TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

RE: My sister is dying and I only want one of the kids.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Or maybe being a mother has been very difficult for her and she's gotten the relief of her children getting older and a baby is too much for her to do again.

I just think, if it was MY baby, that I would rather my child be with someone that really wants and loves it than someone who considers it nothing more than a responsibility and a burden.
That's fine. But, you should be TOLD that and know what the fate of your child is going to be. What if you had family that you actually didnt' want to have your baby? What if you sister was some neglectful or nasty person and you wanted your baby to go to some adoptive family? And, what if sis then came in after you died and thwarted those plans and decided to "raise" the baby just to get your SS money or something? Is that "dying in peace" to not know the truth?
Well yeah. That's what a WILL is for. But do you write a will and leave your kid to someone just assuming they want the baby? Or do you talk to them about it. This is just as much her responsibility as the sister's. It sounds like she hasn't asked her sister so much as just assumed that her sister would take the baby. And yeah - I know she should be able to make that assumption, but obviously, that's not the relationship they have.

Yes. Write a will. And, even if she ASSUMES, it is still the responsibility of the well sister to speak up and say, I am sorry, i will not be able to do that. But, i will help you make a plan to make sure your daughter is cared for. She needs to grow the freak up. People need to grow up and speak the truth, even when it is hard. She has the right to make these plans for her own daughter before she dies. At least respect your sister enough to give her that. Wow.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And ,there are some people with very rapid spreading cancers. They could find out and be dead in a matter of weeks. Yes, they should run right down to an attorney and make a will , but often people are just in shock. So, out of respect and consideration and human DECENCY the sis needs to speak up.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
And ,there are some people with very rapid spreading cancers. They could find out and be dead in a matter of weeks. Yes, they should run right down to an attorney and make a will , but often people are just in shock. So, out of respect and consideration and human DECENCY the sis needs to speak up.

I've written many a will on deathbeds.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

I think the sister should go to counseling to find out why she is such a stone cold b!tch that she can't find it in her heart to raise her own niece, how she can look into the face of her flesh and blood and think "nah. I have no desire to raise you and keep the memory of your mother alive for you".

And if my husband said to me "I don't want to raise your dead sister's baby. Adopt her out" then yes, that would be the end of our marriage. The very end. If my spouse didn't step up, that would tell me he was not the person I thought he was.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Wow.

ed11563 · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
I think the sister should go to counseling to find out why she is such a stone cold b!tch that she can't find it in her heart to raise her own niece, how she can look into the face of her flesh and blood and think "nah. I have no desire to raise you and keep the memory of your mother alive for you".

And if my husband said to me "I don't want to raise your dead sister's baby. Adopt her out" then yes, that would be the end of our marriage. The very end. If my spouse didn't step up, that would tell me he was not the person I thought he was.

At one point, two of my cousins, both of whom had a small daughter, asked me if I would be their "just in case" person and raise her daughter. Papers had to be signed.

Of course, i said yes immediately.

Spouse thought I should have discussed it with her before agreeing.

I told her, A reasonable person does not say no to that request.

I didn't say it out loud, but if it had happened, and I was given the responsibility to raise one or both of these girls (who were a little younger than our kids), if Spouse fought it, I would go ahead anyway.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

You are correct Ed. A reasonable person does NOT say no to that request. A reasonable person looks at the face of their relative and says, "I am here for you." The OP is rotten person in my book. And I don't care what people think of me for saying it. She is NOT someone I would want to know.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
You are correct Ed. A reasonable person does NOT say no to that request. A reasonable person looks at the face of their relative and says, "I am here for you." The OP is rotten person in my book. And I don't care what people think of me for saying it. She is NOT someone I would want to know.

I would have some modicum of respect for her if she just straight up told her sister that she cannot take on the responsibility of her child (but oh, yeah, i am gonna take on your boyfriend's kid) and allow her sister the dignity and autonomy to make the right decisions by her own child.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I mean, lying to the dying may sometimes make sense. Maybe you don't want to tell your 99 yr old dying grandmother that her cat just died or something like that. But, for the this, when this dying woman's SOLE concern is the health and well being of her daughter, to not allow her the opportunity to help direct her child's future is so despicable and loathsome on the other sister's part, i just find that beyind the pale.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

And, i agree LL, if she doesn't want to take the baby, then yes the baby is better off with someone who will be All In to love that child. Yes, let someone else raise the child. But, she should have the balls to own that decision and disclose that to her sister.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Mellow Momma wrote:
I think the sister should go to counseling to find out why she is such a stone cold b!tch that she can't find it in her heart to raise her own niece, how she can look into the face of her flesh and blood and think "nah. I have no desire to raise you and keep the memory of your mother alive for you".

