I'm guessing derp doesn't actually have kids. This is one of those fantastical conversations people have when they have no earthly concept of what it is like to actually have a kid. The idea of children vs the reality.
"Yes I will cloth diaper and nurse until age 5 and make all our own food and and clothes. And I will prepare myself for every mental and physical health calamity that could come our way! Yes!"
Shit. I bought two homes before I TTC'd. I knew the first one might burn to the ground so I have a spare. I keep it furnished exactly the same so it won't be traumatic to my child when we transition. Conveniently, it's on the same lot so she can go to the same school, ride the same bus, and keep all of her friends.
I don't know what to say or how else to put it. Bringing a person into this world is an enormous responsibility and if you're not prepared for all the potential eventualities, steer clear. Otherwise, you are a hugely irresponsible person.
I think it's pretty amazing that there is some hate for the father of Adam Lanza, and even the damned brother (), and yet the mother of the boy who threw her son off a damned bridge is getting nothing but sympathy. It's sick.
I don't know what to say or how else to put it. Bringing a person into this world is an enormous responsibility and if you're not prepared for all the potential eventualities, steer clear. Otherwise, you are a hugely irresponsible person.
I think it's pretty amazing that there is some hate for the father of Adam Lanza, and even the damned brother (), and yet the mother of the boy who threw her son off a damned bridge is getting nothing but sympathy. It's sick.
I don't know what to say or how else to put it. Bringing a person into this world is an enormous responsibility and if you're not prepared for all the potential eventualities, steer clear. Otherwise, you are a hugely irresponsible person.
I think it's pretty amazing that there is some hate for the father of Adam Lanza, and even the damned brother (), and yet the mother of the boy who threw her son off a damned bridge is getting nothing but sympathy. It's sick.
There is a difference between saying as a parent, I will move heaven and earth with the resources I have available to me, and even ones that aren't readily present vs. prepping for doomsday about a potential catastrophic illness that doesn't yet exist in your child.
You simply cannot prepare for that, and like most things in life, you really don't know how you're going to act when the time comes.
Now if you're saying that, and articulating it poorly, then so be it, but to suggest that people not have children because they're not prepared for the what if, is, um, extreme, to put it mildly.
I think someone asked before why we have sympathy for the woman who killed her autistic child and not Nancy Lanza. I have *some* sympathy for Nancy because I think homegirl was ill herself but I can find nothing that suggest Nancy tried to help her child in a rational manner. She hadn't called the police, she hadn't sought help from the school system, she had a support system (if she wanted to use it), she had resources.
Instead, she holed up in her house, pretended life was mostly hunky dory, and bought guns.
I agree and understand that the state of mental healthcare, particularly when it comes to supporting parents and helping children with various mental illnesses and spectrum disorders is incredibly flawed and that people need our help but I don't think the Lanzas help make that argument here.
To the bolded. That's the whole, entire point. If she were ill, she could not have acted in a rational manner. That's what mental illness does. That's what it is; irrational. We can't have one without the other -- she can't be called ill, and yet expected to be rational like all of you guys, who aren't ill. That's not the way mental illness works.
I'm not excusing her actions, but trying to understand them. She may be responsible for a lot of things, but if she were truly ill (indicated by her obsessing about the apocalypse - which isn't real - and stockpiling guns, and talking about dying from a not commonly fatal illness, keeping her son from the outside world, etc.), then she may not have had the ability to think rationally.
This is a huge problem in the mis-understanding and mis-treatment of the mentally ill. You can't say that someone's brain doesn't function normally and the turn around and expect them to think and act like someone whose brain functions normally.
Oh I agree, trust. My assertion all along though was that she wasn't always mentally ill. I don't think she was in the early days when they were diagnosing Adam. I think the last few years, sure. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that when he was young, she wasn't far more rational.
But I'm not sure I agree that one mental illness (or a few) means one can never be rational in any other aspect of their life. I don't see where Nancy did much of anything to help her son except enable him.
