs?

2.Did it have a soul?

3.There was an operation performed to separate the parasitic twin (which of course died). Do you consider that murder?

Just curious as to what people think of events like this.

Answer 1

I saw that program too. What struck me as odd is that all through the program the specialists and voice over kept referring to "the parasitic twin" or "the second head". Actually, Manaar didn't have two heads. She had one head and her cojoined twin had one head. They had their own brains. It just so happened that the other baby had no body. I don't think that makes it inhuman - where do you draw the line? What about those people born with nothing below the torso, are they less human? This other baby gave the appearance of crying, sucking, etc..

I felt so very sorry for the parents and the girls (since this would be an identical twin the other baby was meant to be female.) I also wondered if the parents ignored the parasitic twin. They talked about Manaar and caring for her but I wondered if they bathed the deformed twin or consoled it when it appeared to be crying, I don't know if it made sounds. I was also struck by the fact that at the end of the documentary the mother stated that they had consulted religious leaders and been told to name and bury the twin. It appears that the religious leaders felt that this was a person in her own right. The mother even stated "She had a soul." Of course, if she believed that I found it odd that she hadn't named this other child until it died.

To answer the questions:
1. Yes, I think it was a human being. I've heard of babies born with half a brain which leaves them in a vegetative state but no one argues that they are human. Why argue over someone who had a full brain that at least functioned on some levels?
2. Yes, I think it had a soul. I personally think that people exist as people from the moment of conception and I think that your soul is something that is with you from the moment you begin to exist.
3. Obviously they knew going in that the twin would die. If they hadn't seperated the twins Manaar would have died because her heart couldn't support both of them. I wouldn't want to be those parents - no matter which option they chose they were sacrificing one twin for the other. I would have to say though that knowingly halting a life is murder and since the other twin was alive until the operation I guess that technically it was murdered. I don't know the chances of survival that the twin had to begin with though. I mean, it might have faced fatal problems of it's own and died prematurely surgery not withstanding. I suppose it could most be likend to removing someone from life support. Manaar was essentially the life support of the twin.

Such a very sad story. It was obvious at the end of the documentary that Manaar was severly brain damaged and I found through a search engine that she died later of an infection of the brain. Basically they bought her some time to live without being cojoined. Interestingly, the "Two headed boy of Bengal" turned up in the same search and he lived to be preschool or school age and actually only died of a snake bite, not complications from the parasitic twin.

Answer 2

I saw part of that show too, but not the whole thing.
I don't know about all of those Q"s but they are very good ones. I dont know if you could really call the twin a real human being, since it couldn't function on it's own. A siamese twin, could (maybe it would be missing a liver, or only have one arm, but could in essence function, maybe need a liver transplant, or something but would be 95% formed & functional).
Did it have a soul? eeks. because it had a face, we are attributing that it had a soul... but if this child had a parasitic foot, not a face, we wouldn't be asking this question, would we??? Just because there was a face, but no heart, does it have a soul?(parasitic limbs are really not that uncommon--- and easily removed- they use to be "freaks" in the circus not too long ago)
Murder- I don't think so-- as I recall in the beginning of the show, they said that the parasitic twin was going to kill the healthy child.

I think that in a way God or nature or whatever knows that the "twin" just wasn't right & wasn't supposed to form, but when the cells were dividing, they got "stuck" and the poor healthy twin ended up with the unhealthy one attached...
had they not attached & had the blood supply of the healthy twin, the parasitic twin would have not survived & would have not grown into such a differentiated "being" on it's own. it would have died.

Answer 3

1. I'd say yes it was a human being. I'd say this because it's DNA was human; no matter how deformed, it's still a person.

2. Most likely, yes.

3. No; because if it had lived, it would have killed it's twin. They both would die needlessly. Unfortunatly that's the choice that sometimes has to be made and although it's cold,it was let die... not killed. It is not murder. It could, I suppose, be called euthenasia. but it's a simmialr prossessto removing a baby from a mother that is growing outside the womb; yes, it could have lived. but not for long. And without taking someone else with it.

Answer 4

you need to truly say that the parasitic twin "died" because of the fact it never progressed a ideas and replaced into to that end ideas ineffective, interior a similar state of aliveness the physique of a individual who had suffered ideas loss of life from an injury. it relatively is not likely an impediment to the perception that existence starts at theory. plenty greater of a challenge is the certainty that there are same twins. same twins are formed from one fertilized egg. If guy or woman human existence starts with theory, then because there is in easy terms one conceptus, they in simple terms have one existence between them. This violates our uncomplicated suggestions of what a human guy or woman is, and totally counters any argument that existence starts with theory. existence could be pronounced to start at some later factor, at the same time with progression of a functioning human ideas, with out grossly violating any concept of what it relatively is to be a individual.

Answer 5

These very same questions could be equated with abortion. Could the fetus live if delivered at 2 months? Just substitute fetus for the parasitic head and then think if it`s murder or not.

Answer 6

It's funny you should bring that up because my twin died at birth. However, I've heard that you aren't born with a soul...you have to earn one, but as for myself, I think we have about as much soul as a single cell.

Answer 7

1. By medical definition, no.
2. That's a question that only God can answer.
3. No.

Answer 8

1.YES both are human beings

2.Yes they have soul

3.NO THATS NOT MURDER,...since it was done in operation table,..with thepurpose to SAVE LIFE if not both at least one.
If the doctor didnt operate,...i am sure they both will die.
So,...the action is SAVING LIFE.