Talk:Parasitic twin

note

Fetus in fetu has some text that duplicates text here, or that should appear here and not on that page, since it applies to all parasitic twins, not just to fetus in fetu. Una Smith 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Murder

Why did they murder the other being, clinically called "parasite"? Seems morally and ethically wrong to me. --83.254.141.62 forgot to sign the above.

It's a good question. I don't know why they did it, but one possible reason is that they believe the fetus in fetu is not another being, not a twin, but a tumor that mimics a fetus. Una Smith 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Bodyshock documentary they showed the parents taking advice from Egypt's Grand Mufti. He said something like "When faced with two choices, both bad, we must choose the lesser of the evils". Seems quite logical and enlightened to me. 172.159.69.47 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

b0----------------------------When seperating the 'parasitic' twin from the fully developed twin, the whole intention of the operation is to save the fully developed twin's life. It may be morally or ethically wrong to 'kill',for lack of better word, the 'parasitic' twin, but to leave it there would cause great harm to the fully developed twin, which could inevitably end in death for both twins. Even though a craniopagus parasiticus undeveloped twin may respond like a normal infant at times. Instances such as the Manar and Islaam twins, where Islaam was able to smile and blink, that was not reason enough to keep her there. In the end Manar was going to die if she was not seperated from Islaam, meaning that both twins were going to die either way. Spiritually, if the parasitic twin is classified as a human, with it's own soul, it should acknowledge that it cannot keep living in such a manner, and if it does continue to do so it will endanger the life of the fully developed twin.

Parasite

It really is irritating that another would probably have to die. And I really don't like them calling the unfortunate twin a parasite. But I don't think either of them could have survived that way for very long. There would have probably been little to no hope for the unfortunate twin, but at least there would still have been at least some or more hope for the one which developed. I guess they were trying to salvage what they can from the event. --NewDreams2 forgot to sign

Host and parasite are precise technical terms, borrowed from biology, not intended in a derogatory sense. --Una Smith 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The parasitic twin is barely alive. They are undevloped and not sentient. Most don't even have a brain. They are killing or causing harm to the healthy twin. They are not like a siamese twin where there are 2 distinct sentient humans that are conjoined. 69.86.239.153 (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You people are ridiculous. Parasitic twins are usually just sets of legs or extra feet. They don't have their own functional brains. They aren't conscious any more than an are or a leg is conscious. They are clearly parasitic in that the person they are attached to can't move them. (Though the nonparasitic twin can sometimes feel them. And there is a report of a person whose parasitic twin was just a second set of legs and a vagina. But apparently the extra lower body was able to give birth to two children.)

Examples?

Can we get some examples up there?

PhoenixSunburn (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I was really curious as to if the parisitic twin could be sentient in that it wasn't developed enough to be conjoined but could still think and possibly talk, like a functioning head sticking out right above the hip or something. Would that just be conjoined? It wouldn't have an independent nervous system and would rely on the other twins heart and stomach and arteries, but still be intelligent and alive. Can anybody provide more information on this subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.185.129 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)