Though, from what I've read elsewhere, the couple weren't even close to following the more nutritionally sound vegan-diet-for-babies. I don't have the link offhand, but it was by a vegan and it ripped them to shreds, basically implying that what they fed their baby wasn't vegan so much as retarded. There are, apparently, carefully formulated vegan diets that take into account amino-acid, etc issues, and these two didn't even begin to follow any of those recommendations and were more along the lines of "Hey, soy milk is kind of like breast milk, right?"
Not that I know all the details, but as far as I understand it, what they fed their baby was a healthy balanced vegan diet the same way rice cakes and crystal light is a healthy balanced low-fat diet. Not to say that "healthy balanced vegan baby diet" might still not be an oxymoron, but what they did wasn't that.
Anyway, if god/nature didn't intend for me to eat meat, I wouldn't have canine teeth and meat wouldn't be so tasty. But I do. And it is. All things in moderation, including moderation.
God did intend for humans to eat meat because we have the very specific enzyme necessary to digest it. that's why we have it.
i don't know the details about this case either but you [collectively] cannot put the words "balanced" and "vegan" in the same sentence because, by definition, a vegan diet isn't.
i have no problem with the personal nutrition choices folks make because it doesn't impact me one way or the other. i just don't believe it's healthy, never have, and it's slowly starting to look like science is backing that up. emmocv.
and i hope that didn't read like i was disagreeing with your God/nature comment. i just reread that while replying to kerne and i seem to be missing some relevant data, like, you know, the right words. d'oh.
The way I understand it, it can be done, but but it's not remotely easy and you need the next thing to a degree in nutrition to pull it off. These idiots can't have done any research whatsoever.
well, and why would you *want* to do that to a baby without first discussing it with your pediatrician? honestly, just put a bullet in the kid's head, it'll hurt less.
well, and why would you *want* to do that to a baby
My guess is fanaticism. It shuts down the brain. They had to be fanatics if they were sucked so far into the ideology that they they wouldn't even feed a newborn breastmilk, or bring the baby to a doctor when it became obvious that the baby wasn't thriving.
Either that or mental illness. I remember those first weeks with D when he wouldn't eat or sleep properly. I was suffering from sleep deprivation on top of hormones on top of fustration, and some of the things that went through my head at that time scare the hell out of me in retrospect.
i can only imagine, and yet you still managed to raise healthy kids. you had a peds doc, you talked to your peds doc, and knowing you as i'm pretty sure i do, you and the man spent loads of time reading up on all the things associated with raising healthy rugrats.
spent loads of time reading up on all the things associated with raising healthy rugrats
That's because I'm an amature semi-acedemic and books are my version of a security blanket, and I don't understand people whos reflexive reaction to fear and uncertainty doesn't involve reading everything possible on the subject :) I also had the advantage of a lot of reasonibly sane family nearby.
The thing is that the experience gave me a POV where one can do crazy things to their kids and not, necessarily, be a monster. I wasn't there, but I could see there from the place I was. It's an odd and uncomfortable POV to have. I don't think that it's the case here, because even if the Mom was around the bend with post-partum depression or hormone-induced ideological tunnel vision, the dad doesn't have any such excuse.
and I don't understand people whos reflexive reaction to fear and uncertainty doesn't involve reading everything possible on the subject :)
YES!!!!! go *do* something about what you don't understand./confused
and yeah, i wouldn't call it "monster" either - neither your example nor the case in question - and i totally get the distinction and agree with you; but like you the dad AT LEAST should have known better.
Sorry, a lack of knowledge is no excuse, IMO. Did they get pre-natal care and discuss nutrition w/ the doc? Failure to thrive? Did they take the child in for a post-natal check-up? At least now they won't be able to reproduce again, though perhaps they've learned the diet lesson.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 02:18 am (UTC)Not that I know all the details, but as far as I understand it, what they fed their baby was a healthy balanced vegan diet the same way rice cakes and crystal light is a healthy balanced low-fat diet. Not to say that "healthy balanced vegan baby diet" might still not be an oxymoron, but what they did wasn't that.
Anyway, if god/nature didn't intend for me to eat meat, I wouldn't have canine teeth and meat wouldn't be so tasty. But I do. And it is. All things in moderation, including moderation.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 02:50 am (UTC)i don't know the details about this case either but you [collectively] cannot put the words "balanced" and "vegan" in the same sentence because, by definition, a vegan diet isn't.
i have no problem with the personal nutrition choices folks make because it doesn't impact me one way or the other. i just don't believe it's healthy, never have, and it's slowly starting to look like science is backing that up. emmocv.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 03:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 03:41 am (UTC)*shakes head* So many people who can't have children, and idiots like these kill their own through ignorance and stupidity.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 03:46 am (UTC)yes, this.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 01:25 am (UTC)My guess is fanaticism. It shuts down the brain. They had to be fanatics if they were sucked so far into the ideology that they they wouldn't even feed a newborn breastmilk, or bring the baby to a doctor when it became obvious that the baby wasn't thriving.
Either that or mental illness. I remember those first weeks with D when he wouldn't eat or sleep properly. I was suffering from sleep deprivation on top of hormones on top of fustration, and some of the things that went through my head at that time scare the hell out of me in retrospect.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 02:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 02:50 am (UTC)That's because I'm an amature semi-acedemic and books are my version of a security blanket, and I don't understand people whos reflexive reaction to fear and uncertainty doesn't involve reading everything possible on the subject :) I also had the advantage of a lot of reasonibly sane family nearby.
The thing is that the experience gave me a POV where one can do crazy things to their kids and not, necessarily, be a monster. I wasn't there, but I could see there from the place I was. It's an odd and uncomfortable POV to have. I don't think that it's the case here, because even if the Mom was around the bend with post-partum depression or hormone-induced ideological tunnel vision, the dad doesn't have any such excuse.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 04:05 am (UTC)YES!!!!! go *do* something about what you don't understand./confused
and yeah, i wouldn't call it "monster" either - neither your example nor the case in question - and i totally get the distinction and agree with you; but like you the dad AT LEAST should have known better.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 03:21 am (UTC)