I sense something rather odd about the tone of your responses, Gyan9, but I can’t quite put my finger on it…
The fact is that there is no discrete, non-arbitrary point at which we can say a ‘person’ comes into existence, certainly it can be argued that ‘human life’ begins quite early on, maybe even at the moment of conception, if we define our terms conveniently, however, the term ‘person’ implies personality; something which a fertilised ovum doesn’t seem to possess, and arguably is only weakly present in a newborn infant.
My position is that I see no reason why the same that is true of the body and mind/personality, couldn’t also be true of any immaterial individual soul, if such really exists. It certainly makes more sense (to me, at least) than all this jiggery-pokery of what happens to souls being imbued to zygotes that are destined not to implant, or to split into twins etc; It also comfortably admits the possibility of souls for non-human intelligences, even for true Artificial Intelligences.
We’re debating the existence of a soul, not its form and “maturity”*. You do mention that a newborn infant has a (weak) personality. The soul, as I understand it, and is popularly understood in Christianity, is a supernatural entity linked to a physical human body, correct? And it’s an one-to-one function (every human has an unique soul)? In that definition, once a person acquires a soul, doesn’t that physical person remain ensouled till death? Or, does this change?
*Unless this supernatural entity constitutes a soul only if it’s mature in some way.
You are thinking of Minnesota’s Abigail and Brittany Hensel, a pair of dicephalic twins who share two legs and two arms (they had extra arms removed from their foreheads as infants). In their case, the two heads (and if I mistake not extra lungs, too) were totally independent and formed from the get go. Interestingly, the twins control their side of the body only, which made everyone marvel at the fact they are able to coordinate movement and walk/swim/run, etc.
Dicephalic twins are a completely different ball of wax. In the case mentionned above, it’s clearly a parasitic twin situation, where one is incompletely formed and non-viable, and a threat to the survival of the “viable” twin (so to speak).
To answer the OP’s question, I would treat the parasitic twin in the same way as one would treat those funky hair-and-teeth-containing-tumors uncle Cecil wrote about a while ago… Give the functionning child a full life…
I had a friend who was a case of “bad twinning” - she had a couple double sets of organs that totally wonked out her reproductive system and such. If they’d been removed earlier on, it would have been far better for her - she wouldn’t have had to have a hysterectomy, and wouldn’t have to deal with extra sets of malformed lungs, a second incomplete liver, parasitic sets of extra kidneys… myeah.
I’m well aware of how wishy-washy and daft this sounds, but I tend to think of a soul as somewhat analogous to a canyon carved out by the persistent flow of a river - that the pattern of our persistent conscious existence might somehow erode a rut in the fabric of the universe, which would persist after our motal life has ceased.
I have approximately the same volume of hard evidence to support this view as many others have to support their own, different views and doctrines, which is to say none at all.
I almost hate to agree in a wish-washy sort of way, but I do. Sort of, maybe. I see all life as having a soul, but the purpose of life is the slow and continuous growth of our soul, it’s developement. I would compare it to a river though and not the erosion. The river starts out a small trickle of water and doesn’t have much effect on what it touches to start with. It gains volume alone the way and starts to affect what it comes into contact with and be affected by it. The erosion or path it causes blends with it and it becomes more complete, more forceful until it reaches the sea. I’m more inclined to think of our soul as growing to become(or return to) part of a collective whole and not a completely, unique, individual. If a life is ended, the soul is still part of a whole. Not created, but always a part of the universe. This one was for you Mangetout, I hate to see someone be daft by themselves. It’s easier to ponder after a few drinks. Make mine a Daft Light. :o
Actually there was one arm removed that stuck up between the girls heads, not from their foreheads. And the girls have separate circulatory systems, individual spines, two hearts, and three lungs between them. IIRC there is only one set of reproductive organs.
Now that’s not right; they don’t have a separate circulatory system, it is shared obviously. And the girls have different likes and dislikes when it comes to food too. An altogether fascinating case!
Maybe 15 years ago or more, I saw on TV, perhaps that ‘Ripley’s Believe It Or Not’ show hosted by Jack Palance, a Chinese man who had a smaller head attached to (I think) the side of his head.
The really disturbing part for my young eyes was that when he made a facial expression, the smaller head who match it. He’d grimace, and “mini-me” would also grimace.
I find it interesting that in the case described in the OP a similar thing happens during breastfeeding (quoted in the OP).
I guess the neural pathways for facial control get “cross-connected” somehow in these cases.
Which brings up a whole slew of questions. Was it moral to perform a life-threatening surgery to correct a condition that threatened her development? Was this, in the end, cosmetic surgery? Did we lose the opportunity to see what a person who had two connected nervous systems could teach us?
Did the horror of her situation cause the surgeons to make the wrong decision?
From what I understand, her condition wasn’t life-threatening. She would have had developmental problems if she hadn’t undergone the surgery, but she would have lived.
I don’t get this reference. Suspicious villagers? Like what, the second head means an evil eye has been cast on the family? What?
First of all, I assume her parents live in more than a “village” as he’s a tailor and she’s a cashier at a supermarket.
But overall, I think this bugs me because of the assumption that people in the DR live in huts and are superstitious about babies with defects. I know DR is a very poor country, but does it naturally follow that its inhabitants are superstitious to the point of murdering newborn babies?
As far as I understood it Rebacca’s condition WAS life threatening, which is why I was pondering the point of this thread.
To me it was quite clear. The head would not only be detrimental to Rebecca’s normal development, but it was also life-threatening in that it would not allow her brain to develop normally.
The operation had to be performed. It is very sad Rebecca didn’t make it. My heart goes out to the parents.
Her condition was indeed life-threatening. I saw it mentioned on one of the news channels that the second head was developing fast and was creating pressure on Rebecca’s brain - which is why the surgeons decided to go ahead and do the surgery now.
Doesn’t sound to me like the second brain in this case was even close to becoming a person, as it wasn’t developed enough to have thoughts or a personality or anything- just large enough to have become a major threat to Rebecca. Very sad story, as it sounded like things were going to turn out OK when I read about it last night. (The surgeons said it was difficult but went very well.)
I think in this case the photos said all. From all appearances, IMO, it seemed to be a case of conjoined twins gone wrong.
There have been several widely-publicized cases of twins joined at the top of the head in the past few years. In this particular case, it seems one of the twins never developed fully, and was just a partial, deformed head on the top of the other infant.
To leave it there would have been to sacrifice Rebecca’s quality of life for the sake of something that never in a million years could have had a separate existence. It is regrettable that the operation proved to be a failure in the end.
I have also seen the documentary that included the Hensel twins, and I regard that very differently. The specifics of their unique conjoined nature have left them as what can only be described as a two-headed kid. Given that the alternative was to allow one to die while leaving the other a paraplegic, I can not possibly presume to judge their parents’ decision.
Anyone who is seeking an all-encompassing rule by which to judge these situations is woefully misguided, IMO. Every instance of such births must by their very nature be decided on a case-by-case basis.