Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[Burris]

Before answering Marianne, I have put together a short sampling of how some of the more agitated posters here seem to balance their alleged worry over consent with a generally unfavourable attitude towards the capabilities not only of people with disabilities but also of those who chose to build a life with those whose bodies (and in Cale's case, minds) are atypical. Some of those assumptions are disgusting and blazingly obvious.

1. It’s okay to judge Kathleen’s motives, although the OP is too magnanimous for such:

Now, I don't judge Kathleen for remaining married to Cale.

2. Abuse is practically inevitable:

The concern I would have is the wife may be overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for both husband and a baby. Caretaker fatigue is a very real concern for anyone who has to provide longterm care. I've seen issues of abuse arise when caretakers become overwhelmed after years of care. It just sounds like between her husband a new baby, the woman is ripe for a breakdown.

3. Kathleen is raping her three-year-old husband in this comment:

It is not "some power issues". If the man does not have the ability to consent or understand the consequences or choose to have the child, then it is rape. This woman says her husband has the cognitive ability of a child. Having sex with him now is the same as her having sex with a child.

4. Even around the clock support isn’t enough to justify Kathleen and Cale in their decision to procreate, because sometimes members of that support network are unavailable:

No support system is perfect. Friends and extended family get sick, go on vacation, have changes in their work schedules, have babies of their own. Home care nurses aren't provided 24 hours a day, and coverage can be spotty, depending on availability of staff. I wouldn't be excited about bringing a baby into that situation.

5. Their branch of religion made Kathleen stay and is also pushing her into pregnancy:

I agree it's off - it's prob. the inevitable consequence of a belief system that values women for their role as wife and mother above everything else.

A legitimately insightful question about how Cale’s temper could erode family peace appears in the comments, demonstrating not only that this case is complex, but even more importantly that no one on this boards knows enough about the case to question Kathleen’s motives and to paint Cale as a victim:

ITA with the bolded, which makes it hard in cases like this where it's especially not clear-cut. In this case it's less the cognitive impairment that makes me hesitant but the "explosions" as she calls them. Now, combine that with the cognitive impairment (he didn't understand why he needed to stay in the hospital, he gets very angry at needing to use the checklists from the hospital at home), and then you get into a question of can he consent in the understanding sense of the term the difficulty of raising a child and particularly the effect of his tendency towards explosions on that child? IOW, does he understand the implications of his TBI on the process of raising a child? If he can't, that's when I'd say that in the understanding the consequences of sex version of the term, he may not be able to truly consent.

6. When someone has a TBI that leaves him even high functioning, his spouse becomes his guardian – more mother than anything - and so sex between them would just be sick:

I don't think that someone with the cognitive functioning of a ten-year-old can consent to sex, regardless of whether he or she is married and consented before the brain injury. It's tragic, yes, but there has to be a line somewhere. A sexually mature fifteen-year-old cannot consent to sex with their forty-year-old guardian, even if they express desire for it.

7. Even if the TBI leaves the affected person capable of everything from basic consent to deep cleaning and child-rearing, there’s still something “difficult†– ‘Disabled people having sex?! What do you think this is, science fiction?!’ -- about the situation:

10 years ago or so, there was a Canadian made reality pregnancy and birth show, I think it was called "Birth Stories"?

One of the couples featured was a man and his cognitively disabled wife having their second child. Same situation, car accident, brain injury. It sounds like that woman was more capable than this fellow, she was a SAHM while her husband worked, so she could handle the responsibility of self care and care of small children. Still she was very childlike herself. Difficult situation, indeed.

8. The following comment is mind-blowing on at least two levels. Setting aside the other problems with it, let’s just focus on how it’s morally okay for a woman who has her hands full with a disabled husband to adopt a child but not for her to bear one herself:

Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I don't know if I could have a child with a severely impaired husband. Taking care of someone 24/7 would be more than enough work. Add a child into the mix and it's even more difficult. She could have adopted an older child or maybe have fostered one if she was really desperate for a kid.

9. Kathleen is obviously a predator because sex with people who have cognitive impairments is gross – and the fact I personally find it disgusting makes it even more wrong:

I know y'all have been focusing on consent-whichin this case is a fuzzy area of squick for me.

However, I just keep wondering what kind of person would want to have a sexual relationship with someone who functions at a sugnificantly lower level. I just can't imagine it being physically or emotionally satisfying. In fact, I imagine it would be really sad in her case because she experienced an adult sexual relationship with him prior.