And if my husband said to me "I don't want to raise your dead sister's baby. Adopt her out" then yes, that would be the end of our marriage. The very end. If my spouse didn't step up, that would tell me he was not the person I thought he was.

Yet she WANTS the child who is not related.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
I think the sister should go to counseling to find out why she is such a stone cold b!tch that she can't find it in her heart to raise her own niece, how she can look into the face of her flesh and blood and think "nah. I have no desire to raise you and keep the memory of your mother alive for you".

And if my husband said to me "I don't want to raise your dead sister's baby. Adopt her out" then yes, that would be the end of our marriage. The very end. If my spouse didn't step up, that would tell me he was not the person I thought he was.
Yet she WANTS the child who is not related.
flan

Which is even more disturbing to me.

FNW · Guru

My guess is she is one of those who do not like babies. Like my in-laws. They wanted nothing to do with the boys until they got to be around 6 because "then they are more fun." (their words).

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

FNW wrote:
My guess is she is one of those who do not like babies. Like my in-laws. They wanted nothing to do with the boys until they got to be around 6 because "then they are more fun." (their words).

I have no problem with people who do not like babies, and prefer older kids. My dad was not at all comfortable with .y sisters kids until they were walking and more independent.

And while I see her point in that an infant is more adoptable, it is unfathomable that she would even entertain the idea.

huskerbb · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
I think the sister should go to counseling to find out why she is such a stone cold b!tch that she can't find it in her heart to raise her own niece, how she can look into the face of her flesh and blood and think "nah. I have no desire to raise you and keep the memory of your mother alive for you".

And if my husband said to me "I don't want to raise your dead sister's baby. Adopt her out" then yes, that would be the end of our marriage. The very end. If my spouse didn't step up, that would tell me he was not the person I thought he was.

Exactly.

Holy sh!t, we agree on something. Since that pretty much never happens--we have to be right.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Good gosh, did hell just freeze over?

Ohfour · Hooker

Welts and I agreed on something. I think that wins...lol!

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

just Czech wrote:
Good gosh, did hell just freeze over?

It's damn cold here!

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Good gosh, did hell just freeze over?
It's damn cold here!

O4, welts, husker and MM must be in your neighborhood. biggrin

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Hey, I want to come to that party!!!

Ohfour · Hooker

You know what? Even as TOTALLY different as we are, it would probably be one hell of a party!

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Ohfour wrote:
You know what? Even as TOTALLY different as we are, it would probably be one hell of a party!

I so agree!!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Its incredibly sad that the Sis cannot fully embrace this baby and love the baby fully while sis dies with the peace of mind in knowing that. Some things in life are bigger than You.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Its incredibly sad that the Sis cannot fully embrace this baby and love the baby fully while sis dies with the peace of mind in knowing that. Some things in life are bigger than You.

Exactly.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Ohfour wrote:
You know what? Even as TOTALLY different as we are, it would probably be one hell of a party!

Of that I have NO doubt! Lol

weltschmerz · Guru

My husband's cousin asked if we would look after her kids if anything happened to her.
They were both preemies. Blind, deaf and with cerebral palsy.
Thank you, but no.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

weltschmerz wrote:
My husband's cousin asked if we would look after her kids if anything happened to her.
They were both preemies. Blind, deaf and with cerebral palsy.
Thank you, but no.

Wow, special needs kids. Tough decision, IMHO.

huskerbb · Guru

That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
My husband's cousin asked if we would look after her kids if anything happened to her.
They were both preemies. Blind, deaf and with cerebral palsy.
Thank you, but no.

This is kind of like pretending that every abortion is due to rape and incest. Not.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Welts likes to fuzzy up issues with nonsense that isnt there.

ed11563 · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
My husband's cousin asked if we would look after her kids if anything happened to her.
They were both preemies. Blind, deaf and with cerebral palsy.
Thank you, but no.

How does one even raise a kid like this?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.

Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.

Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

I would never seek out a special needs kid, but if it was my sisters or cousin's baby, I would have to.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
My husband's cousin asked if we would look after her kids if anything happened to her.
They were both preemies. Blind, deaf and with cerebral palsy.
Thank you, but no.
This is kind of like pretending that every abortion is due to rape and incest. Not.

What ARE you blathering about?

She is simply recounting what happened to her.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

just Czech wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
My husband's cousin asked if we would look after her kids if anything happened to her.
They were both preemies. Blind, deaf and with cerebral palsy.
Thank you, but no.
Wow, special needs kids. Tough decision, IMHO.

Yes, and with extremely severe handicaps. Poor babies.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.

