Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[Mama Mia]

I am getting the idea that some people would like to regulate Cale and Kathleen's choice to have children based on their belief that she is a rapist and that he does not have the capacity to consent to sex.

[Palimpsest]

I am getting the idea that some people would like to regulate Cale and Kathleen's choice to have children based on their belief that she is a rapist and that he does not have the capacity to consent to sex.

Actually, so am I.

Apparently people also want to regulate their choices because Cale is "unable to parent" per FJ standards. Oddly enough, children can do quite well with single parents, in non-traditional families, and even with some disabled family members (but please don't tell the Fundies that!)

There is an awful lot of hyperbole going on in this thread on both sides of the argument. :)

[Ave Maria]

Who exactly has said or even implied that they -- either of them -- should resort to infidelity?

I agree with the poster who said this looks like coercion. Whether it is or not, I don't know, and as someone else said, I'd assume that the doctors, therapist and other mandated reporters who must be involved with this must have a reasonably good handle on what's going on.

Some have said that they don't have an issue with two people of similar cognitive (dis)function sleeping together, but that they do have an issue with this. I don't feel like hunting through the whole thread to find it, though.

[Rebelwife]

Actually, so am I.

Apparently people also want to regulate their choices because Cale is "unable to parent" per FJ standards. Oddly enough, children can do quite well with single parents, in non-traditional families, and even with some disabled family members (but please don't tell the Fundies that!)

There is an awful lot of hyperbole going on in this thread on both sides of the argument. :)

I don't feel like anyone has advocated regulating anything, though. I'm not saying I agree with everything that has been said here, but mostly what I've heard is people thinking this might be a really bad idea for both Cale and the baby. We think a lot of things on FJ are REALLY bad ideas - like ultra fundy religions, SODRT, patriarchy, J'Chelle's baby obsession, etc., but I don't see anyone ever saying we should somehow use regulation to prevent those things from happening.

Like here, the most I see from that angle is a desire to have 3rd parties involved where appropriate to make sure that vulnerable people aren't being harmed.

[singsingsing]

Actually, so am I.

Apparently people also want to regulate their choices because Cale is "unable to parent" per FJ standards. Oddly enough, children can do quite well with single parents, in non-traditional families, and even with some disabled family members (but please don't tell the Fundies that!)

There is an awful lot of hyperbole going on in this thread on both sides of the argument. :)

I'd say there's a pretty big difference between being raised by a single parent, and a man with a traumatic brain injury who his wife claims functions at the level of a 3-year-old and who apparently has a tough time controlling his impulses and anger, being made to father a child. Maybe it's not 'nice' to say that Cale shouldn't have a baby, but it's true. He should not have a baby. Kathleen should know that. Sometimes bad things happen to good people and life sucks, but you can't just go on pretending everything is the same as it used to be. Nobody's saying that disabled people should be sterilized (wtf), but rather that Kathleen probably made a poor choice, and a selfish one. That said, I very much hope everything works out for them. I just think it's a dangerous situation to bring a baby into. I hope she feels that she can leave if the baby is ever in danger. FFS, a baby is a living, individual human being, not a prize you're entitled to.

[fun2beme]

I'd say there's a pretty big difference between being raised by a single parent, and a man with a traumatic brain injury who his wife claims functions at the level of a 3-year-old and who apparently has a tough time controlling his impulses and anger, being made to father a child. Maybe it's not 'nice' to say that Cale shouldn't have a baby, but it's true. He should not have a baby. Kathleen should know that. Sometimes bad things happen to good people and life sucks, but you can't just go on pretending everything is the same as it used to be. Nobody's saying that disabled people should be sterilized (wtf), but rather that Kathleen probably made a poor choice, and a selfish one. That said, I very much hope everything works out for them. I just think it's a dangerous situation to bring a baby into. I hope she feels that she can leave if the baby is ever in danger. FFS, a baby is a living, individual human being, not a prize you're entitled to.