10. If the crude system of ‘mental age’ – used almost exclusively to determine service eligibility – says a full grown adult is ten, then whether that adult is capable of understand sex and consent or not, having a sexual relationship with him is monstrous:

The idea of a person with the cognitive ability of a 5 or 10 year old consenting to sex is monstrous to me. But thankfully it doesn't matter at all what any of us think, what matters is the law and if a person is unable to consent because of their cognitive abilities, they are unable to consent.

The above ten comments and their assumptions were just the ones I found in the first four pages of this thread. I read through a bunch of other ones but the arguments are the same again and again.

And now to answer Marianne:

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.

Who says she shouldn’t face criticism? Look at the samples I pulled from the first five pages of this thread? Looks like criticism to me.

(Those who think it's okay to criticize Kathleen and yet treat criticism of their own viewpoints as an attempt at censorship are even more full of shit than the usual crowd of hypocrites that turns up whenever disability rights is discussed here – you know the ones: Those who think disability rights begin and end with the right to “die with dignity.â€)

The criticism Kathleen faces runs from understandable concern for the welfare of her husband and her child right down to naked histrionics, touching on the nature of her current relationship to Cale and extending to questions about her fitness as a parent -- all in a way different than how FJ would react if this same woman were thinking about abortion.

Cale is not a child: He has a serious cognitive disability, but he is a grown man - and this man married Kathleen five years before he suffered TBI.

It doesn’t matter that Kathleen has chosen, unfortunately, to speak as if Cale were a child. Her poor choice of words has no weight, however; but what the professionals around Cale determine to be appropriate is what matters.

I’ll err on the aide of assuming the best - that Kathleen went to one or several of Cale’s doctors, as well as to other personnel on his support team, to ask common questions such as, “So what does this mean? What behaviours can I expect? How ‘old’ is he now that he has sustained brain damage?â€

The fact she speaks in terms of mental age at all is proof in itself that she doesn’t understand the proper context for such comparisons is limited to government subsidy providers, occupational therapists, other medical professionals, and insurance providers.

Otherwise mental age doesn’t mean much: Cale could handle small obvjects with no more dexterity than a three-year-old. He might have some short-term memory loss of the type that affects some seniors. He might have the expressive language of a 10-year-old and yet thsome of the understanding of a 17-year-old. He could have the lack of personal control usually associated with a five-year-old – a lack that might be treatable with medication or some other kind of therapy.

He could have deep deficits in some areas even while leaving other skills and abilities (from before the TBI) intact.

In other words, Cale is as old as his birth certificate says he is. That’s the only certain thing that can be said of his age.

And having kids would be hard on anyone, regardless of what other issues the parents have. I can tell you one thing for certain, however: Abuse is an indiscriminate crime. Smart people abuse. Slow people abuse. Short people abuse. Tall people abuse. Temperamental people abuse. People who pride themselves on calmly inflicting pain – e.g., Steve Maxwell – abuse.

There may be trouble in that house. There may be a whole lot of trouble in that house.

But then again, there may be only a few difficulties specific to the marriage of Kathleen and Cale, such that they actually do grow into a happy family.

Here’s a general statement for everyone else: Too many people here are deluded into thinking caregivers are somehow naïve about the existence of caregiver fatigue, and are simply going to run themselves into the ground until one day they turn to abuse or worse.

Give those people some credit, already. Most of them are more aware than most of you are about caregiver limitations.

[polecat]

The pictures on the blog are sweet.

(But she needs to share her secret for a completely flat tummy one week post-birth. Seriously! I was below my pre-pregnancy weight within a day of delivery due to health issues, and my stomach still just hung there like it was a disembodied glob of ectoplasm or something equally icky.)

[Burris]

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.

I agree with you on all points in this.

[theologygeek]

But she needs to share her secret for a completely flat tummy one week post-birth.

She faked the pregnancy and stole the baby.

[Palimpsest]

Well said, Burris. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

And thanks. I'm getting very tired of beating my head against an apparent brick wall of ignorance and insensitivity here.

[Clementine]

2. Abuse is practically inevitable:

Kathleen has written about how she got so angry and frustrated with Cale that she threw a glass of water over him. I don't know if it counts as abuse according to the law, but I think it's abusive when a caregiver throws water on the person they are supposed to care for. She already has abused him, at least once.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The fact she speaks in terms of mental age at all is proof in itself that she doesn’t understand the proper context for such comparisons is limited to government subsidy providers, occupational therapists, other medical professionals, and insurance providers.

