General discussion - Mom and Dad Esq.

Originally posted by Trepidation_Mom
On that note, we recently got one of those baby-sling things.

I have a Playtex Hip Hammock and really dig it, though I can't really use it now due to waistline expansion. I had a Bjorn - loved it, but yes, it killed my back after he got over about 15lb and I used it for more than about 30min. Would have been even better for a normal sized baby.

[tmdiva]

Originally posted by TexLex
I have a Playtex Hip Hammock and really dig it, though I can't really use it now due to waistline expansion. I had a Bjorn - loved it, but yes, it killed my back after he got over about 15lb and I used it for more than about 30min. Would have been even better for a normal sized baby.

We have a Maya Wrap , which is awesome because it's adjustable and can be worn by both the SFC and me. We used it a lot starting at about 6 months, then occasionally well into toddlerhood when he was having a meltdown and just needed to be carried around to calm down (and, often, fall asleep). Now it's on loan to my sil, and she may end up having to get her own if she decides she'll still want to use it after my niece is about 15 mos. I'm looking forward to trying it with a newborn (we didn't have it when Magnus was that age).

tm

Anybody do it? If so, any advice or recs.?

I've found one independent website, and others for the private banks themselves. Our Doc is screamingly neutral about it. My read is that the practice is a little ahead of the technology; that they don't yet know alot of what to do with it once they have it banked. The science of it sounds oddly like freezing yourself before death so they can thaw you out if they find a cure for what's killing you; the payoff is very speculative. The sales pitch is an instant put-off as well ('insurance policy', 'isn't your child's life worth it?').

Two grand better spent in a college account? Or on a faster plane?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Ex_post_Festo
Anybody do it? If so, any advice or recs.?

I've found one independent website, and others for the private banks themselves. Our Doc is screamingly neutral about it. My read is that the practice is a little ahead of the technology; that they don't yet know alot of what to do with it once they have it banked. The science of it sounds oddly like freezing yourself before death so they can thaw you out if they find a cure for what's killing you; the payoff is very speculative. The sales pitch is an instant put-off as well ('insurance policy', 'isn't your child's life worth it?').

Two grand better spent in a college account? Or on a faster plane?

Thanks.

I think that if you have a family history of the type of conditions that could be potentially cured by banking, then it might be advisable. However, given the expense (initial costs plus annual storage fees), the strong possibility that the amount of blood retrieved would not be enough to help, the fact that they can't say how long the stuff is good frozen (though I have heard newly frozen will last longer due to better storage techniques), and the fact that we have no family history of anything that might be curable*, we decided pretty quickly it was a waste of money for us.

-TL

*Cord blood can't cure asthma, allergies, or "crazy" so our babies are destined to be itchy, wheezy, and nuts, with or without banking.

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by Trepidation_Mom
I was taken to Vegas as a kid. I think I was 6 or 7. It sucked. We stayed at Circus Circus and it still sucked. No matter how much (ostensible) kid-stuff there is, parents in Vegas will still want to go off and drink, gamble and take in a lewd show (in my parents' case, front row seats for Liberace) and generally don't want the kids wandering the hotels unattended, so either the kids are stuck in a room with pay per view and maybe a hotel sitter, or the parents end up doing boring kid stuff with the kids, in which case you might as well go to Chuck E Cheese.

This was back in the mid '70s, of course, when Vegas was still ... well, Vegas. I haven't been back in a while, so past performance does not ensure blah blah blah.

At least if you take them on a cruise you can actually abandon them to do their own thing secure in the knowledge that a pedophile kidnapper can't actually get them off the boat, and you can usually tag them with those nifty "house arrest" ankle bands that let you pinpoint your sprogs' location at all times. Parent's I've spoken to seem to LOOOVE kiddie cruises, and claim you can basically get on the boat, set them loose and pretend you don't have kids for a few days while you drink by the pool, secure in the knowledge that, somewhere out there, they are semi-supervised and have access to food and a bed but not alcohol, porn or your credit cards.

eta: We did do the grand canyon, as well. It was pretty cool, but would have been cooler had my parents let us take the mule ride down into the canyon. (I think their slogan, "we've never lost a mule yet," is no longer true, but at the time my parents took it to heart.) Still: it was cooler than Vegas. Even cooler was the final leg of that trip, however, which was to visit my mom's college friend in San Diego, which involved a trip to the zoo and to Tijuana. Tijuana was crowded, dirty, loud, smelly, and generally a BLAST.

Grand Canyon is defintely worth the trip. Stay on teh rim if you can. Getting off the asphalt probably too much to ask w a 4 YO.

I went to Vegas about 2 years ago and my kid had a blast at the MGM kid's club while my SO and I went out. There was plenty for him to do.

Nevertheless, in the past 2 years kid-friendly stuff has been noticeably scaled down.

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by Ex_post_Festo
Anybody do it? If so, any advice or recs.?

I've found one independent website, and others for the private banks themselves. Our Doc is screamingly neutral about it. My read is that the practice is a little ahead of the technology; that they don't yet know alot of what to do with it once they have it banked. The science of it sounds oddly like freezing yourself before death so they can thaw you out if they find a cure for what's killing you; the payoff is very speculative. The sales pitch is an instant put-off as well ('insurance policy', 'isn't your child's life worth it?').

Two grand better spent in a college account? Or on a faster plane?

Thanks.

