Community Tard Baby General (includes brain dead kids) - Fundies and their genetic Fuckups; Parents of corpses in denial

[AnOminous]

Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned as long as the US remains a Union. Don’t fear monger.

You have incredible optimism for Roe v. Wade considering the last time it was upheld, the Court had a very different composition, and now there are easily five on the Court who have signaled they would reverse it, either explicitly in dissenting opinions or impliedly. I'm not sure even Roberts could save it.

At the very least, it's going to take yet another haircut.

Arguably, RvW was already overruled years ago by repeatedly and significantly narrowing its scope and abandoning the arbitrary first/second/third trimester framework that was one of O'Connor's central justifications for the case and the right it purported to recognize. Without that, it's been a hollowed out shell since.

O'Connor herself later had grave reservations about her own invention, stating that the Roe framework is "clearly on a collision course with itself" and noted: "As medical science becomes better able to provide for the separate existence of the fetus, the point of viability is moved further back toward conception."

I doubt you will see anything as dramatic as some federal law outlawing abortion entirely in all circumstances immediately or even ever, but with the foundation of Roe already crumbling and at least five votes for doing away with it or at least limiting it, it's not going to look like it used to once SCOTUS is done with it this time.

Roberts may be working out some kind of backroom deal where he assigns writing the opinion to one of the moderates in the majority and offers to join the majority if the ruling isn't absolutely batshit, and I think he might be hostile to setting off a firestorm by explicitly overruling the case.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

If RvW ever did get overturned, I wonder if we would see a spike in infanticides or in "SIDS". I know many would argue BC will be more widely used and more women will be careful. But single mom/teen pregnancies are still epidemic. And I could certainly envision a horrible world where women forced to give birth to, say, downies, etc., would try to off them. Not unlike how animal mothers in the wild will abandon babies that look sickly and unable to survive.

 

[Carnavoyeur]

I was with you on points 1 and 2, but poor maternal diet just doesn’t stack up as a factor to me.

I think the concept of autism being over-diagnosed is partly true but also quite damaging. Do I think high-functioning aspie types, especially females, deserve a diagnosis? Yes. It’s not them contributing to the over-diagnosis problem.

What I’m starting to see quite often is kids with other complex conditions that affect communication being given a diagnosis of autism. Like kids with Downs Syndrome and autism. Other syndromes resulting in severe learning difficulties also seem to get a primary diagnosis of autism. Are these kids really autistic, or are they just low-functioning, non-verbal, learning-disabled kids who manage to fall under the autism umbrella just like pretty much any severely developmentally delayed kid would?

And then there are the kids who’ve experienced trauma, such as being harmed by birth parents and subsequently fostered/adopted. Are those kids really autistic, or are they damaged (horrible word but you get what I mean) by their shitty start in life?

And then there’s kids with FAS being diagnosed with autism because it upsets the parents less.

I guess none of it really matters if “autism” gets them the support and strategies they need, but I can see why autism feels over-diagnosed when so many extras meet the diagnostic criteria.

I'm with you on this one. If a child has a diagnosable genetic disorder that affects their neurological development, or has experienced any sort of early childhood trauma, they probably don't have autism. I don't think the "spectrum" is that big. There are definitely children born otherwise completely normal and healthy who start showing developmental delays and classic symptoms of autism as they grow, and then there's children who were abused or traumatized and are given the diagnosis of "autistic" when they should be diagnosed with something else, like PTSD or something. I dunno, I'm not a medfag, but if I had a nickel for every time I've known someone who has had a traumatic childhood experience who later claimed "I'm autistic!" I could probably go to med school with the money.