Otherwise mental age doesn’t mean much: Cale could handle small obvjects with no more dexterity than a three-year-old. He might have some short-term memory loss of the type that affects some seniors. He might have the expressive language of a 10-year-old and yet thsome of the understanding of a 17-year-old. He could have the lack of personal control usually associated with a five-year-old – a lack that might be treatable with medication or some other kind of therapy.

He could have deep deficits in some areas even while leaving other skills and abilities (from before the TBI) intact.

In other words, Cale is as old as his birth certificate says he is. That’s the only certain thing that can be said of his age.

[theologygeek]

Well said, Burris. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

And thanks. I'm getting very tired of beating my head against an apparent brick wall of ignorance and insensitivity here.

Have you read through her entire blog? It sounds like a few here haven't. She forced him to have a baby under the guise of wanting the best life for him. No, she wanted this for her and needed him to agree to it.

During this time I've been typing, Cale has had another explosion. Ugh. The staff are trying to learn him but at shift change it all starts again. The doc was able to get Cale into his office and then afterwards called me in to chat while Mama stayed in the room with Cale. Friends, please be praying. This program is incredible. Incredible! Just in the short time I just met with the doc already again I'm so excited. But, we need Cale on board. There's no reason to be here if he refuses everything and won't commit. Will you join me in lifting him up before the throne? Maybe while you're at it, lift me up too! :o) Honestly, we need are prayer warriors on board! This is a battle we're only going to conquer with the Lord!

It's hard to be in the position just wanting the best possible life for Cale and him not understanding in the slightest. He says I'm mean, he hates me, and he's going to divorce me. He also yelled that he doesn't want a baby with "that" when Mama was trying to explain how this program can be a help for us to have a baby. I see him so miserable and it breaks my heart in so many pieces...pieces that I don't know if I can ever find again. I feel has horrible as he says I am. I feel guilty and terrible. This is just one of those times that I have to be the ugly horrid person because I love him so much. So much that it literally hurts...and there are so many tears.

[Palimpsest]

Have you read through her entire blog? It sounds like a few here haven't. She forced him to have a baby under the guise of wanting the best life for him. No, she wanted this for her and needed him to agree to it.

Oh, yes, I've read through the entire bog. Areas of concern? Yes, a few. Abuse, not so much. Really.

Perhaps you have failed to read my previous posts. And perhaps you have failed to read Kathleen's blog carefully. Looking at it in terms of what she is doing right, as opposed to what she might be doing wrong.

I was involved in Adult/Elder Protective Services for many years. At the Investigator level and then at the Management/Supervisory/Policy level.

Much of what we did was to protect Vulnerable Adults from abuses beyond your wildest imagination.

Much of what we did was also to protect Vulnerable Adults' rights from well-meaning assholes who believe that a disability should deprive an adult of all FUCKING Human Rights to Self-Determination. Those assholes who want to label disabled people as "less than!" and unable to consent to anything. Non-persons.

Much of what we did was also to support people like Kathleen in caring for disabled family members even as we failed to screen such cases in as "abuse" or actually did determine it was "abuse."

And doing all that with compassion and understanding, helping them maximize that family member's functioning and quality of life. And keeping them home as far as possible. However hard and stressful it was- and is- for caregivers to do that. Helping everyone to manage as safely and carefully as possible and drawing in more expert opinions and supports than you can conceive of.

I actually know what I am talking about. Burris knows even better because she is living it in real time.

You, and other judgmental, arrogant, self-satisfied and ignorant posters on this thread ... quite patently, DON'T!

Get back to me when you know as much as I do about disability issues, disability rights, capacity to consent, mental status assessments, stressed caregivers, mandated reporting, and the plethora of services that should be available to families in these situations - but are not because they are not funded properly. By tax-payers like you.

Get back to me when you have lost momentary control with a severely disabled family member and done something as frightful as toss a glass of water on them. Or much worse. And regretted it.

Until then -- SUCK IT!

Yes, I finally lost my temper, and not just with you.

I've seldom felt more angry, disgusted, and disappointed with some FJ members as I have on this thread.

[latraviata]

Have you read through her entire blog? It sounds like a few here haven't. She forced him to have a baby under the guise of wanting the best life for him. No, she wanted this for her and needed him to agree to it.

