TOTALLY GEEKED!

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

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

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And what if there is an accident that causes permanent damage?

Or an illness?

If the kid sustains a brain injury and becomes a permanent 3 year old at 12, what then?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
And what if there is an accident that causes permanent damage?

Or an illness?

If the kid sustains a brain injury and becomes a permanent 3 year old at 12, what then?

"What if" vs. a known handicap?

Not really the same.

flan

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

Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
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.

You know, this REALLY gets old.

Obviously this mother wanted her unborn child. HER CHOICE.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.

Well, life has never been black & white for me.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

But, like MM said, there are resources for severely handicapped individuals.

flan

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

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.
Well, life has never been black & white for me.
flan

Have you read most of this thread? It was pretty black and white for most that she HAS TO step up and take the baby.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.
Well, life has never been black & white for me.
flan
Have you read most of this thread? It was pretty black and white for most that she HAS TO step up and take the baby.

As far as the OP, yes. Then another scenario was introduced...not the same, imo.

And I would say that she SHOULD step up, but no one can force her to.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
And what if there is an accident that causes permanent damage?

Or an illness?

If the kid sustains a brain injury and becomes a permanent 3 year old at 12, what then?

Then maybe that child needs long term care and services, perhaps not in your home.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.

Not necessarily. The circumstances do matter. The circumstances matter in the law. Every murder isn't considered First Degree, etc. The circumstances have to be examined.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.
Not necessarily. The circumstances do matter. The circumstances matter in the law. Every murder isn't considered First Degree, etc. The circumstances have to be examined.

Wow! I must be sick.

I'm going to agree with you AGAIN...and it's not even 7:00!

evileye

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

What if the sister was physically disabled or handicapped in some other way and could not physically take care of the infant? Would that still be her duty? Circumstances are important.

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

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.
Not necessarily. The circumstances do matter. The circumstances matter in the law. Every murder isn't considered First Degree, etc. The circumstances have to be examined.

This is not a legal duty we are talking about. You are talking about a moral one. Morality and legality are VERY different things.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.
Not necessarily. The circumstances do matter. The circumstances matter in the law. Every murder isn't considered First Degree, etc. The circumstances have to be examined.
This is not a legal duty we are talking about. You are talking about a moral one. Morality and legality are VERY different things.

OK. So , if the sister is medically disabled and unable to care for a newborn, is it still her Moral duty to do so?

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

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Anything can happen at any time. That is one of the reasons it's ridiculous to say one way is a duty and the other is not. It either is or isn't.
Not necessarily. The circumstances do matter. The circumstances matter in the law. Every murder isn't considered First Degree, etc. The circumstances have to be examined.
This is not a legal duty we are talking about. You are talking about a moral one. Morality and legality are VERY different things.
OK. So , if the sister is medically disabled and unable to care for a newborn, is it still her Moral duty to do so?

Ummmm, I never said she had to do it in the first place. Keep your posters straight, please.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb 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 didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.
Actually, we don't know that. The baby is 3 months old. There are plenty of special needs that may not have presented, yet. Like autism.

and the six year old could fall off his bike tomorrow and be paralyzed.

sure, you can come up with all kinds of nonsense scenarios to justify, well, your nonsense, but the fact is the LW is not dealing with a disabled child at this point. The future is never guaranteed.

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

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb 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 didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.
Actually, we don't know that. The baby is 3 months old. There are plenty of special needs that may not have presented, yet. Like autism.
and the six year old could fall off his bike tomorrow and be paralyzed.
sure, you can come up with all kinds of nonsense scenarios to justify, well, your nonsense, but the fact is the LW is not dealing with a disabled child at this point. The future is never guaranteed.

It doesn't matter. Either one is under a moral duty to do so, or not.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb 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 didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.
Actually, we don't know that. The baby is 3 months old. There are plenty of special needs that may not have presented, yet. Like autism.
and the six year old could fall off his bike tomorrow and be paralyzed.
sure, you can come up with all kinds of nonsense scenarios to justify, well, your nonsense, but the fact is the LW is not dealing with a disabled child at this point. The future is never guaranteed.
It doesn't matter. Either one is under a moral duty to do so, or not.

I never said "not"--but what I did say was that she doesn't have to worry about that here.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb 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 didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.
Actually, we don't know that. The baby is 3 months old. There are plenty of special needs that may not have presented, yet. Like autism.
and the six year old could fall off his bike tomorrow and be paralyzed.
sure, you can come up with all kinds of nonsense scenarios to justify, well, your nonsense, but the fact is the LW is not dealing with a disabled child at this point. The future is never guaranteed.

No. The future is not garranteed or the question about who will take these kids wouldn't be an issue. The mother wouldn't be dying.

So you say yes. You'll take both of them. On the way over they hit a tree and one of them is paralyzed.

The LW hasn't actually taken custody yet.

Is she still obligated?

What about the day after she takes custody?

This baby was wanted by the mom but the sister doesn't want it.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And the OP says they can take in the older child financially.

How much of a strain will it be to take the baby?

Financial concerns are real.

And it isn't like she is saying they wouldn't have anything to do with the baby.

Open adoptions means they will still be a part of the baby's life.

I don't know when this letter was written, but if the baby is 3 months and the mom may languish til Christmas, that baby will be over a year old.

Who is taking care of the baby now?

Who will take care of it as the mom gets worse?

The LW may change her mind as the year goes by.

But I can not flame her for thinking about ALL of the options.

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

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb 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 didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.
Actually, we don't know that. The baby is 3 months old. There are plenty of special needs that may not have presented, yet. Like autism.
and the six year old could fall off his bike tomorrow and be paralyzed.
sure, you can come up with all kinds of nonsense scenarios to justify, well, your nonsense, but the fact is the LW is not dealing with a disabled child at this point. The future is never guaranteed.
It doesn't matter. Either one is under a moral duty to do so, or not.
I never said "not"--but what I did say was that she doesn't have to worry about that here.

You said you didn't even know if YOU would step up, so you are obviously more understanding of that "no" than this one.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb 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 didn't say it wasn't their duty--but again, not the situation here, so she doesn't have to worry about that.
Actually, we don't know that. The baby is 3 months old. There are plenty of special needs that may not have presented, yet. Like autism.
and the six year old could fall off his bike tomorrow and be paralyzed.
sure, you can come up with all kinds of nonsense scenarios to justify, well, your nonsense, but the fact is the LW is not dealing with a disabled child at this point. The future is never guaranteed.
It doesn't matter. Either one is under a moral duty to do so, or not.
I never said "not"--but what I did say was that she doesn't have to worry about that here.
You said you didn't even know if YOU would step up, so you are obviously more understanding of that "no" than this one.

I don't know. No one truly does until they are faced with it. That isn't to say I shouldn't do it.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

You would step up and take your siblings kids, husker. You might pi$$ and moan about it, but you would do it none the less.

Stop selling yourself short.