 

[yasscat]

I'm with you on this one. If a child has a diagnosable genetic disorder that affects their neurological development, or has experienced any sort of early childhood trauma, they probably don't have autism. I don't think the "spectrum" is that big. There are definitely children born otherwise completely normal and healthy who start showing developmental delays and classic symptoms of autism as they grow, and then there's children who were abused or traumatized and are given the diagnosis of "autistic" when they should be diagnosed with something else, like PTSD or something. I dunno, I'm not a medfag, but if I had a nickel for every time I've known someone who has had a traumatic childhood experience who later claimed "I'm autistic!" I could probably go to med school with the money.

Semi-agree, but there is a lot of comorbidity with autism and PTSD/other anxiety disorders. Just because there's overlap doesn't mean someone shouldn't have one diagnosis or the other. Diagnosis isn't a perfect, exact science, it relies a lot on guesswork, but most clinicians are genuinely doing the best they can.

 

[Thomas Eugene Paris]

It’s been discussed on this thread before that children with random severe genetic disorders are getting labeled as ‘autistic’. The person who said this mentioned them having distinctive facial features.
If anything has changed, it’s the huge increase in preterm babies surviving, as well as a huge increase in preterm birth overall. Even being born slightly early can lead to long term complications.

A lot of this is that funding for public school programs is very scarce. It's easier to prove that a child qualifies for services if there is an existing diagnosis of autism. Further, genetic testing is expensive, not always covered by insurance, and does not always identify genetic abnormalities, especially when the disorder in question is very rare. Much easier to just diagnose a kid with "autism" so that he will qualify for special education services than it is to forever chase a diagnosis that may still require a fight for those same services.

 

[Colonel Gaddafi]

If RvW ever did get overturned, I wonder if we would see a spike in infanticides or in "SIDS". I know many would argue BC will be more widely used and more women will be careful. But single mom/teen pregnancies are still epidemic. And I could certainly envision a horrible world where women forced to give birth to, say, downies, etc., would try to off them. Not unlike how animal mothers in the wild will abandon babies that look sickly and unable to survive.

You’d probably see a return to something like the state school system where they put them all in a ward and then try to teach them to be human. Forensic science has come a long way and it’s probably harder now than it was historically to kill an infant and get away with it. Only cases I could think of would be ‘accidental’ co-sleeping or putting a pillow in the crib, especially now that SIDS is considered clinically rare and new parents are meant to be better educated on infant care. Remember that dumbass a few pages back who left her baby in the bath to get a towel only for him to become a potato? Probably more stuff in that vein. Many would just do what they’ve already done for years and get that sweet child tax credit for ciggies and ale.

You have incredible optimism for Roe v. Wade considering the last time it was upheld, the Court had a very different composition, and now there are easily five on the Court who have signaled they would reverse it, either explicitly in dissenting opinions or impliedly. I'm not sure even Roberts could save it.

At the very least, it's going to take yet another haircut.

Arguably, RvW was already overruled years ago by repeatedly and significantly narrowing its scope and abandoning the arbitrary first/second/third trimester framework that was one of O'Connor's central justifications for the case and the right it purported to recognize. Without that, it's been a hollowed out shell since.

O'Connor herself later had grave reservations about her own invention, stating that the Roe framework is "clearly on a collision course with itself" and noted: "As medical science becomes better able to provide for the separate existence of the fetus, the point of viability is moved further back toward conception."

I doubt you will see anything as dramatic as some federal law outlawing abortion entirely in all circumstances immediately or even ever, but with the foundation of Roe already crumbling and at least five votes for doing away with it or at least limiting it, it's not going to look like it used to once SCOTUS is done with it this time.

Roberts may be working out some kind of backroom deal where he assigns writing the opinion to one of the moderates in the majority and offers to join the majority if the ruling isn't absolutely batshit, and I think he might be hostile to setting off a firestorm by explicitly overruling the case.

Optimistic, yes. Though I’m leaning more towards a total repeal that completely limits abortion access when I speak of ‘repeal’, all the way up to the morning after pill; not just limitations. With how politically polarizing the US is becoming the whole thing is a massive shitshow with all shorts of shady characters. I’m more interested in states rights limitations (bring on the moai ladies), so the whole thing is an interesting tug of war to see just how far states can push before something cracks.