In her case, I think enabling Adam along with isolating herself lead to a deterioration of her mental state but I don't think she started off that way if that makes sense.
To be frank, 75% of the reason we suppose she must have been some form of mentally ill is because we can't think of any other way to sort out why she pretty much did worse than nothing in terms of caring for her son.
I don't know what to say or how else to put it. Bringing a person into this world is an enormous responsibility and if you're not prepared for all the potential eventualities, steer clear. Otherwise, you are a hugely irresponsible person.
I think it's pretty amazing that there is some hate for the father of Adam Lanza, and even the damned brother (), and yet the mother of the boy who threw her son off a damned bridge is getting nothing but sympathy. It's sick.
(A) It's utterly bizarre to me that you think parents don't know that "bringing a person into this world is enormous responsibility..."
(B) This case is nothing like the Oregon mom. Stop trying to compare the two. You are being ridiculous.
What nobody is really willing to have a conversation about is having children. If you have children, the statistics state that you might have a child that is mentally disabled in a way that is very, very difficult to handle. In a way that many people are unwilling or unable to cope with. So, people need to think really long and hard about this when they make the decision to procreate, but they don't. It's all congratulations and parties and gifts.
Nevermind that you're bringing another person into the world who might need services that don't exist, or that the prospective parents can't cope with. Why doesn't anyone think about that? It is a huge responsiblity and nobody wants to talk about the decision itself to bring these people into the world.
Maybe we could talk about the pitfalls of pro-natalism a little bit.
Mentally ill people having children? Why isn't that a conversation? I mean, it's encouraged. There are consequences.
Somebody sounds really bitter about the entire concept of people having children.
Post by LoveTrains on Nov 23, 2014 23:52:44 GMT -5
I am just going to drop here that one of the reasons we are child-free by choice is that H and I both agree we don't think we could handle special needs. So we decided to not have kids rather than take the risk (for now). But I'm 34 already and we've been married for 8 years. We both have mental illness in our family and we are terrified of the possibility.
There is a genetic component to many mental illnesses. How is a decision to have children if you have a history of a severe mental illness different that making the decision about other inheritable illnesses?
There is a genetic component to many mental illnesses. How is a decision to have children if you have a history of a severe mental illness different that making the decision about other inheritable illnesses?
I don't disagree with that, and even a poster in this thread mentioned not having kids due to mental illness on both sides of the family. However, that isn't what derp is suggesting. She is suggesting you be prepared for ALL things, and that's where I feel it is unreasonable.
What nobody is really willing to have a conversation about is having children. If you have children, the statistics state that you might have a child that is mentally disabled in a way that is very, very difficult to handle. In a way that many people are unwilling or unable to cope with. So, people need to think really long and hard about this when they make the decision to procreate, but they don't. It's all congratulations and parties and gifts.
Nevermind that you're bringing another person into the world who might need services that don't exist, or that the prospective parents can't cope with. Why doesn't anyone think about that? It is a huge responsiblity and nobody wants to talk about the decision itself to bring these people into the world.
Maybe we could talk about the pitfalls of pro-natalism a little bit.
Mentally ill people having children? Why isn't that a conversation? I mean, it's encouraged. There are consequences.
There is a genetic component to many mental illnesses. How is a decision to have children if you have a history of a severe mental illness different that making the decision about other inheritable illnesses?
I don't disagree with that, and even a poster in this thread mentioned not having kids due to mental illness on both sides of the family. However, that isn't what derp is suggesting. She is suggesting you be prepared for ALL things, and that's where I feel it is unreasonable.
She also said that one of the reason that she and her husband decided not to have children is because they could not handle special needs.
1 in 68 children has autism. Is it not reasonable to consider whether you can handle autism when considering whether to have a baby? This isn't a one in a million chance. As far as I know, nobody has figured out the cause. And that's just one of any number of special needs that a child can have. Why is it so outrageous to consider this?
There is a genetic component to many mental illnesses. How is a decision to have children if you have a history of a severe mental illness different that making the decision about other inheritable illnesses?