THIS! Like Katheleen, I have always wanted very much to have a child. However, due to issues with depression and bi-polar tendencies, I have sadly come to the realization that for myself personally, having a child is not a good idea. I stress that this applies to me personally; I know others in similar situations have had children, but each case - including treatment, patient history, and severity of problems - varies widely. I am accepting the unfortunate fact that life doe sometimes suck and you can't always get what you want. It's been very difficult for me and I can't imagine how much worse it is for Kathleen. The difference is that she is not willing to admit that life isn't fair, and in her case, it's been extremely unfair.

So removing Caleb's consent/comprehension from the equation, I think Kathleen has not issued good judgment on this. I feel for her; I'm sure she thinks her child will bring her happiness - and I'm sure she (he?) will, but it will come at a great price for everyone involved. Despite the role she's taken on in caring for him, I think Kathleen is very immature and selfish in other ways.

[polecat]

Some have said that they don't have an issue with two people of similar cognitive (dis)function sleeping together, but that they do have an issue with this. I don't feel like hunting through the whole thread to find it, though.

I suspect you may be referring to a post of mine, where I neither said nor implied any such thing. I recounted that my family member is impaired and has a similarly impaired girlfriend. But I get squeamish when it comes to an NT adult having sex with a severely cognitively impaired adult. I never said that anyone should cheat, I certainly didn't say they should divorce (I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that marriage vows mean something), and I didn't even say that this was rape. I said it's a complex situation, and I don't know what the answer is. But it makes me personally uncomfortable because the issues surrounding consent are hazy.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19767&start=220#p727458

[twinmama]

Oh, I saw it; I just don’t understand it. It's hard, even with protection, to decouple procreation from sex. I can't imagine how someone can be considered capable of consenting to sex, but incapable of consenting to procreation. That isn't to say an unfit parent who consented to bear a child should be allowed to keep it, but sex and parenthood are otherwise tightly linked.

Eh, I disagree. I'm fine with two 16 year olds having sex, but in most cases they are in no way ready to be parents. I don't think you have to be ready to be a parent in order to have sex.

But perhaps my view of sex/parenthood is skewed as I wasn't able to get pregnant the easy way, we had to do IVF! So no "sex = baby" for me :)

[Burpies]

Eh, I disagree. I'm fine with two 16 year olds having sex, but in most cases they are in no way ready to be parents. I don't think you have to be ready to be a parent in order to have sex.

But perhaps my view of sex/parenthood is skewed as I wasn't able to get pregnant the easy way, we had to do IVF! So no "sex = baby" for me :)

I don't think your view is skewed. I'm the mother of a 17 year old, who I am sure is having sex, and also is not in any way prepared to be a father. I just made sure he had extensive, comprehensive sex education so that he knew how to protect himself, and could understand, as far as he could, the possible implications of having sex. And, get ready to clutch your pearls, I will occasionally ask if he has or needs condoms.

We started talking to him about sex education around age 10.

[latraviata]

I don't think your view is skewed. I'm the mother of a 17 year old, who I am sure is having sex, and also is not in any way prepared to be a father. I just made sure he had extensive, comprehensive sex education so that he knew how to protect himself, and could understand, as far as he could, the possible implications of having sex. And, get ready to clutch your pearls, I will occasionally ask if he has or needs condoms.

We started talking to him about sex education around age 10.

It was the same her, my boys having sex and not even wanting to be fathers. I asked them if they needed condoms and I even provided them. The sex talk started from the day they were born so to speak.

[twinmama]

I don't think your view is skewed. I'm the mother of a 17 year old, who I am sure is having sex, and also is not in any way prepared to be a father. I just made sure he had extensive, comprehensive sex education so that he knew how to protect himself, and could understand, as far as he could, the possible implications of having sex. And, get ready to clutch your pearls, I will occasionally ask if he has or needs condoms.

We started talking to him about sex education around age 10.

Haha, no pearl clutching here. I read or saw someplace a mom that just left a jar of condoms in the teen's bathroom, that way if he/she took one no one could tell bc there was a jar full. I like that idea, make it available (after having all the appropriate talks and assuming you trust your kid) and judgement free and not embarrassing. I do not want to be a grandmother when my kid is 17 because he was too embarrassed to buy condoms!!