There might be a team of professionals around them and we can only speculate what they have to say on this.

The only info we get is from Kathleen and according to her, he is a child trapped in a man's body. You can turn and twist the whole situation, but this is what she writes and this is what we read and that is quite worrisome.

I am not particularly interested in their 'sex'life, wether it is legally or morally with consent or not, albeit I don't understand why somebody wants to have sex with a three year old (her words, not mine). But hé, whatever they fancy. I am worried about the child and I think with good reasons. How the alleged team of professionals think about this whole exercise, we don't know, we can only speculate. Speculations and assumptions are not arguments!! The general opinion expressed by the various FJers is based on the information Kathleen provides.

[latraviata]

Oh, yes, I've read through the entire bog. Areas of concern? Yes, a few. Abuse, not so much. Really.

Perhaps you have failed to read my previous posts. And perhaps you have failed to read Kathleen's blog carefully. Looking at it in terms of what she is doing right, as opposed to what she might be doing wrong.

I was involved in Adult/Elder Protective Services for many years. At the Investigator level and then at the Management/Supervisory/Policy level.

Much of what we did was to protect Vulnerable Adults from abuses beyond your wildest imagination.

Much of what we did was also to protect Vulnerable Adults' rights from well-meaning assholes who believe that a disability should deprive an adult of all FUCKING Human Rights to Self-Determination. Those assholes who want to label disabled people as "less than!" and unable to consent to anything. Non-persons.

Much of what we did was also to support people like Kathleen in caring for disabled family members even as we failed to screen such cases in as "abuse" or actually did determine it was "abuse."

And doing all that with compassion and understanding, helping them maximize that family member's functioning and quality of life. And keeping them home as far as possible. However hard and stressful it was- and is- for caregivers to do that. Helping everyone to manage as safely and carefully as possible and drawing in more expert opinions and supports than you can conceive of.

I actually know what I am talking about. Burris knows even better because she is living it in real time.

You, and other judgmental, arrogant, self-satisfied and ignorant posters on this thread ... quite patently, DON'T!

Get back to me when you know as much as I do about disability issues, disability rights, capacity to consent, mental status assessments, stressed caregivers, mandated reporting, and the plethora of services that should be available to families in these situations - but are not because they are not funded properly. By tax-payers like you.

Get back to me when you have lost momentary control with a severely disabled family member and done something as frightful as toss a glass of water on them. Or much worse. And regretted it.

Until then -- SUCK IT!

Yes, I finally lost my temper, and not just with you.

I've seldom felt more angry, disgusted, and disappointed with some FJ members as I have on this thread.

Oh dear, swaying with your CV is highly inappropriate, ask the great Bur, she doesn't like it at all!!

Those assholes who want to label disabled people as "less than!" and unable to consent to anything. Non-persons.

Who did??

[theologygeek]

Get back to me when you have lost momentary control with a severely disabled family member and done something as frightful as toss a glass of water on them. Or much worse. And regretted it.

Until then -- SUCK IT!

Yes, I finally lost my temper, and not just with you.

I've seldom felt more angry, disgusted, and disappointed with some FJ members as I have on this thread.

Get back to me when something happens to that child, because it will. Either that child will be harmed or Cale will get tossed out. This isn't going to end well. I admire many FJ'ers and am proud of what the majority have posted in this thread. They care about two people (Cale and baby) who can't speak for themselves.

[latraviata]

Get back to me when something happens to that child, because it will. Either that child will be harmed or Cale will get tossed out. This isn't going to end well. I admire many FJ'ers and am proud of what the majority have posted in this thread. They care about two people (Cale and baby) who can't speak for themselves.

And I second that!

[nelliebelle1197]

Well said, Burris. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

And thanks. I'm getting very tired of beating my head against an apparent brick wall of ignorance and insensitivity here.

And you know, I am getting very tired of the sanctimony of a couple folks who just assume they know what is best for everyone based on THEIR experiences who accuse the rest of us of not understanding these issues without knowing a damn thing about where other posters may lie on the scale of education, beliefs or life experience. Seriously, get off your high horse. A lot of people here, myself included, are simply trying to work out how we feel about a very complex issue. I am very pleased for you that your superiority allows you not to have intellectual and ethical conflicts on these issues, but, alas, many of us are not on your higher plane. I work at a legal nonprofit with a client population that includes people with varying disabilities. Our direct-service advocates struggle constantly with finding the balance between protecting the client while assuring his/her right to self determination is maintained. I find it hard to believe that you worked for a protective agency and never struggled with these issues - and, frankly, don't struggle with them to this day.

