In article <ucHHa.2588$J41.190638@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>,
someone@somewhere.com says...

I don't think equality of dependence is relevant to the discussion, nor is
it likely to occur in practice.

Don't be silly.

One twin is always going to be stronger or
weaker than the other.

Makes no difference when neither is *dependent* upon the other
metabolically. There are many on the (surviving birth) conjoined twins
where that is the case.

In most families (even where there are ordinary twins) one child will be
less physically healthy, strong etc. That doesn't mean either
twin/sibling is *dependent* upon the other.

Same happens with adults. Generally with any two adults taken at random
(or because of some sort of family connection) one will be less
physically strong, healthy etc than the other... but neither is
meatbolically dependent on being physically and permanently attched to
the other's organs!

And the dependency relationship is not an equal one

as far as woman and fetus are concerned. But the fact is there are human
beings who are biologically dependent on other human beings both inside and
outside the womb. So biological independence cannot be a criteria for
defining a human being/person.

(Nor do I agree with your statement that the Hensel twins are one human
being. They are clearly two human persons and therefore two human beings.)

"M is for Malapert" <someone@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ONEHa.702501$Si4.821309@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...

"a.nonymouse" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:2FYGa.10950$Cm5.4146140@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

No, you are wrong. There has been, and still are, many twins whom it is

not

possible for surgery to separate so they live their natural lives joined

to

one another. They are both treated as fully human by most people.

Not of the sort you mentioned, where one is dependent on the other. You
might be thinking of equal conjoined twins, where each is as developed as
the other, and shared body parts belong equally to both of them. For
instance, Abigail and Brittany Hensel, who are dicephalic conjoined

twins -

basically two heads on one pelvis. You can't say that one has a better
claim to the pelvis and legs than the other one does, and they are
considered two persons because they have two heads and brains. (But they
are just one organism biologically, like a woman and her fetus.) Even in
such cases, it's up to the parents and medical advisors to decide whether

or

not to perform surgery, which often results in one of the twins dying.

But when twins are born with one dependent (parasitic) on the other, the
parasite is removed ("killed") so that the other twin can have a normal
life.

Some examples:

1. '2 babies, 1 heart, 90 minutes for a miracle. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
SYNOPSIS: Pediatric surgeons successfully separated conjoined twins who
shared a heart. The heart of one conjoined twin circulated blood to the
other through the umbilical cord, making the surgery unique. The surviving
twin is now healthy and fourteen months old.'

[Only one heart obviously means that only one twin could survive
separation.]

2. 'This paper records our experience in the management of 25 sets of
conjoined twins seen over a 32 year period (1964 - 1996). The twins were
classified into 14 complete and symmetrical sets and 11 incomplete or
heteropagus. ...Overall 10 of 14 symmetrical sets underwent attempts at
separation with 16 surviving the procedure, but there were 3 late deaths.
In the incomplete group 10 of 11 were operated on with 9 survivors. [And

10

non-survivors - the "incomplete" twin of the pair.]'

In other words, 16 out of 20 babies who were equally developed conjoined
twins lived through the surgery and 13 survived longer-term. If there had
been no attempt to separate any of these twins, more would have survived;
most separation surgery is elective. It's done to give at least one twin,
hopefully both, a "normal" appearance and life.

Meanwhile, among unequally developed twins only the more normal, more

formed

twin was counted as a baby to begin with. That's why the abstract doesn't
even bother to note that none of the others, the dependent or parasitic
twins, survived.

3. 'The authors saw a rare developmental twin anomaly--heterodelphus. The
parasite was an organism devoid of the head, fixed with its thoracic wall
and epigastric area to the front wall and the epigastric area of the
autosite. ...The surgical division of the conjoined twins was performed in

4

months. The operation and operative findings are described. The
postoperative period was hard. At the present time the boy's state is

good,

he feels well and develops in accordance with his age.'

The other boy - or perhaps the girl; since these twins result from embryos
fusing together after conception they can be fraternal - is of course

dead.

Any problem here?

Remember that according to most abortion opponents, life begins at
conception and should be protected until natural death. Surgically

removing

a twin isn't "natural death" any more than surgically removing an embryo

is,

and in all these cases the twin didn't "die" until it was removed. Up

until

that point blood was circulating through its tissues, its organs were
working to the extent they were capable of, and so forth - just like an
embryo or fetus.

4. 'An unusual epigastric heteropagus case is presented with a

rudimentary

cardiopulmonary and also nearly complete gastrointestinal and

genitourinary

system of the parasite. We emphasize that in spite of monstrous

appearance,

autosite component of epigastric heteropagus can be treated successfully
with minor surgery.'

Translation: These kids look scary and weird, but it's actually quite easy
nowadays to remove the less-developed baby so its brother or sister can

have

a normal life. This "minor surgery" does kill one of the twins, and isn't
necessary for the survival of the other. Should we care?

1. Grady D. New York Times 2000 August 10. Separation of conjoined twins
with the twin reversed-arterial-perfusion sequence after prenatal planning
with three-dimensional modeling. NEJM 2000 August 10;343(6):399-402.
2. Pediatr Surg Int 1997 Apr;12(4):234-48. Conjoined twins--the Cape

Town

experience.
3. Vestn Khir Im I I Grek 1998;157(3):41-3. Heterodelphus--a rare form

of

twin developmental defect.
4. Eur J Pediatr Surg 1999 Oct;9(5):347-50. An unusual case of epigastric
heteropagus: parasite with a rudimentary heart.

"M is for Malapert" <someone@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:0DSGa.33871$YZ2.198720@rwcrnsc53...

"a.nonymouse" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:18EGa.9765$Cm5.3890314@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

But a conjoined twin is dependent exclusively on one other person
metabolically, yet that is not a reason to say they are less than a

human?

Of course it is. Such twins are parasites and are surgically removed
without controversy.