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.
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.
What do you mean by mental illness? Schizophrenia? Bipolar disorder? Depression? Anorexia? Attention Deficit?
I love everybody calling me an idiot. That's productive and thoughtful.
Well, I didn't and you called me dumb.
Then you proceeded to explain that my example, which I describe as extreme, was "extreme." And you have yet to clarify what "non individual" discussion should be had about "mental illness," a term you have heretofore not described.
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.
What do you mean by mental illness? Schizophrenia? Bipolar disorder? Depression? Anorexia? Attention Deficit?
I think anorexia qualifies as "eating disorder" and not "mental illness", but the rest of them, I believe, fall under that category.
Anorexia (an-oh-REK-see-uh) nervosa isn't really about food. It's an unhealthy way to try to cope with emotional problems. When you have anorexia nervosa, you often equate thinness with self-worth.
I love everybody calling me an idiot. That's productive and thoughtful.
Well, I didn't and you called me dumb.
Then you proceeded to explain that my example, which I describe as extreme, was "extreme." And you have yet to clarify what "non individual" discussion should be had about "mental illness," a term you have heretofore not described.
I called your comparison dumb. I don't know you. I have no idea whether or not you're dumb.
I agreed that your example was extreme, which is why I thought it was irrelevant.
Apparently no conversation can be had, because it devolves immediately into petty name calling.
Then you proceeded to explain that my example, which I describe as extreme, was "extreme." And you have yet to clarify what "non individual" discussion should be had about "mental illness," a term you have heretofore not described.
I called your comparison dumb. I don't know you. I have no idea whether or not you're dumb.
I agreed that your example was extreme, which is why I thought it was irrelevant.
Apparently no conversation can be had, because it devolves immediately into petty name calling.
I have yet to call you a name. I am intelligent and well-spoken, and can assure you that I am not dumb.
Extremity does not irrelevancy make, but if you're going to go there, then explain why you believe the logical extension--albeit extreme--of your rationale is not relevant? Perhaps you can present a colorable argument in favor of your point of view.
You are not responding to everyone's questions and continue making the same ridiculous statement. You are also not willing to face the logical conclusion of what you are saying.
I'm responding to as many as I can keep up with. What is the logical conclusion? That no one should have kids? Is that what you think I'm evading?
You are not responding to everyone's questions and continue making the same ridiculous statement. You are also not willing to face the logical conclusion of what you are saying.
I'm responding to as many as I can keep up with. What is the logical conclusion? That no one should have kids? Is that what you think I'm evading?
If anorexia is included, then include it.
If you're advocating that the mentally ill not be "encouraged" to have kids (and you have yet to back that statement up), then you have to assume the extreme possibility of eugenics could happen.
Post by tacosforlife on Nov 24, 2014 9:58:09 GMT -5
This is such a weird conversation to be having.
There are a lot of things we can blame Nancy and Peter Lanza for. A lot of them have been touched on in this thread. But not being "prepared" to deal with a severely mentally ill child is not one of them. There is not a person walking this earth who could be "prepared" to have a psychotic child with mass murder fantasies. Not a one. So saying that we need to prepare for ill children or that mentally ill people shouldn't have children or whatever else is really not relevant to the OP at all.
And given that the person who suggested it is relevant does not even understand that anorexia nervosa is a recognized MENTAL illness, I propose that we all just ignore her and go back to posting GIFs or making fun of Anthony Weiner.
Can you only imagine how fucked up the human race would become if every single parent prepared as if every single child was going to become a psychotic mass murderer?
If you're advocating that the mentally ill not be "encouraged" to have kids (and you have yet to back that statement up), then you have to assume the extreme possibility of eugenics could happen.
I'm talking about socially, not anything more nefarious than that. And I see/hear it frequently, on these boards even. I'm not sure what I need to back up.
But this is just getting kind of ridiculous. I was mistaken on one point so that negates everything else I may have said. Sorry for derailing your thread.
mockingbird - I'd really like to reiterate asdfjkl's point. Nancy Lanza is not a "there but for the grace of god go I" situation for you. You have already done so much and fought so much harder. I don't know why she did or didn't do what she did, but you are completely different. I know you are saying that you don't have a lot of control over the outcome, so we shouldn't nitpick the decisions, but I do think one fighting to help their kid will count - at least in the court of public opinion (which is basically what this board is).
And by the way, I agree with heyjude about the dad. He should not have left Nancy alone to deal with this, ESPECIALLY if she did have some sort of mental illness. If you know your kid has problems, and suspect the other parent has an illness and can't deal with your child, why would you leave your child with that parent?
What do you mean by "leave her alone to deal with it"? Like they shouldn't have gotten divorced?
What do you mean by "leave her alone to deal with it"? Like they shouldn't have gotten divorced?