I generally look forward to your posts, Pampliset, and I read the Shrader threads just for you. But if you cannot see the struggle many of us are having in these pages with very difficult and frightening issues, then I must wonder who is demonstrating ignorance and insensitivity.

eta more stuff

[Curious]

First, admin hat off

I've stayed out of this thread (for the most part) for personal reasons, but I guess I am going to jump into the fray. I'm relatively certain that I'm qualified to speak on at least some of the topics at hand since I'm disabled (physical not a TBI, though I suppose you could find people that might argue that point) ;)

Burris, I generally like your posts, but I have to say when it comes to anything even remotely resembling disability or disability rights your militancy is very off putting. I, obviously, am pro-disability rights and think it's a great cause to champion, but zealousness (is that a word) no matter which end of the spectrum it's on is rather hard for the average person to take. I have agreed with some of the things you have said and with the experiences you described having with your husband. I could relate similar ones, myself. That being said, your message is...damaged, IMO, due to the mode in which it's relayed. I understand this is a hot button topic for you (and we all have them), but I've seen enough of your writing over the years to know that you are capable of providing the same information in a less antagonistic way.

Palimpsest, that last couple sentences goes the same for you. This is a topic that is apparently close to you as well, but you are *always* one of our more reasonable posters and take the time to make well reasoned, calm, posts that explain your position without the need to be antagonistic. I'm unsure why you've suddenly deviated from that long held method of posting for this thread, but I think it's hurting your message in the same way.

I also feel like I need to stick up for the members of FJ a little bit because I can't think of any time when anyone on FJ has really made remarks like Burris suggested about disability rights "beginning and ending with the right to die with dignity." I admittedly don't read every thread, but I have read quite a few that deal with disability, having a personal interest, and off the top of my head I can't think of there being a thread where people have been that disrespect about disability rights. We have a number of disabled people on this forum. I can think of several right off the top of my head and they are not exactly shrinking violets, so I can't imagine they would just sit by and say nothing while the forum went to town on the disabled.

I am suggesting that perhaps your closeness to the issue is making you read into things that are not meant. Frankly, the only times I've been even marginally offended in this thread have been when either of you have posted and that makes me incredibly sad :( I realize I have a pretty thick skin, by now, but I don't think the majority of the posters in this thread were asking any questions or saying anything that they wouldn't say in any other kind of thread (abortion, a fundie having too many pregnancies, etc. all of those things are "hot topics", IMO).

We discuss relatively touchy/not to be discussed in polite conversation type topics every day and I don't think this topic is much different. We are a diverse population of people with diverse opinions and there is always going to be disagreement. They day we all agree on something, is the day I buy a bunch of lottery tickets ;) I'm either going to win or it's the zombie apocalypse :wink-penguin: We don't have to treat each other badly just because we don't agree, though.

Now let's all hug and eat some peanut butter! :dance:

[Clementine]

Have you read through her entire blog? It sounds like a few here haven't. She forced him to have a baby under the guise of wanting the best life for him. No, she wanted this for her and needed him to agree to it.

I am surprised that Kathleen would publish something like this. It does sound like she and Mama manipulated Cale into becoming a father.

I can understand that you sometimes have to "persuade" a person who has a disability to do something that you believe is best for them (like we convinced / forced my grandmother to move to an assisted living home after she had left her house in the middle of the night a number of times and couldn't find her way home and was found in her nightgown walking around town, completely disoriented), but I really don't see how becoming a father is necessarily what's best for Cale.

[latraviata]

I am surprised that Kathleen would publish something like this. It does sound like she and Mama manipulated Cale into becoming a father.

I can understand that you sometimes have to "persuade" a person who has a disability to do something that you believe is best for them (like we convinced / forced my grandmother to move to an assisted living home after she had left her house in the middle of the night a number of times and couldn't find her way home and was found in her nightgown walking around town, completely disoriented), but I really don't see how becoming a father is necessarily what's best for Cale.

It clearly isn't. Who cares about the child? A team of professionals?

[Three and Done]

(Again, mod hat off.)