[Burpies]

Haha, no pearl clutching here. I read or saw someplace a mom that just left a jar of condoms in the teen's bathroom, that way if he/she took one no one could tell bc there was a jar full. I like that idea, make it available (after having all the appropriate talks and assuming you trust your kid) and judgement free and not embarrassing. I do not want to be a grandmother when my kid is 17 because he was too embarrassed to buy condoms!!

I had a friend who had a box with condoms in it in her son's top drawer that she checked and then added more when needed. She told me that it was handy to know that there were always some there b/c sometimes, in a pinch, she actually needed to use one from the drawer!

[theologygeek]

He is NOT a toddler trapped in a mans body, he is a grown man with limited cognitive functioning. Those are two entirely different things. You seem to be equating his approximate age of mental development ( which is just th easiest to understand measure that is given...it isn't really equivalent) with a corresponding age of sexual functioning- and that just isn't how it works.

This is funny because you have obviously not read through her entire blog. Argue with Kathleen. She calls him a child.

[theologygeek]

THIS! Like Katheleen, I have always wanted very much to have a child. However, due to issues with depression and bi-polar tendencies, I have sadly come to the realization that for myself personally, having a child is not a good idea. .

+1 This is what it all boils down to. I have heard women say that they were in no shape to have a child, and their wishes should be respected. If the pre accident Cale saw the post accident Cale, what would he say when asked if he wanted to father a child? He might say no. No one knows. Kathleen took a part of his body for her own desires without knowing what he wanted, since he is not able to rationally weigh all the pros and cons. A husband doesn't have the right to take a part of his wife's body and a wife doesn't have the right either. Talk about dark ages.

[Burris]

Actually, so am I.

Apparently people also want to regulate their choices because Cale is "unable to parent" per FJ standards. Oddly enough, children can do quite well with single parents, in non-traditional families, and even with some disabled family members (but please don't tell the Fundies that!)

This is apparently one of those situations where freedom of choice, usually so dear, is seen as a threat by people who think…

…Kathleen is a rapist, despite their not knowing anything concrete about her husband’s (in)ability to consent

…a child borne to such a union will inevitably suffer, and might even die

…Cale is a giant toddler

Fuck – if this topic were about Kathleen’s right to have an abortion, this thread would be an echo chamber of people defending her decision. Because she chose to have a baby, and with someone who is likely being monitored for his fitness by people far more qualified to determine his limits than any of us are, suddenly she’s a monster, Cale’s a victim, and their child will grow up in hell. Incredible.

Eh, I disagree. I'm fine with two 16 year olds having sex, but in most cases they are in no way ready to be parents. I don't think you have to be ready to be a parent in order to have sex.

But perhaps my view of sex/parenthood is skewed as I wasn't able to get pregnant the easy way, we had to do IVF! So no "sex = baby" for me :)

It’s not ideal for two 16-year-olds to have a child, but they could cope with it if they had to: Those who want to continue with an unplanned pregnancy will face criticism, but most people that age can raise children and those kids aren’t necessarily going to turn out detrimental to society.

Even for those who have multiple kinds of protection against pregnancy and STDs, sex can still lead to pregnancy.

[Marianne]

This is apparently one of those situations where freedom of choice, usually so dear, is seen as a threat by people who think…

…Kathleen is a rapist, despite their not knowing anything concrete about her husband’s (in)ability to consent

…a child borne to such a union will inevitably suffer, and might even die

…Cale is a giant toddler

Fuck – if this topic were about Kathleen’s right to have an abortion, this thread would be an echo chamber of people defending her decision. Because she chose to have a baby, and with someone who is likely being monitored for his fitness by people far more qualified to determine his limits than any of us are, suddenly she’s a monster, Cale’s a victim, and their child will grow up in hell. Incredible.

It’s not ideal for two 16-year-olds to have a child, but they could cope with it if they had to: Those who want to continue with an unplanned pregnancy will face criticism, but most people that age can raise children and those kids aren’t necessarily going to turn out detrimental to society.