Edit: Ladies, ladies, calm down. When I say ‘leaning towards’ I mean in my previous description of a hypothetical US without abortion access, not my political beliefs. Which is why I said ‘don’t fear monger’.

 

[AnOminous]

Optimistic, yes. Though I’m leaning more towards a total repeal that completely limits abortion access when I speak of ‘repeal’, all the way up to the morning after pill; not just limitations.

The Supreme Court literally can't do that, though. All they can do in overruling RvW (and it is up in the air whether they explicitly do that) is refuse to strike down a state law that clearly violates it. That effectively would define what sort of state laws would be considered constitutional.

That would not prohibit states from recognizing a right under their state constitution to RvW level (or greater) protection.

There is not a situation where, even if RvW gets explicitly overruled, abortion is suddenly illegal everywhere.

 

[Colonel Gaddafi]

The Supreme Court literally can't do that, though. All they can do in overruling RvW (and it is up in the air whether they explicitly do that) is refuse to strike down a state law that clearly violates it. That effectively would define what sort of state laws would be considered constitutional.

That would not prohibit states from recognizing a right under their state constitution to RvW level (or greater) protection.

There is not a situation where, even if RvW gets explicitly overruled, abortion is suddenly illegal everywhere.

Yes, which is why I said as long as the US is still the US we won’t be seeing a complete overturn of R. v. Wade where there are absolutely no abortion rights whatsoever. As I stated previously, there are more liberal states than others. Hypothetically speaking if it were completely up to the individual states without any federal meddling there would definitely be states that would have more liberal abortion rights because of different attitudes towards culture/religion/whatever.

But like I said, this is not a debate for the potato baby thread.

Edit: spelling and he grammar of ESL at play

 

[A Detachable Penis]

It’s been discussed on this thread before that children with random severe genetic disorders are getting labeled as ‘autistic’. The person who said this mentioned them having distinctive facial features.
If anything has changed, it’s the huge increase in preterm babies surviving, as well as a huge increase in preterm birth overall. Even being born slightly early can lead to long term complications.

Yeah, part of the diagnostic creep is that instead of labelling kids with just plain old retard, they give them an autism diagnosis. It gives parents false hope that their child can learn and grow whereas if they're sufficiently retarded, they NEVER WILL.

Autism is primarily a catch-all group, hence why everything is getting thrown under it. Doesn't really matter, it's like calling an apple an orange. Close enough.

It does, however, suck for the known genetic diseases being ignored that have real health consequences like heart issues.

And for all the adults selfdxing or getting diagnosed, any disorder should have a negative impact on your life. If it doesnt, you dont have it.

 

[buoyverificationfuel]

I think Autism is over-diagnosed. Give me hats or dislikes but it's true. [...] I think it's because a lot of people have caught on that they can get SSDI checks

That, or:
1) We're learning how to identify and diagnose autism at a higher accuracy.
2) We're diagnosing more mild forms of autism instead of letting it fester.

In my limited and non-medical experience, the only group where autism is "overdiagnosed" is munchies, a group that tends to be almost entirely white women in their 20s with some sort of personality disorder. If someone was able to make it until at least their early 20s until being diagnosed autistic then they were (probably) higher functioning in the first place, so it would in theory be easier to fake it.

It’s been discussed on this thread before that children with random severe genetic disorders are getting labeled as ‘autistic’.

There's still a lot we don't know about genetics. Someone might not even think to refer a patient to a geneticist for an issue like autism, especially if that's the only issue. And there isn't always a way to know (assuming there's even a mutation) if the mutation is clinically significant.

 

[Crimewatcher 44]

I know many would argue BC will be more widely used and more women will be careful.