Thank you, Curious. As a person with various disabilities myself (which I have not found it necessary to inform the entire board of previously), I appreciate and applaud your post. Well said, and well done. :clap: :clap:

[church_of_dog]

First, admin hat off

I've stayed out of this thread (for the most part) for personal reasons, but I guess I am going to jump into the fray. I'm relatively certain that I'm qualified to speak on at least some of the topics at hand since I'm disabled (physical not a TBI, though I suppose you could find people that might argue that point) ;)

Burris, I generally like your posts, but I have to say when it comes to anything even remotely resembling disability or disability rights your militancy is very off putting. I, obviously, am pro-disability rights and think it's a great cause to champion, but zealousness (is that a word) no matter which end of the spectrum it's on is rather hard for the average person to take. I have agreed with some of the things you have said and with the experiences you described having with your husband. I could relate similar ones, myself. That being said, your message is...damaged, IMO, due to the mode in which it's relayed. I understand this is a hot button topic for you (and we all have them), but I've seen enough of your writing over the years to know that you are capable of providing the same information in a less antagonistic way.

Palimpsest, that last couple sentences goes the same for you. This is a topic that is apparently close to you as well, but you are *always* one of our more reasonable posters and take the time to make well reasoned, calm, posts that explain your position without the need to be antagonistic. I'm unsure why you've suddenly deviated from that long held method of posting for this thread, but I think it's hurting your message in the same way.

I also feel like I need to stick up for the members of FJ a little bit because I can't think of any time when anyone on FJ has really made remarks like Burris suggested about disability rights "beginning and ending with the right to die with dignity." I admittedly don't read every thread, but I have read quite a few that deal with disability, having a personal interest, and off the top of my head I can't think of there being a thread where people have been that disrespect about disability rights. We have a number of disabled people on this forum. I can think of several right off the top of my head and they are not exactly shrinking violets, so I can't imagine they would just sit by and say nothing while the forum went to town on the disabled.

I am suggesting that perhaps your closeness to the issue is making you read into things that are not meant. Frankly, the only times I've been even marginally offended in this thread have been when either of you have posted and that makes me incredibly sad :( I realize I have a pretty thick skin, by now, but I don't think the majority of the posters in this thread were asking any questions or saying anything that they wouldn't say in any other kind of thread (abortion, a fundie having too many pregnancies, etc. all of those things are "hot topics", IMO).

We discuss relatively touchy/not to be discussed in polite conversation type topics every day and I don't think this topic is much different. We are a diverse population of people with diverse opinions and there is always going to be disagreement. They day we all agree on something, is the day I buy a bunch of lottery tickets ;) I'm either going to win or it's the zombie apocalypse :wink-penguin: We don't have to treat each other badly just because we don't agree, though.

Now let's all hug and eat some peanut butter! :dance:

now just a doggone minute -- what about my child who is deathly allergic to hugging? :stir-pot:

eta oh yeah and I agree with everything Curious said. I think it's clear this is a complex issue with valid concerns on all sides (and there are at least three relevant sides to this situation, possibly more).

What I have read on this thread is mostly people struggling to give full consideration to all sides. Isn't that the very definition of critical thinking? When one perspective seems obvious or apparent or clear to us, to nevertheless give full consideration to the other perspectives.

Thinking through the logic of one perspective does not invalidate the logic of the other perspectives. And in fact, one can't come to any fair conclusion about a complex issue without thinking though all sides.

Jumping to a conclusion based only on thoughts about one side of an issue -- that would be called knee-jerk or even, possibly, fundamentalist? Thinking through (and discussing, since this is a forum, after all) all sides would be called critical thinking -- isn't that what we're all about?

[LilMissMetaphor]

zealousness (is that a word)

Zealotry is more traditional, though the language is going in the opposite direction, one might argue. Otherwise, carry on, captain.

[Curious]

Zealotry is more traditional, though the language is going in the opposite direction, one might argue. Otherwise, carry on, captain.

ah thank you. I didn't think that looked like the right word, but spell check didn't balk at it, so then I thought well maybe it is right.

[DGayle]

Everyone's hearts are in the right place here. Let's just acknowledge that first and foremost.

Now. Kathleen has admitted on her blog that Cale has stated he doesn't want a baby. At times he says he does. A baby isn't a puppy that you get while you want, and then rehome when you don't. Cale, according to Kathleen's own writings, has not consistently wanted a baby Even if someone is not suffering TBI, who would say that it's fine and dandy for someone who goes back and forth to have a baby and hope for the best? Most, if not all, of us would agree that someone who wants a baby sometimes, and at other times angrily screams NO BABY! should not have a baby at that time. It seems to me that the presence of TBI means that Cale's adamant no's don't matter at long as he says yes once in a while. Now that a baby is here, what will happen when he says he doesn't want a baby? And he will! He'll get exhausted and frustrated that his needs have to go on hold.