No, like not fought for custody or court involvement when he saw the turn things were taking. It seems like they disagreed on treatment for a while. If I were getting divorced and DH had primary custody, but I thought he was doing things that were harmful to DS, I'd sure as shit make a huge big stink and get lots of lawyers and experts involved to "prove" that DH's approach was harming our kid. The guy had the money to do this. I think it was really hard and he let himself be pushed out of the picture.
TBH, you can say the Lanzas were more prepared than most, since they were educated, upper class white people with the means to seek whatever kind of treatment was prescribed for their son.
Post by NewOrleans on Nov 24, 2014 18:11:29 GMT -5
the hell happened in here?
I would just like to discourage mockingbird or litebright from seeing themselves in this family or from seeing themselves in our judgments of Nancy Lanza. I really see no comparison in the struggles you have documented / the lengths to which you've gone compared to a woman blithely letting her son starve.
I have utter and deep sympathy for them that their son was so ill and they faced so many added challenges in parenting him. My sympathy ends for them because they chose to not parent him at all. In fact, my sympathy for Adam has grown because this report.
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Nov 24, 2014 18:26:21 GMT -5
I'm just...ugh. I should tambsbush my way out of this thread but I won't.
So on one hand, I do think that part of planning for parenthood involves having the discussions about "hey, this runs in my family, let's talk about how proactive we want to be about it." That is an entirely separate, but equally important discussion to "are guns toys?" and "do we want them in the house" and "by the way, how's YOUR mental health." All important. So like, I knew that Autism was a possibility and I was on the lookout for it from day one. But that's one of those things that you don't totally get (as in, what kind of amazing pupu platter of behavioral nonsense accompanies it) until you're in the throes. We thought we had a handle on how we would approach it, and my ex and I still butt heads sometimes even though we've been living it and talked it to death.
So I think what happened here was sort of a lack of planning, and also the real problem, totally willful ignorance. NL is not the first parent to bury her head in the sand and pretend everything was dandy, even though things were awful. And in some ways, I don't blame her because it's a fuck of a mess to try to wade through sometimes. A combination of people not knowing what IS available and there literally not being enough available help for families. I don't personally see myself in the same light as I see her (and the rarely-discussed father) but I do relate to that desire to just bury my head and play ostrich for a little while.
This is all sort of a long-winded way of saying that I can KIND OF agree that you need to have those discussions before having kids about how you'll address certain mental illnesses or disabilities that you might be prone to or might not have considered before. That doesn't mean making your house ADA accessible when the strip changes colors, though. It's more like, being emotionally prepared to have your whole world fucked with, as all children are wont to do.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
I would just like to discourage mockingbird or litebright from seeing themselves in this family or from seeing themselves in our judgments of Nancy Lanza. I really see no comparison in the struggles you have documented / the lengths to which you've gone compared to a woman blithely letting her son starve.
I have utter and deep sympathy for them that their son was so ill and they faced so many added challenges in parenting him. My sympathy ends for them because they chose to not parent him at all. In fact, my sympathy for Adam has grown because this report.
Ditto I admire that you two can empathize with the struggles about care for children with mental health struggles and the limitations that surround trying to get and have your kid participate in the care, but at the same time recognize that you don't have to sympathize with the actual situation of Adam Lanza's family.
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?
Does it matter that Adam Lanza was an adult when this all went down? Dude was 20. What could his parents really have done with an adult child? Also, he could have finished high school and shacked up with any gun-obsessed buddy rather than his mom and had similar access to weapons. Then what?
The issue is if they had had him treated appropriately as a child the therapy and supports may have headed this off. Special Interests like guns is not uncommon but a good therapy team would have most likely worked with the parents when he was younger to extinguish this inappropriate interest due to it's inherent dangers (increased incidence of depression in people with ASD means suicide risk, lack of executive function can mean impulsivity and carelessness both dangerous around guns, etc)
Basically if they had pursued help when he was young the guidance and help may have redirected him.
Does it matter that Adam Lanza was an adult when this all went down? Dude was 20. What could his parents really have done with an adult child? Also, he could have finished high school and shacked up with any gun-obsessed buddy rather than his mom and had similar access to weapons. Then what?
Then I wouldn't judge his mom. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Does it matter that Adam Lanza was an adult when this all went down? Dude was 20. What could his parents really have done with an adult child? Also, he could have finished high school and shacked up with any gun-obsessed buddy rather than his mom and had similar access to weapons. Then what?
Then you can't fault the mother for buying him an arsenal, can you? It's really not that hard.
There is the additional issue of had he gotten help earlier, it may not have gotten this far. But even if it did, you're going to have less guilt for not buying the goddamn murder weapons.
Yes. Nobody is judging Nancy Lanza for failing to "fix" her son. We are blaming her for enabling him to commit mass murder.