No one who lives in a state with mandatory "Abstinence Only" sex-ed can argue that. "Abstinence Only" sex-ed actually teaches teens that BC doesn't prevent pregnancy and some go further and teach that hormonal BC is actually dangerous. Many of these "Abstinence Only" states are the ones passing these ultra restrictive abortion laws.

 

[Allo Vera]

If RvW ever did get overturned, I wonder if we would see a spike in infanticides or in "SIDS". I know many would argue BC will be more widely used and more women will be careful. But single mom/teen pregnancies are still epidemic. And I could certainly envision a horrible world where women forced to give birth to, say, downies, etc., would try to off them. Not unlike how animal mothers in the wild will abandon babies that look sickly and unable to survive.

Pregnancy and childbirth is a massive ordeal even when the baby is wanted. It’s far more likely that women will go back to the bad old days of trying to induce a miscarriage by ingesting herbs, trying to physically harm themselves, or going to some backstreet abortion place.

I’ve seen TikToks where young women try to euphemistically ask for advice on ending pregnancies without anyone else finding out.

Banning safe abortion absolutely would not lead to better or more widespread use of birth control.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

The next thing Republicans want to go after is contraception. Marsha Blackburn spoke against the SCOTUS ruling that made it legal for married couples. But the weird thing here is that she personally only has two children, and most Republican politicians also have a small family size that would be unusual without contraception. Even among Catholic Republican senators and representatives, you can count the number with more than four kids on one hand.

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

Isn't that like celebrating Kurt Cobain Day on November 20 because he blew his brains out with a Remington Model 11 20-gauge shotgun?

Shouldn't it be July 9th, because that's Courtney Love's birthday?

 

[The-Mad-Asshatter]

The next thing Republicans want to go after is contraception. Marsha Blackburn spoke against the SCOTUS ruling that made it legal for married couples. But the weird thing here is that she personally only has two children, and most Republican politicians also have a small family size that would be unusual without contraception. Even among Catholic Republican senators and representatives, you can count the number with more than four kids on one hand.

For those that think the topic of abortion doesn't belong in this thread, this is why it needs to be brought up and discussed periodically. For all the people that say 'Look at that poor baby with those horrible genetic issues and deformities that is causing it to suffer and die, why didn't the mother do the kind thing and abort it?'

Because politicians like this will make it hard for people even to do that. If this type of stuff passes, the new babies in this thread will no longer be from mothers that keep them out of some heavy maternal desire, they'll be here because the mothers that have them will no longer have any choice but to carry. This type of politician will also make it harder for people to prevent that deformity, even as a married couple, because if that married couple are denied birth control and either are both known carriers of some crippling or lethal genetic trait (or the mother cannot safely carry a pregnancy) then each act of conjugal relations will be a roll of the dice, and eventually something's going to roll up snake eyes.

 

[Android raptor]

If RvW ever did get overturned, I wonder if we would see a spike in infanticides or in "SIDS". I know many would argue BC will be more widely used and more women will be careful. But single mom/teen pregnancies are still epidemic. And I could certainly envision a horrible world where women forced to give birth to, say, downies, etc., would try to off them. Not unlike how animal mothers in the wild will abandon babies that look sickly and unable to survive.

Absolutely. Prior to modern methods of abortion and contraception that are both safe and reliable, infanticide used to be incredibly common and happened pretty much everywhere as a way of dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Sure it might've been taboo to discuss or condone openly, but it still happened because life prior to modern medicine was cruel and harsh like that. Disabled infants were at higher risk of it, though I've heard older disabled kids were usually spared (infanticide out of desperation almost always is done to newborns).

No one who lives in a state with mandatory "Abstinence Only" sex-ed can argue that. "Abstinence Only" sex-ed actually teaches teens that BC doesn't prevent pregnancy and some go further and teach that hormonal BC is actually dangerous. Many of these "Abstinence Only" states are the ones passing these ultra restrictive abortion laws.