Whatever the reason, these two couldn't keep a dog. A dog is much easier to handle than a child. It's not like they had no choice but to move to a place that didn't allow animals. Yet they couldn't handle a dog. We don't know if it became too much for Cale, or the dog got too mischievous. But a dog is easier than a child, and they couldn't manage to keep a dog. This is alarming, and combined with Cale saying he doesn't want a baby, sometimes he does, no he doesn't, doesn't bode well.

Kathleen has also said she can't control him on her own when he lashes out. Her mother is usually there, thank goodness, but when the two of them need to control him so he doesn't harm himself or others, who will care for the baby? This is a dangerous situation, and even if there was no TBI, again, who would support a couple having a baby when one potential parent has such severe anger and violence issues?

No one wants Cale stripped of human rights and dignity. But we can't overlook how he HAS stated he doesn't want a baby, which shows he's not entirely sure. We can't overlook his violence. We shouldn't overlook how Kathleen was baby-rabid even when Cale was still in the hospital. This desire for a baby comes down to Kathleen wanting one, and Kathleen trying to convince Cale that he wants one too under the guise that it's best for him. How is it best for him when he has clearly said no? This is manipulation. Now no one wants Cale to lose rights, but how is it preserving his rights, or that baby's, to make him into a parent when he's said no?

And for that baby, she's in a home where one parent did want her, the other was violently opposed at times, and where her infant and childhood needs may be neglected because her father's needs will be rivaling her own. I would bet that she's going to as many times why she was brought into all of this. Instead of Dad watching her, she'll be the young teen watching her dad. For that baby, this is extremely unfair. She was supposedly conceived because it would benefit her dad. No child should have an assigned job before birth. If we take Kathleen's statements at face value and ignore her painfully obvious undeterable desire for a baby that didn't even let up when Cale's survival wasn't a sure thing, then Nora was conceived because it would be good for Cale. She's a therapy-baby in place of the therapy dog they didn't qualify for.

This is a bad situation.

[latraviata]

Everyone's hearts are in the right place here. Let's just acknowledge that first and foremost.

Now. Kathleen has admitted on her blog that Cale has stated he doesn't want a baby. At times he says he does. A baby isn't a puppy that you get while you want, and then rehome when you don't. Cale, according to Kathleen's own writings, has not consistently wanted a baby Even if someone is not suffering TBI, who would say that it's fine and dandy for someone who goes back and forth to have a baby and hope for the best? Most, if not all, of us would agree that someone who wants a baby sometimes, and at other times angrily screams NO BABY! should not have a baby at that time. It seems to me that the presence of TBI means that Cale's adamant no's don't matter at long as he says yes once in a while. Now that a baby is here, what will happen when he says he doesn't want a baby? And he will! He'll get exhausted and frustrated that his needs have to go on hold.

Whatever the reason, these two couldn't keep a dog. A dog is much easier to handle than a child. It's not like they had no choice but to move to a place that didn't allow animals. Yet they couldn't handle a dog. We don't know if it became too much for Cale, or the dog got too mischievous. But a dog is easier than a child, and they couldn't manage to keep a dog. This is alarming, and combined with Cale saying he doesn't want a baby, sometimes he does, no he doesn't, doesn't bode well.

Kathleen has also said she can't control him on her own when he lashes out. Her mother is usually there, thank goodness, but when the two of them need to control him so he doesn't harm himself or others, who will care for the baby? This is a dangerous situation, and even if there was no TBI, again, who would support a couple having a baby when one potential parent has such severe anger and violence issues?

No one wants Cale stripped of human rights and dignity. But we can't overlook how he HAS stated he doesn't want a baby, which shows he's not entirely sure. We can't overlook his violence. We shouldn't overlook how Kathleen was baby-rabid even when Cale was still in the hospital. This desire for a baby comes down to Kathleen wanting one, and Kathleen trying to convince Cale that he wants one too under the guise that it's best for him. How is it best for him when he has clearly said no? This is manipulation. Now no one wants Cale to lose rights, but how is it preserving his rights, or that baby's, to make him into a parent when he's said no?

