I've proved Self Ownership Invalid, Lovemaking=Rape, Aggression=Self Defense

[ThomasDoubts]

     Here's your flagpole!  All kidding aside, and I am kidding, I found this really fascinating.  I had a real nice mental masturbation session on the applications of libertarian ethics for these nice young girls.  That they both desire to be a mother, for instance, I found very intriguing; assuming they wouldn't adopt, I wonder how they would go about picking the father(s)/husband(s)...

 

     They practice negotiation by virtual neccessity, though there was definately an Alpha/Beta dynamic at play.  How else could they be driving?!  The fact that they have contrasting personalities makes perfect sense to me, but it makes me wonder what determined who was who if personality isn't innate, and they share as much common experience as any two individuals could.  I find abnormal people to be so incredibly interesting, so I thought I'd share with y'all. (I say abnormal in the kindest way possible)

 

     This also brings up an old dilemma, for want of a better word.  That is, how do you navigate respecting the individuals rights and desires, while recognizing how much they have to offer scientific researchers?  Obviously the individual's rights prevail, but there is a long line of scientists/doctors that would love to have access to them...

 

Another theme at play was that the community is kind and strangers are rude and inconsiderate.  I was pleasantly surprised with how well treated they seemed to be in public school.  Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't abused, but I didn't get the impression that they were either.

 

Have a look-see if this seems interesting to you.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axKkNI6Ialg

[ribuck]

These girls don't have self-ownership of their shared body, but rather joint ownership. The philosophy flows from that reality.

 

This reminds me of a lifeboat scenario that played out in the British courts. Jodie and Mary were born conjoined in 2000, but Jodie had most of the organs. The court authorised the hospital to separate them, even though Mary was sure to die. Without the operation, both of them would probably (but not necessarily) die. Their parents opposed the separation, but lost their court case so the hospital went ahead with cutting them apart. As expected, Mary was killed by the operation.

 

Here's a fascinating discussion of the legal arguments that were considered by the court. The court considered issues that are frequently discussed on this forum, including whether the operation would be considered as "self-defence" or "murder":

http://www.hartpub.co.uk/updates/crimlaw/crimlaw_med.htm

[dsayers]

This was an absolutely fascinating watch. So many questions. The armchair quarterback in me says that I would submit to some testing if it were me. I think it's amazing that they have decided against this and people are respecting their wishes. I was crushed towards the end when the doctor said that society has yet to rule on whether they are one or two people.

 

Their parents opposed the separation, but lost their court case so the hospital went ahead with cutting them apart.

 

Who was the complainant that the parents could even lose to?

[corpus mentium]

 

Society really has no basis for ruling on this.

 

Because society is who we go to to tell others how they should live their lives. Because society knows best and should make a ruling even with no basis when it comes to a very unique situation with this pair of conjoined twins...

 

As if it would be so important a topic to society/the state that it would need to come in and dictate how their relationships should be organized. It seems these twins have developed an amazing system of working together and negotiating to each other's mutual satisfaction. Would it be so unreasonable to assume that they would be able to figure out how to select a suitable partner (or two) together for themselves? Perhaps a person (or two) that made them happy?

 

Hearing this statement made me nauseous and made my blood boil.

 

 

 

dsayers, I didn't see your post before I made mine, but I think we are talking about the same statement by the doctor. I was responding to no one in particular.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

These girls don't have self-ownership of their shared body, but rather joint ownership. The philosophy flows from that reality.

 

 

You are stating the obvious. To be a separate moral entity you have to be able to be rational, at least potentially, otherwise you could be killed while sleeping.

[ribuck]

Who was the complainant that the parents could even lose to?

 

The state. In the UK, the state can ask the courts to force certain medical procedures. For example, children of Jehova's Witnesses can be forced to receive blood transfusions against their religion's wishes.

 

[Josh F]

These girls don't have self-ownership of their shared body, but rather joint ownership. The philosophy flows from that reality.

 

This reminds me of a lifeboat scenario that played out in the British courts. Jodie and Mary were born conjoined in 2000, but Jodie had most of the organs. The court authorised the hospital to separate them, even though Mary was sure to die. Without the operation, both of them would probably (but not necessarily) die. Their parents opposed the separation, but lost their court case so the hospital went ahead with cutting them apart. As expected, Mary was killed by the operation.

 

Here's a fascinating discussion of the legal arguments that were considered by the court. The court considered issues that are frequently discussed on this forum, including whether the operation would be considered as "self-defence" or "murder":

http://www.hartpub.co.uk/updates/crimlaw/crimlaw_med.htm

Is this a true story?!?!

 

That is epically fucked up.  It reminds me of Sophie's choice or something.  Like how can you look your conjoined twin in the face knowing they're going to be killed to keep you alive, wow!

[ribuck]

Yes it's a true story, but they were just one month at the time.