Vegans' baby dies of starvation

Calus · Post by **Calus** » Thu May 10, 2007 1:08 am

ummm, their called herbivores for a reason. Though humans are Ominvores.

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:32 am

Name me one herbivore that doesn't start a baby off on the mother's milk.

spikegirl7 · Post by **spikegirl7** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:44 am

that's what gets to me. The mother has been a vegan for a while, shouldn't her body have gotten used to it by now? She was able to carry a child to term with that diet, and she should have been able to produce milk. Why wasn't the baby being breast fed? Did the vegan diet prevent her? Could they not find a wet nurse?

And don't tell me they "didn't know." That's BS. If the baby isn't doing well, you KNOW. I have a brother who is 13 years younger than me and a sister who is 17 years younger than me. If there's something wrong with the kid, you'll know.

Catine · Post by **Catine** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:15 am

[quote="adciv";p="738230"]I'm still trying to figure out how one can raise a baby on a vegan diet[/quote]

It's not what I would choose for my child if I had one, but soy baby formula maybe?

I'm not sure if it's vegan and I'm too lazy to look up the ingredients, but soy formula is common and lots of babies are raised on it.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu May 10, 2007 1:52 pm

A vegan's mother's breastmilk would probably be fine, if she took supplements to replace the dietary needs she wasn't getting eating bushes or whatever.

But 3 and a half freaking pounds? I was born 2 months early and weighed more than that, that low a weight for a normal baby (assuming it was healthy weight when it was born) would set off huge alarm bells in any doctor and parent.

I don't think because they were vegans this happened, I think it's because they were stupid people that didn't understand some lifestyle they professed to admire. Hard to figure out how someone can live a lifestyle they don't fully understand, but I guess lots of people do it for lots of lifestyles.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:45 pm

LOL NAZIS!

Right?

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:35 pm

Uh, are you saying the US has in some way restricted who can have children?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:46 pm

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:50 pm

My favorite, a cryptic accusation, and then a veiled response.

Just spit out what you are trying to say if you have something to actually say. Otherwise, GTFO and STFU.

Remco05 · Post by **Remco05** » Thu May 10, 2007 4:48 pm

[quote="Lucksi";p="738372"][quote="Spongiform";p="738200"]Unfortunately the government is not allowed to revoke your ability to reproduce.[/quote]

Are you sure about that?

Both our countries (and probably more) did that and not so far in the past either.[/quote]

Yep that's true. People who are mentally challenged are not allowed to have children in the Netherlands. Basically there are two reasons why it's not allowed. First of all because most of the time they won't be able to take care of a child, second because there is a bigger possibility that they as well will get mentally challenged children.

Having said that this country's government is pretty lenient. If someone would get a child and can proof that they are capable of raising a child (possibly with help from a third party) nothing will come out of it except for a warning. However if they can not take care of it, the child will probably be sent to an orphanage or in extreme cases euthanasia.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu May 10, 2007 5:01 pm

What? Euthanasia or a child already born with mental disorders? Doesn't happen legally.

EDIT: Ah, you seemed to switch countries on me there. So your government sanctions the murder of children with certain disorders?

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu May 10, 2007 5:18 pm

Hm, not really what you were saying earlier. Those people were housed in institutions against their will because they were dangerous, or otherwise unable to function in society. Such folks would find it almost impossible to conceive anyway, as they couldn't just screw around in the hallways. There was never a federal statute that allowed for sterilization.

Some criminals were sterilized against their will, but the vast majority were mental patients stuck into mental hospitals and clinics.

adciv · Post by **adciv** » Thu May 10, 2007 5:30 pm

I also see nothing about the country doing it, a few states, yes, but not the country. Kind of like blaming all of BDR for something Bayern does.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Thu May 10, 2007 5:39 pm

You seemed to be implying that the government was forcing sterilization or preventing adults at liberty and consenting to do so, from having children. Most folks who had that forced on them had surrendered most of their rights or had them taken away in any case, hell, some people did it because they thought it could make you live longer.

Eugenic sterilization dealt with hereditary diseases, aka, mental patients. That some people used it inappropriately according the law is a matter of said person, not the country.

It would be like saying Germany is responsible for all the people killed during WWII. Sounds nice and rabble-rousing, but inaccurate.

As for your link..heh, Sweden? Wow.

Remco05 · Post by **Remco05** » Thu May 10, 2007 6:43 pm

[quote="Bigity";p="738416"]What? Euthanasia or a child already born with mental disorders? Doesn't happen legally.

EDIT: Ah, you seemed to switch countries on me there. So your government sanctions the murder of children with certain disorders?[/quote]

Like I said in extremely rare cases. If the child has such an extreme disfunction that it can't possibly live a 'normal' life. With this I don't mean stuff like being born without an arm, but when it's born really fucked up (it does happen, like twice every 5 years, it doesn't happen on a daily basis, they will obviously always look for an other solution in which the newborn can live some sort of 'normal' or at least acceptable life, which may be taken in the biggest meaning of the word).

A few years back the Netherlands were all over on the news in the USA. They accused us of being extremely lenient towards euthanasia. There is an euthanasia clinic in Groningen and an American reporter went there for an interview. He took everything extremely out of context and accused the Netherlands that we could make use of euthanasia at will if the slightest thing was wrong with out newborns. Eventhough our government praises to be pretty open minded and tolerant this will obviously never happen (especially since the biggest party in dutch politics still is a Christian party, they are shrinking every 4 years, but they still are the biggest).

[quote="Lucksi";p="738421"]
The US abolished forced sterilisation in 1978, although the practise had changed from the eugenic background to criminal background. Just found that the governours of Virginia and Oregon apologized to the victims in 2002.

Germany got rid of the eugenic background in 1945 (well, duh), but the laws/practises weren´t abolished until 1974.

Denmark, Sweden and Finland got rid of it somewhen in the 60´s or 70´s, Switzerland had the laws until 1985 and Japan until 1996.

If you were a victim of sterilization, you can get compensation from germany, but I have no clue about all the other countries.

And if you think, I´m making that up, google it.

Edit: The Netherlands did that too and still do? Whoa.[/quote]

Didn't know that forced sterilization was still legal

It sure clears up some questions though. As I stated before mentally challenged people aren't allowed to have any children. If you can stop the ability to produce children by sterilization it does sound like a better solution than for instance sending the children to an orphanage or euthanasia.

Real Life Forums

Vegans' baby dies of starvation

Who is online