Even for those who have multiple kinds of protection against pregnancy and STDs, sex can still lead to pregnancy.

She SAY herself that he was inable to consent because she say he was a child. HER WORD. Not our. Except if you think that having sex with someone who think is a child is sane. I don't think so. If you think, if you tell in a public blog, that you view your husband as a child, so yes, you will face criticism.

And yes, it will be difficult for their children. You must be blind to not see it.

[latraviata]

She SAY herself that he was inable to consent because she say he was a child. HER WORD. Not our. Except if you think that having sex with someone who think is a child is sane. I don't think so. If you think, if you tell in a public blog, that you view your husband as a child, so yes, you will face criticism.

And yes, it will be difficult for their children. You must be blind to not see it.

You are absolutely right.

Apart from Kathleen who shares her story in extenso on the internet, what does sex mean to her? It is not just a body function. To me she applied some sort of dressage, to tame him as her personal studd horse.

Everybody is free to do as they see fit, but don't expect other people to not have an opinion about it.

I find the whole situation quite disturbing.

[Ave Maria]

I suspect you may be referring to a post of mine, where I neither said nor implied any such thing. I recounted that my family member is impaired and has a similarly impaired girlfriend. But I get squeamish when it comes to an NT adult having sex with a severely cognitively impaired adult. I never said that anyone should cheat, I certainly didn't say they should divorce (I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that marriage vows mean something), and I didn't even say that this was rape. I said it's a complex situation, and I don't know what the answer is. But it makes me personally uncomfortable because the issues surrounding consent are hazy.

http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 20#p727458

It was an earlier post than that, IIRC -- before the thread got resurrected closer to the baby's birth.

[Palimpsest]

This is apparently one of those situations where freedom of choice, usually so dear, is seen as a threat by people who think…

…Kathleen is a rapist, despite their not knowing anything concrete about her husband’s (in)ability to consent

…a child borne to such a union will inevitably suffer, and might even die

…Cale is a giant toddler

Fuck – if this topic were about Kathleen’s right to have an abortion, this thread would be an echo chamber of people defending her decision. Because she chose to have a baby, and with someone who is likely being monitored for his fitness by people far more qualified to determine his limits than any of us are, suddenly she’s a monster, Cale’s a victim, and their child will grow up in hell. Incredible.

Tut, tut, Burris. You must have not read some of the posts.

We have also been told in this thread (I can't be bothered to go back and find the exact quotes) that:

- The main biological purpose of sex is procreation. Therefore, no-one should be having sex unless they intend to procreate. I have to remember to tell Mr. P. that we need to go cold-turkey on sex because I'm post-menopausal.

- Baby-fever makes women irrational. Really? I did not know that!

- Kathleen is so "irrational" with baby-fever that she raped and had a baby with a disabled man that she might have to call the police on. Wow. I think we have to call the twinkie-mobile and Section all the irrational women who have babies with husbands who have anger issues and can't control themselves. Or just send them to jail.

Isn't all that hyperbole?

What people say is that they want over-sight by a third-party in Cale and Kathleen's case. We can, and some of us have, argued ourselves blue in the face about there being any number of mandated reporters involved with Kathleen and Cale who haven't seemed to have objected so far.

It really is a slippery slope and self-determination in the so-called Vulnerable Adult population is a really hard concept to get across, even with thinking people. Some people have trodden very close to the edge of that slope here.

For those that think Mrs S2004 was indulging in hyperbole when she talked about involuntary sterilization of the disabled and disenfranchized -- it's not ancient history in the USA and it still goes on today. No states actually have programs and pay for it these days, unless you count the recent California Prison scandal, but family members and physicians still push for the involuntary sterilization of developmentally or psychiatrically disabled women. Some of them could be, and many are, perfectly good parents with the right supports.

[louisa05]

Tut, tut, Burris. You must have not read some of the posts.

We have also been told in this thread (I can't be bothered to go back and find the exact quotes) that:

- The main biological purpose of sex is procreation. Therefore, no-one should be having sex unless they intend to procreate. I have to remember to tell Mr. P. that we need to go cold-turkey on sex because I'm post-menopausal.