Too late for me, as I assume Viet Mom's Biomom chucked her cord already. But I have to admit to thinking of these types of things, to the point of a quick google search (probably after a harrowing day of some toddler-near death-experience) whether human cloning is or isn't available. I admit that if it were possible and pretty guaranteed, I'd strongly think about cloning Viet Babe with her DNA if she (oh how awful to think) died at a young age, even though I know it sounds awful. If I carried her to term myself, I'd have a lot of explaining to do as I guess she wouldn't be adopted anymore. But....I quickly found that the cloning area is rife with religious whackos and dubious claims of some who say they've already cloned people. And also some press reports of a couple (a Senator and his wife I think) who got taken in by the cloning people after they lost their toddler son.

So....if it was safe and possible and you (God Forbid) lost your child at a young age, and all you had to do was provide some hair and other DNA stuff and it could be substituted into an ovum and implanted, would you do it? Would you produce the same child you lost? Heavy thoughts for the weekend!

(And yes I saw that movie with Deniro).

[lookingformarket]

Originally posted by viet_mom
So....if it was safe and possible and you (God Forbid) lost your child at a young age, and all you had to do was provide some hair and other DNA stuff and it could be substituted into an ovum and implanted, would you do it? Would you produce the same child you lost? Heavy thoughts for the weekend!

Hell no. I'd consider creating a mini-me, but I wouldn't replicate one of my kids b/c that just seems wrong. Making a mini-me seems entirely appropriate because it is clearly the act of a wacko.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by viet_mom
So....if it was safe and possible and you (God Forbid) lost your child at a young age, and all you had to do was provide some hair and other DNA stuff and it could be substituted into an ovum and implanted, would you do it? Would you produce the same child you lost? Heavy thoughts for the weekend!

No. What a fucked up concept.

You owe it to your child to grieve for them. You can't substitute another child that's almost exactly like the first(!). That's taking the easy way out. Mourn your child. Remember who they were. Keep a space in your heart for that child always. Trying to fill that spot with a ready-made replacement strikes me as selfish and stupid.

And the fact is, that child is gone. You're not doing the dead child any favors by cloning them. It's not like you're bringing them back. You're not even giving them a chance at life. You're bringing a whole new child into the world, identical DNA or not. The new child with have different experiences, thoughts and connections to people. So, you might as well just have another child.

Thinking about your children as fungible loving units, that should be replaced with a new one if lost, seems sick to me. Interesting topic, but sick.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
No. What a fucked up concept.

Why would you want a living, breathing reminder of that sadness? Inevitably it would not be identical, but just too reminiscent. I'd want to move on as much as possible.

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
No. What a fucked up concept.

You owe it to your child to grieve for them. You can't substitute another child that's almost exactly like the first(!). That's taking the easy way out. Mourn your child. Remember who they were. Keep a space in your heart for that child always. Trying to fill that spot with a ready-made replacement strikes me as selfish and stupid.

And the fact is, that child is gone. You're not doing the dead child any favors by cloning them. It's not like you're bringing them back. You're not even giving them a chance at life. You're bringing a whole new child into the world, identical DNA or not. The new child with have different experiences, thoughts and connections to people. So, you might as well just have another child.

Thinking about your children as fungible loving units, that should be replaced with a new one if lost, seems sick to me. Interesting topic, but sick.

TM

Interesting. I don't know if parents who think about cloning view the child as a fungible unit. I think it's more a desparate ray of hope in a heartbreaking time. For me, I did a quick search on Google, saw that the whole thing was being run by these religious crazies called Raelians (scientists and doctors!) who think the world was made by aliens or something. http://www.clonaid.com/ Between that, and realizing some weird snags (like with the first child being adopted) I was able to say "that's fucked up" in a few minutes. But, I've got a live child and I can see grieving parents going for it if we are able to clone humans. Doctors are saying parents of children who die young are asking about cloning in the droves! Maybe it's that we are increasingly refusing to accept fate. Either way, I would bet that the future brings what these Clonaid groups call "later born twins."

[bilmore]

If you've been working through attention problems with a kid - can't do homework for more than ten minutes, wild mood swings out of frustration, bad grades because he can't focus on a test or a paper, and all the other indicators - and you've resisted drugging your kid because . . . well . . . because it's DRUGGING YOUR KID -

move past that thought and seriously consider it. The new ones don't zombie them out.

Night and day. Happy teachers. Happy friends. Even happier kid.

("Geez, dad, why didn't you get me these a long time ago?")

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
("Geez, dad, why didn't you get me these a long time ago?")

Of course, this is exactly what Less asked his parents when they gave him his first 'ludes, and now he works for carriers, so YMMV about the zombification issue.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you've been working through attention problems with a kid - can't do homework for more than ten minutes, wild mood swings out of frustration, bad grades because he can't focus on a test or a paper, and all the other indicators - and you've resisted drugging your kid because . . . well . . . because it's DRUGGING YOUR KID -

move past that thought and seriously consider it. The new ones don't zombie them out.

Night and day. Happy teachers. Happy friends. Even happier kid.

("Geez, dad, why didn't you get me these a long time ago?")

Out of curiousity, which drugs are the state of the art these days?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Out of curiousity, which drugs are the state of the art these days?

Generally, the nonstimulants. Specifically the point of my post, Straterra.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
No. What a fucked up concept.

That's about right - but I can totally see why people would be interested in it out of desperation, especially if the child was very young (it seems slightly less screwed up that way) or if a parent of the dead child were no longer available or now unable to have kids.

I know how many kids I(we) want and if we lose one (god that's a horrible thought) I still want X many kids, so having another (the old fashioned way) would not replace the first, so much as fill a void in the family.