Seven year old boy "pregnant" with twin brother... Was it immoral to kill it?


#1

rense.com/general38/boy.htm


#2

Probably not. The boy does not have a womb for the baby to develop properly. And it lived with him for 7 years, this is not something natural. This is not that improbable what-if scenario of "what if the only way to save the mom's life is to abort the baby"? Because the boy has no capability to bring the baby to term, missing the obvious physical parts to make that happen. And the fetus would have died anyway or lived until it killed the boy.


#3

sounds like what do they call it…phantom twin? Really sad…

So, the parents are telling him he had a football inside of him? When will they tell him where babies come from? Never? He’ll wonder someday what the truth was!


#4

This is so sad! I don’t understand the science behind this though. Is there an amniotic sac? An umbilical cord? How did the baby live for so many years without growing too large and killing the boy? Would it ever be possible to save the twin? This is so horrible!


#5

With identical twins they both come from the same egg-spermatozoid (Called Zigote in the early undifferentiated stages) their genetic DNA is the same, in other words they are “naturally ocurring clones”

What must have happenned in this instance is that when they were growing one copy of the zigote somehow got englobed inside the other, instead of separating.

That woud explain why it never developed, since it did not have an ambiotic sac nor an umbilical cord.
It was fed via the primary zigote at a much slower pace and it continued to be fed by the boy, eventually it would have probably died.
Viability would depend on the development stage the fetus was at.


#6

I think this article is really confusing. The boy was not “pregnant”. The other twin was not a “fetus” either. He was a seven-year-old, extremely undeveloped child that had lived his whole live inside his twin without anyone figuring it out. It’s more like a bizarre conjoined twin situation than a pregnancy. I don’t think it was immoral to remove the other twin. He couldn’t be saved and he wasn’t going to develop to the point of being able to live on his own. It’s very sad that this happened to him, but it isn’t wrong to seperate the twins, especially since the other boy could have died. This sort of thing happened to my aunt. She had a parasitic twin lodged inside her chest. However, by the time they detected it, she was nineteen years old and the twin had long since died.


#7

Of course there is nothing wrong with seperating two humans when their lives are in danger so long as one does what they can to keep both alive. This has always been Catholic teaching. :shrug:

ETA: I just want to add that the title of this thread is very misleading. There is no evidence in the article itself that the brother that was removed was “killed”. He was seperated from his brother, yes, but actively killed? as far as we can tell, no. If he was, in fact, actively killed, then yes, it would have been immoral to do so.


#8

blog


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.