This is an entirely different point than either the one derp was making or the discussion about Nancy Lanza. There is no evidence that Nancy Lanza suffered from *any* mental illness let alone a severe one. And derp was saying people with mental illness are encouraged to have children which I have no idea where this comes from because it is not something I have ever heard of.
Ha. Well this is sort of my point. There are so many things that can go wrong. A healthy baby is not a given.
And onions make me farty. What on EARTH is your point.
If somebody has a kid, there is a very real possibility that kid will have special needs. When considering whether to have a baby, one should consider whether they can handle a child with special needs.
And onions make me farty. What on EARTH is your point.
If somebody has a kid, there is a very real possibility that kid will have special needs. When considering whether to have a baby, one should consider whether they can handle a child with special needs.
I thought that was pretty clear.
Again, what is your point and how does it relate to this discussion?
I don't disagree with that, and even a poster in this thread mentioned not having kids due to mental illness on both sides of the family. However, that isn't what derp is suggesting. Â She is suggesting you be prepared for ALL things, and that's where I feel it is unreasonable.
She also said that one of the reason that she and her husband decided not to have children is because they could not handle special needs.
1 in 68 children has autism. Is it not reasonable to consider whether you can handle autism when considering whether to have a baby? This isn't a one in a million chance. As far as I know, nobody has figured out the cause. And that's just one of any number of special needs that a child can have. Why is it so outrageous to consider this?
Last I checked, that's not the autism statistic, but I don't havd time to look for the right one.
Why are you splitting hairs, it is implied she and said they were terrier of having a chd with a mental illness, that hey decided for themselves they couldn't handle it.
What you don't seem I get is that you can't be prepared for everything, so even if you do say, hey, what happens if with we have a child with xyz problem, and hen that problem occurs, how you handle it in your head, may very well be different than what happens in reality.
Hmmm...where have I heard this rationale before? Someplace. It's hard to put my finger on . . .
274 U.S. 200
Buck v. Bell (No. 292)
Argued: April 22, 1927
Decided: May 2, 1927
1. The Virginia statute providing for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility, is within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 207.
2. Failure to extend the provision to persons outside the institutions named does not render it obnoxious to the Equal Protection Clause. P. 208.
ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia which affirmed a judgment ordering [p201] the Superintendent of the State Colony of Epileptics and Feeble Minded to perform the operation of salpingectomy on Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error. [p205]
Mr. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County by which the defendant in error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her sterile. 143 Va. 310. The case comes here upon the contention that the statute authorizing the judgment is void under the Fourteenth Amendment as denying to the plaintiff in error due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.
Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, &c.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who, if now discharged, would become [p206] a menace, but, if incapable of procreating, might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society, and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, &c. The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.
The superintendent first presents a petition to the special board of directors of his hospital or colony, stating the facts and the grounds for his opinion, verified by affidavit. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing in the institution is to be served upon the inmate, and also upon his guardian, and if there is no guardian, the superintendent is to apply to the Circuit Court of the County to appoint one. If the inmate is a minor, notice also is to be given to his parents, if any, with a copy of the petition. The board is to see to it that the inmate may attend the hearings if desired by him or his guardian. The evidence is all to be reduced to writing, and, after the board has made its order for or against the operation, the superintendent, or the inmate, or his guardian, may appeal to the Circuit Court of the County. The Circuit Court may consider the record of the board and the evidence before it and such other admissible evidence as may be offered, and may affirm, revise, or reverse the order of the board and enter such order as it deems just. Finally any party may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which, if it grants the appeal, is to hear the case upon the record of the trial [p207] in the Circuit Court, and may enter such order as it thinks the Circuit Court should have entered. There can be no doubt that, so far as procedure is concerned, the rights of the patient are most carefully considered, and, as every step in this case was taken in scrupulous compliance with the statute and after months of observation, there is no doubt that, in that respect, the plaintiff in error has had due process of law.