- Baby-fever makes women irrational. Really? I did not know that!

- Kathleen is so "irrational" with baby-fever that she raped and had a baby with a disabled man that she might have to call the police on. Wow. I think we have to call the twinkie-mobile and Section all the irrational women who have babies with husbands who have anger issues and can't control themselves. Or just send them to jail.

Isn't all that hyperbole?

What people say is that they want over-sight by a third-party in Cale and Kathleen's case. We can, and some of us have, argued ourselves blue in the face about there being any number of mandated reporters involved with Kathleen and Cale who haven't seemed to have objected so far.

It really is a slippery slope and self-determination in the so-called Vulnerable Adult population is a really hard concept to get across, even with thinking people. Some people have trodden very close to the edge of that slope here.

For those that think Mrs S2004 was indulging in hyperbole when she talked about involuntary sterilization of the disabled and disenfranchized -- it's not ancient history in the USA and it still goes on today. No states actually have programs and pay for it these days, unless you count the recent California Prison scandal, but family members and physicians still push for the involuntary sterilization of developmentally or psychiatrically disabled women. Some of them could be, and many are, perfectly good parents with the right supports.

In any thread involving Catholicism, contraception, or Hobby Lobby, the bolded would cause great offense and argument. The discussion leaning that way here without argument fascinates me.

This whole thing is complicated. I have to refer back to the wiki entry cited which had medically accepted guidelines for consent for the disabled. We don't know that the counselors and medical professionals that Kathleen references time and again did not go over those guidelines with them. She has been working with people who would be aware of these issues and who likely made her aware.

She strikes me as much more mature and realistic than Larissa, for what it's worth. There is not much denial in her blog, certainly not on the level of Larissa who seems to be whiling away her time on an extended swim in Egypt.

[Chowder Head]

Please understand that the United states had eugenic departments and sterilized unwanted people up till the 1970's

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

[Palimpsest]

Please understand that the United states had eugenic departments and sterilized unwanted people up till the 1970's

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

Yes, indeed. The US has a long and disgraceful history in eugenics that people want to forget about. Thanks for the link!

Here is link to California's prison involuntary sterilization under duress program. That was active until 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-ster ... 31287.html

Please understand that many people (yes, including women) in the prison population also have cognitive (developmental and TBI) and/or psychiatric disabilities.

[twinmama]

Why are we talking about sterilizing the disabled?? I don't think anyone has suggested anything remotely close to this should happen, have they? Saying someone shouldn't be having a child is different from saying I won't allow someone to have a child.

[polecat]

Why are we talking about sterilizing the disabled?? I don't think anyone has suggested anything remotely close to this should happen, have they? Saying someone shouldn't be having a child is different from saying I won't allow someone to have a child.

I suspect all of us have had private thoughts about whether someone is actually capable of rearing a child or not or been judgy about another person's parenting (me, all the time, sadly, not proud). But when it comes to people with disability, there's a nasty, ugly history there, and the reaction is understandable. Slippery slope and all that.

Honestly, something Cale said in that linked blog entry (the one where he said he couldn't be a dad yet because he was hurt) made me think that he'd be a pretty good dad, all things considered. He wouldn't be the kind of dad we think of when we think of dads and he may well be more like an overgrown brother instead of the traditional father figure, but I suspect he'll teach the child a lot about sticking to it, hard work, love, tolerance and acceptance. With the right support, I think he'll do fine.

[Palimpsest]

Why are we talking about sterilizing the disabled?? I don't think anyone has suggested anything remotely close to this should happen, have they? Saying someone shouldn't be having a child is different from saying I won't allow someone to have a child.

It's known as thread drift. FJ doesn't have rules against that, AFAIK. Unless things have radically changed and we have suddenly morphed into the now defunct TWoP. :pink-shock: My God! Perhaps Curious is really Howard? :lol:

If you don't like it ... perhaps you could scroll on by and let others talk about it if they want. I've scrolled past thread drift on innumerable other threads for years without getting pissy.