Yes, but that doesn't mean a child with those conditions can be cared for in a home situation. Some children need to be in nursing homes or institutionalized. Sorry, but that's life. If you can't take care of your own toileting needs and feed yourself, then you need to be in a home with round the clock care. Obviously , i am not referring to infants whom we know will learn and grow to take care of their own needs. So, yes, you can step up in that situation by making time to visit and be in that child's life but that doesn't mean you are equipped to take them home. That isn't the situation here.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.

I agree LL. Each child has characteristics that make them different and difficult to deal with. Handicaps are an entirely different level - but have no bearing on whether or not it's the right thing to do. It's family and I would promise to take care of those children to the best of my ability. Which might not be in home care, it might mean getting them the very best care possible for their situation.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.

Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?

It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?

I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.

Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.

I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.

Ohfour · Hooker

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?
I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.
Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.
I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.

Neither did their parents when they were born...

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?

I would take my handicapped niece or nephew in a heartbeat, because they ARE family. I also know there are resources available to help. Most people are not aware of available services in such cases.

IMHO, family is family, handicapped or not.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?
I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.
Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.
I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.

And if it was your child - you would figure it the f**k out. They are no less worthy of a loving home or of the attention and care of their relatives than a healthy child. IMHO a child who may not be easy to take care of needs your love MORE.

ed11563 · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?
I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.
Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.
I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.
Neither did their parents when they were born...

So my first step would be to spend a day or two with the parents and babies, to see what the parents are doing.

weltschmerz · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?
I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.
Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.
I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.
And if it was your child - you would figure it the f**k out. They are no less worthy of a loving home or of the attention and care of their relatives than a healthy child. IMHO a child who may not be easy to take care of needs your love MORE.

She had six or seven miscarriages prior to this and was told not to get pregnant again...that if she did, she would likely miscarry again or have a very premature infant with special needs. She could have adopted, but she wanted her OWN kids.

Then she did it again, hoping this one will be different. It wasn't. Both were born weighing just over a pound.

I wouldn't have taken the chance. I know I'm not capable of raising such a damaged child, but two? On top of my own child who was autistic?

No, thank you.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?
I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.
Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.
I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.
And if it was your child - you would figure it the f**k out. They are no less worthy of a loving home or of the attention and care of their relatives than a healthy child. IMHO a child who may not be easy to take care of needs your love MORE.

She had six or seven miscarriages prior to this and was told not to get pregnant again...that if she did, she would likely miscarry again or have a very premature infant with special needs. She could have adopted, but she wanted her OWN kids.
Then she did it again, hoping this one will be different. It wasn't. Both were born weighing just over a pound.
I wouldn't have taken the chance. I know I'm not capable of raising such a damaged child, but two? On top of my own child who was autistic?
No, thank you.

Which is a totally different situation than the OP.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

weltschmerz wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?
I think sometimes people look at a situation, and decide it's an impossible task to take on.
Could I raise two deaf and blind and brain injured babies? I'm pretty sure I could not.
I don't have the first clue how to communicate with and raise someone like that.
And if it was your child - you would figure it the f**k out. They are no less worthy of a loving home or of the attention and care of their relatives than a healthy child. IMHO a child who may not be easy to take care of needs your love MORE.

She had six or seven miscarriages prior to this and was told not to get pregnant again...that if she did, she would likely miscarry again or have a very premature infant with special needs. She could have adopted, but she wanted her OWN kids.
Then she did it again, hoping this one will be different. It wasn't. Both were born weighing just over a pound.
I wouldn't have taken the chance. I know I'm not capable of raising such a damaged child, but two? On top of my own child who was autistic?
No, thank you.

And again, caring for them might mean finding the best possible long term facility that could deal with their needs. I don't see it as bringing them into my home and attempting to do it all myself without help. There are resources.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
That would add a whole nuther layer to things. I would hope I would have the strength and resolve to "step up"--but no one really knows until that happens.

But--the fact is, in this particular case, it's not the case.
Either you can't imagine not doing it because they are family, or you can. Being special needs should not suddenly make it ok and understandable to decline. If fact, it would make it worse - because who is going to take the baby if she won't? Not as much of a chance of it being easily adopted out.
Either she has a duty to step up, or she doesn't.
Again, not the case here--so she doesn't have to worry about it now, does she?
It's the hypocritical thinking that bothers me. It's unthinkable to decline to raise a healthy baby that could easily be adopted out but understandable to decline to raise a special needs child that would be difficult to place? What, it's only family and a duty if the child is perfectly healthy?

I didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Well. It's really NOBOBY'S built in, automatically responsibility to take another's child, no matter the reason.

But what I find interesting are some of the same ones who say "she should take the kid" and "it's her family" are also the ones who would be all for killing this baby if wasn't born yet.