Yep, only thing we got told about birth control in my Bible belt state is exaggerated failure rates. There are many people here who don't even know the difference between Plan B and a chemical abortion and refer to Plan B as "abortion pills". Every part of the US need more access to all aspects of reproductive Healthcare and comprehensive sex ed, not less.

It's not uncommon for people with genetic anomalies to be born prematurely, either. That's definitely true for people with Down syndrome, and also Noonan syndrome, which is an autosomal recessive disorder that causes varying levels of disability, and is believed to have an incidence of about 1 in 2000, although it's often mistaken for other issues. (I have a FBF whose son has it; in his case, his degree of mental disability is unknown - he has two parents with very high intelligence, and his IQ is average - but it has physically affected pretty much every organ system in his body, and that's why he is disabled.)

Plus, the incidence of "mental retardation" has declined at the same rate as the "increase" in "autism." I do realize that many of the diagnoses include some degree of overlap.

To be fair I wouldn't be surprised if there's some correlation between MR going down and there being fewer incidents of oxygen deprivation at birth related to medicine getting better and more people giving birth in hospitals. Of course people like Globyn exist who are determined to keep the tradition of destroying your kids brain via snatch suffocation alive&well

 

[AnOminous]

Disabled infants were at higher risk of it, though I've heard older disabled kids were usually spared (infanticide out of desperation almost always is done to newborns).

Ever heard of baby farming? Mostly associated with Victorian Era Britain and its schizophrenic combination of prudery and extreme perversion, this was a business catering to those with offspring that were undesired. For a small fee, at least small compared to the service purportedly offered, which was long-term care of the little bundle of scandal or disability, they could offload their little life ruiner.

Somehow, the infants all managed to die. And the authorities were paid enough to look the other way since the people who could afford this service instead of just feeding the baby to pigs were often themselves pretty wealthy and influential.

While it's mildly off-topic, the bizarre way humans have treated our disabled, especially the profoundly disabled, is really scandalous and appalling almost no matter what point of view you have on the subject.

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

Ever heard of baby farming? Mostly associated with Victorian Era Britain and its schizophrenic combination of prudery and extreme perversion, this was a business catering to those with offspring that were undesired. For a small fee, at least small compared to the service purportedly offered, which was long-term care of the little bundle of scandal or disability, they could offload their little life ruiner.

Somehow, the infants all managed to die. And the authorities were paid enough to look the other way since the people who could afford this service instead of just feeding the baby to pigs were often themselves pretty wealthy and influential.

While it's mildly off-topic, the bizarre way humans have treated our disabled, especially the profoundly disabled, is really scandalous and appalling almost no matter what point of view you have on the subject.

It was easy to kill a baby back when infant mortality was high anyways. And it wasn't like the baby had a birth certificate, nor could the early police forces or other authorities determine a cause of death if they cared to do so.
Up until about 1945, it was totally normal to have one or two dead siblings in industrialized countries.

 

[CaseyTatumm]

I think Autism is over-diagnosed. Give me hats or dislikes but it's true. Every other mother I meet claims one or more of their kids is "on the spectrum". I think it's because a lot of people have caught on that they can get SSDI checks for these kids and took off running.
Why work when you can get thousands of bucks a month for "disabled" children? It's a scam and I wish doctors were more observant of this.

I agree. I’ve thought it’s been over diagnosed as well, some kids are just awkward or have poor social skills (whether it be due to shit parenting or something else). Also there is a lot of other things with similarities as autism.

 

[The-Mad-Asshatter]

I agree. I’ve thought it’s been over diagnosed as well, some kids are just awkward or have poor social skills (whether it be due to shit parenting or something else). Also there is a lot of other things with similarities as autism.

Want to wager that there will be a wave of autism diagnoses stemming from too many parents giving Baby a tablet? Why should Baby pay attention to the boring human faces and sounds near them when Tablet has been perfectly engineered to interact, distract, and engage Baby's attention with its precise levels of sounds, visuals, and colors?