Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Why do you keep bringing that strawman to which I replied already? No one is talking about feeling identical.
They were not -precisely, they felt that it would have been them, but different (as in disease-free). Not identical at all

Not a strawman. I am trying to grasp the implications of this (I am really trying!):

it would have been you, a different you of course. But you.

If it's a "different me", it's not me at all. There is only one see-the-trademark me, and that's me.

My mother told me if I had been a boy (God forbid), I would be Wilhelm (God forbid again), after my father. That's only lazy-speak for: if I had been a totally different person that has nothing to do with my identity, a male...

The claimant in your case apparently could fantasise themselves into being (reincarnated?) a totally hypothetical second child that might (or might not) have been born after s/he (or rather the embryo that developed into being s/he) was aborted. Bizarre. What if there hadn't been another child? (S/he would have sued to compel the parents to... really!) The judge must have been drunk. Was there an appeal?

You say you agree. (Now I probably should edit out "drunk" and so ;-) ) Can you tell me what that means for a hypothetical connection between that rubella embryo and me, because I think that ought to be the same, right?

Cyrille:

Who's talking about lying, something I never do, much less to my sons?

Or hiding the truth (that you know). It backfires, definitely. You are right, "never forgive" is too strong. I know a few cases though, and the extent of trust has never been fully restored, although there was some forgiveness. This is completely tangential, though.

by Katrin on Thu Nov 8th, 2012 at 08:32:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series