The attack is not upon the procedure, but upon the substantive law. It seems to be contended that in no circumstances could such an order be justified. It certainly is contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited, and that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization, and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and, if they exist, they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [p208]
But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course, so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.
I think it's also worth noting that strength comes from unpredictable places. You are NEVER going to know what you are capable of until the moment is staring you in the face. I think several posters here can agree with me on that point.
What nobody is really willing to have a conversation about is having children. If you have children, the statistics state that you might have a child that is mentally disabled in a way that is very, very difficult to handle. In a way that many people are unwilling or unable to cope with. So, people need to think really long and hard about this when they make the decision to procreate, but they don't. It's all congratulations and parties and gifts.
Nevermind that you're bringing another person into the world who might need services that don't exist, or that the prospective parents can't cope with. Why doesn't anyone think about that? It is a huge responsiblity and nobody wants to talk about the decision itself to bring these people into the world.
Maybe we could talk about the pitfalls of pro-natalism a little bit.
Mentally ill people having children? Why isn't that a conversation? I mean, it's encouraged. There are consequences.
Talk about catastrophizing lol. WORST CASE.
This gets thrown at me when eugenics is being brought into the conversation? Laughable.
Post by tacosforlife on Nov 24, 2014 9:28:38 GMT -5
So I need some help here. I am prepared to deal with a kid that has special needs. I am not prepared to deal with a kid who has mass murder fantasies and psychotic episodes. Do I get a yay or a nay on my TTC plans?
This gets thrown at me when eugenics is being brought into the conversation? Laughable.
You're the one talking about, on the first page, "why aren't we having a conversation about mentally ill people having children." The logical extreme of that is . . . eugenics. So, there you go.
There are people in my life who I love who have mental illnesses. To think that there needs to be a "discussion", other than between them and their partner, about having children is abhorrent to me. Not all of them have mental illnesses that are proven to have a hereditary component--and even if so, a hereditary COMPONENT is not a mandatory sentence of absolute for sure mental illness in all offspring.
ETA: and sorry to derail from the OP yet further. I figured the wheels were already off the cart. The OP was sensitive and thought-provoking.
So I need some help here. I am prepared to deal with a kid that has special needs. I am not prepared to deal with a kid who has mass murder fantasies and psychotic episodes. Do I get a yay or a nay on my TTC plans?
This gets thrown at me when eugenics is being brought into the conversation? Laughable.
You're the one talking about, on the first page, "why aren't we having a conversation about mentally ill people having children." The logical extreme of that is . . . eugenics. So, there you go.
There are people in my life who I love who have mental illnesses. To think that there needs to be a "discussion", other than between them and their partner, about having children is abhorrent to me. Not all of them have mental illnesses that are proven to have a hereditary component--and even if so, a hereditary COMPONENT is not a mandatory sentence of absolute for sure mental illness in all offspring.
But it's extreme. I know what eugenics is, and it's not something I'm in favor of. So, presenting it as some sort of "gotcha" is just dumb.
I do think there needs to be a discussion, not necessarily at an individual level, about the pitfalls of people with mental illness becoming parents. Having a conversation about what people do voluntarily does not equate to forcibly sterilizing anyone. I mean come on.
I don't disagree with that, and even a poster in this thread mentioned not having kids due to mental illness on both sides of the family. However, that isn't what derp is suggesting. She is suggesting you be prepared for ALL things, and that's where I feel it is unreasonable.
She also said that one of the reason that she and her husband decided not to have children is because they could not handle special needs.
1 in 68 children has autism. Is it not reasonable to consider whether you can handle autism when considering whether to have a baby? This isn't a one in a million chance. As far as I know, nobody has figured out the cause. And that's just one of any number of special needs that a child can have. Why is it so outrageous to consider this?
It's 1 in 68 for boys, 1 in 98 total. That number includes Asperger type presentation kids who are mildly quirky and socially awkward but otherwise productive members of society. And my daughter is pretty amazing and I wouldn't choose to not have her for anything. yes our road is harder then average and may get harder but she is worth it.