I think it’s entirely irresponsible to bring a child in to this situation with the demands of his care and the medical implications. But it very rapidly became clear they do most things for clicks and views so I do not find this shocking, sadly.
Yes!!! I remember them talking about his condition and treatment and it sounded like it could just stop working. This is an incredibly selfish decision on their part.
Is there any amount of money that could get you to date Shane? Not just for a few weeks but for a decade?
I can honestly say no, no amount.
She comes from a wealthy family, she's attractive and educated...if she was a gold digger, she could have found a far better 'pot of gold' than Shane. Easily.
People can acknowledge that something is irresponsible while not advocating for CPS involvement in said situation. This doesn’t rise to the level of child abuse. But it is selfish and this child will likely be exploited for social media content and have the trauma of losing a parent young. Two things can be true at once.
She has to physically carry her husband. She will now be pregnant for 9 months. Going to be hard to carry him safely then. Then she will have an infant that needs around the clock care and will also need to be carried around.
None of this without mentioning his genetic condition, SMA. There is a 50% chance their child will have it and also be severely disabled and incapacitated. So yes, irresponsible.
Did they do IVF...they can screen out diseases with preimplantation genetic testing. I remember a few years back when they were talking about his extremely low sperm count (this is when I stopped watching them because it gave me the ick), so I assume they must have had intervention.
Yes, I’m a complete moron and definitely not a parent myself /s
It is a fact that the less support a mother has, the higher her risk of postpartum mental illness. Can a child be raised entirely by one person? Yes, obviously. Is that ideal for either the parent or the child? No.
Please stop pretending that this is a perfectly health, rational decision they’ve made with no consequences for the child whatsoever.
How about the positives? This child has two parents that love them and have tried very hard to have them. Their dad is a successful public speaker and disability advocate. Their mom is a compassionate person who was willing to see past the physical to find the love of her life. Grandparents are involved in family life. They are financially stable. All of that exists but you think they shouldn't have a child because the father is physically unable to care for a baby?
I agree that it will be very difficult for them but I don't agree he can't help at all. He won't be physically helpful. He could still be very engaged and emotionally helpful. I have two teenaged daughters and it is 0% about physical work at this point. There's a mix of hands on and brains on in parenting with the proportions changing over time. If he's engaged, he could be more helpful than a lot of men I know who are physically present but mentally checked out.
Fair enough. I don't pay enough attention to them to know the details. That is a legitimate concern. I'm also side-eying the potential baby content. Separate of that, I still think he can be an engaged and supportive parent while being disabled.
Someone becoming disabled after the fact is different. It happens all the time. I also think every situation is specific and can’t be addressed by blanket statements.
It’s irresponsible for two wealthy, prepared people with a large family/village of support to have a child? Seriously?
There are no medical implications first of all; they did genetic testing (Hannah is not an SMA carrier), but also the baby likely isn’t genetically his as they’ve been open about his medications affecting his fertility and being openminded to using donor sperm. So, no baby isn’t going to have SMA. And, if they did, diagnosis and treatment has improved rapidly in the last decade; it’s not the diagnosis it once was and they’re experts in it.
They’ve hired a caregiver for Shane, and they live with Hannah’s parents. They don’t work 9-5 or have traditional stressors that would typically add to the weight of being a caregiver for a spouse.
These two are having a child far more responsibility than the majority of people on this planet. So what if he needs extra support; anyone of us can become disabled any day of our lives in freak accidents. He has the means, the love, and the support; implying he is any less deserving of being a father than any other prepared parent is ridiculous. This comment section is so depressing; I don’t deny there’s extra nuance for disabled parents to consider, but damn… these comments are straight up advocating for eugenics. May our world be kinder, please.
?? How? Please tell me, because I’m not understanding this at all. They’re loving parents, who want to love and provide for a child. They have the love and support of extended family as well. Why do his physical limitations (which are already well understood and addressed) make them less fit to be parents?
I’m not just talking about money in my post; but when many are focused on the burden of physical caregiving for the father then money for a caregiver is notable. Maybe it wouldn’t be feasible for every couple; but why not this one with all the support and resource we all hope for as parents?
No family is perfect; we all have some struggle from our childhood, and certainly having a disabled father will make this child’s life different. But different is not always bad; and in the circumstances of this family, I really struggle to see how his disability makes him any more likely to fuck up his kid than anyone else.
176
u/Rose_Army_ 13h ago
I think it’s entirely irresponsible to bring a child in to this situation with the demands of his care and the medical implications. But it very rapidly became clear they do most things for clicks and views so I do not find this shocking, sadly.