And for that baby, she's in a home where one parent did want her, the other was violently opposed at times, and where her infant and childhood needs may be neglected because her father's needs will be rivaling her own. I would bet that she's going to as many times why she was brought into all of this. Instead of Dad watching her, she'll be the young teen watching her dad. For that baby, this is extremely unfair. She was supposedly conceived because it would benefit her dad. No child should have an assigned job before birth. If we take Kathleen's statements at face value and ignore her painfully obvious undeterable desire for a baby that didn't even let up when Cale's survival wasn't a sure thing, then Nora was conceived because it would be good for Cale. She's a therapy-baby in place of the therapy dog they didn't qualify for.

This is a bad situation.

:clap: :clap: Wel said!

Curious, I applaud you as well!!

[nelliebelle1197]

Everyone's hearts are in the right place here. Let's just acknowledge that first and foremost.

Now. Kathleen has admitted on her blog that Cale has stated he doesn't want a baby. At times he says he does. A baby isn't a puppy that you get while you want, and then rehome when you don't. Cale, according to Kathleen's own writings, has not consistently wanted a baby Even if someone is not suffering TBI, who would say that it's fine and dandy for someone who goes back and forth to have a baby and hope for the best? Most, if not all, of us would agree that someone who wants a baby sometimes, and at other times angrily screams NO BABY! should not have a baby at that time. It seems to me that the presence of TBI means that Cale's adamant no's don't matter at long as he says yes once in a while. Now that a baby is here, what will happen when he says he doesn't want a baby? And he will! He'll get exhausted and frustrated that his needs have to go on hold.

Whatever the reason, these two couldn't keep a dog. A dog is much easier to handle than a child. It's not like they had no choice but to move to a place that didn't allow animals. Yet they couldn't handle a dog. We don't know if it became too much for Cale, or the dog got too mischievous. But a dog is easier than a child, and they couldn't manage to keep a dog. This is alarming, and combined with Cale saying he doesn't want a baby, sometimes he does, no he doesn't, doesn't bode well.

Kathleen has also said she can't control him on her own when he lashes out. Her mother is usually there, thank goodness, but when the two of them need to control him so he doesn't harm himself or others, who will care for the baby? This is a dangerous situation, and even if there was no TBI, again, who would support a couple having a baby when one potential parent has such severe anger and violence issues?

No one wants Cale stripped of human rights and dignity. But we can't overlook how he HAS stated he doesn't want a baby, which shows he's not entirely sure. We can't overlook his violence. We shouldn't overlook how Kathleen was baby-rabid even when Cale was still in the hospital. This desire for a baby comes down to Kathleen wanting one, and Kathleen trying to convince Cale that he wants one too under the guise that it's best for him. How is it best for him when he has clearly said no? This is manipulation. Now no one wants Cale to lose rights, but how is it preserving his rights, or that baby's, to make him into a parent when he's said no?

And for that baby, she's in a home where one parent did want her, the other was violently opposed at times, and where her infant and childhood needs may be neglected because her father's needs will be rivaling her own. I would bet that she's going to as many times why she was brought into all of this. Instead of Dad watching her, she'll be the young teen watching her dad. For that baby, this is extremely unfair. She was supposedly conceived because it would benefit her dad. No child should have an assigned job before birth. If we take Kathleen's statements at face value and ignore her painfully obvious undeterable desire for a baby that didn't even let up when Cale's survival wasn't a sure thing, then Nora was conceived because it would be good for Cale. She's a therapy-baby in place of the therapy dog they didn't qualify for.

This is a bad situation.

I think the bolded is a huge overstatement (though poetic) and assigns a lot more conscious decision making on Kathleen's side than I think is there. I just don't think she did this from anything negative. I think she did it from a deep desire to have the life she was supposed to have.

However, the rest of your observations are great. Your point about the fact that Cale did not make a 100% pure decision to have a baby is really spot on and the evidence on the blog backs you up. The point about the baby not having a choice and being left a caretaker really hit home and I don't think anyone has noticed that yet- and I just had a revelation about myself. I was in a similar but not as bad a situation with a grandparent with severe stroke induced brain damage (I was 10 and giving her shots and changing her and on the receiving end of violent rages; that was NOT my wonderful grandma all of a sudden). I didn't realize how much my grandmother's situation mirrors that of someone with a TBI and how my tween years were affected by that.

[Joan of Snarc]

This has been a very thought-provoking thread.

:think: