[TwistedSisterr]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

I don't think they mean to operate and have them both survive. They mean to cut off one head and hope the one that's left, survives.

I would leave them be. If they're gonna die, no point causing more trauma in their short lives.

what is the point?! If its not going to affect THE GIRLS vital organs why would they do that?! good god thats horrific, that baby has a mind and feelings, you dont cut her fucking head of!! :s ad

[Susan]

I doubt they would be able to without it being classed as some sort of illegal death? I would hope so anyway. The thought of it is just disturbing.

[TwistedSisterr]

yeah that just, idk, is not even an OPTION

[CrunchyCripple]

Originally Posted by TwistedSisterr ↗

what is the point?! If its not going to affect THE GIRLS vital organs why would they do that?! good god thats horrific, that baby has a mind and feelings, you dont cut her fucking head of!! :s ad

Either they think that removing one will save the other, or they aren't comfortable with how abnormal the children are.

I think they should leave them alone and hope for the best.

[TwistedSisterr]

im not arguing with you fyi lol im just really worked up over that....... if they believe that removing one to save the other will work, they need their medical credentials investigated, hence they share organs, the brains are separate. All they need to do is figure out which brain controls what..... and as for not being comfortable lol human life doesnt revolve around somebody elses ability to be "comfortable" with the given situation
fucking morons

[Karma]

Gorgeous babies. How sad. But if the Hensel girls survived there is hope for these babies.

[CrunchyCripple]

Originally Posted by susanmarie79 ↗

I doubt they would be able to without it being classed as some sort of illegal death? I would hope so anyway. The thought of it is just disturbing.

It might fall under the same category as a near full term mother having to abort because her health is in mortal danger. Kill one to save the other, instead of losing both.

It's probably allowed because they figure both are going to die, so they're going to try and remove one head, hopefully saving the life of the remaining child. Then again, I'm unsure of the laws over there.

[TwistedSisterr]

the psychological damage the "surviving" twin will suffer if they do it

[Wench]

Left head needs to go asap. Remaining "whole" baby may have a chance at a normal life with just a scar on her shoulder to wonder about instead of a freaking alter ego licking her left ear!

[Susan]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

It might fall under the same category as a near full term mother having to abort because her health is in mortal danger. Kill one to save the other, instead of losing both.

It's probably allowed because they figure both are going to die, so they're going to try and remove one head, hopefully saving the life of the remaining child. Then again, I'm unsure of the laws over there.

As soon as a child is born alive it is illegal to kill it. Even if an abortion is carried out and it fails and the child is born alive, they have a duty to then save that child's life.