I was a little confused at first. It's not unusual for a baby to not walk at a year, and there is so much variation in development at this age that it makes no sense to say that a baby at a year is disabled because she's at a 10-month-old level. I assume there is more evidence for the disability. Autism can definitely be diagnosed by the age of two.

I know this will infuriate many readers but there is no scientific evidence for metal, vaccinations and the like in terms of curing autism. Many treatments based on these have been tried, and some people have seen improvement. However, a parent who is devoting that much time and energy to their child is probably going to see improvement even if they gave the kid ice water. Also, comparing areas that began vaccination at certain time points with those that did not showed no real difference in diagnosis rates. So don't beat yourself up over what might have caused it. No one knows what causes autism in most cases. Many of my students have written papers with the original goal of showing that vaccinations cause autism but are disabused by the real science on the subject.

At two years old, there is no telling what the niece can do. The degree of therapy that the LW mentions suggests that everyone is doing all they can do. Early intervention can make a big difference in the life of a child with a serious disability. Other than provide therapy, the best thing you can do is accept that this is how it is.

My most immediate thought was that there is grief and shock after this type of diagnosis but those will subside. Then the family will learn to love and enjoy the child as she is, without constantly comparing her to what she should be. That day will come and it will bring peace. I have a son with Down Syndrome so I know about the shock and the acceptance. I love him the way he is.

The best thing the LW and family can do is to accept the situation and love the child for what she is. She may never be a lawyer, but don't we have enough lawyers?

Rather than saying some cases are genetic while others are environmental, it would be more accurate to say that genetics predisposes some women to anorexia, while other women's genetics lets them off the hook (at least with regard to anorexia). Anorexia as we know it did not truly exist 100 years ago and I am certain we didn't evolve that quickly, so genetics cannot ever be the sole cause. But genetics could be a key reason why some women succumb to the compulsive fear of gaining weight, while other women realize that it's not healthy or genuinely attractive to be that thin.

I haven't read the study but in this type of study the 56/44% would apply to the population studied, and not to any specific individual. Some individuals would be very predisposed while others would not. However, about 44% of the factors that explain anorexia in this group of subjects would be environmental ones.

I checked out one of the websites (Quiverfull) and found a picture of the founder and his family. Obviously they are a mixed-race couple. Am I the only one who finds this ironic? This couple is enjoying the freedom to create a family of their choice, while using Bible verses to deny everyone else a similar choice.

The kicker of course is that interracial marriage was soundly criticized by generations of "Christians", using rhetoric as nonsensical as that of the anti-birth control activists.

On the bright side: maybe this will wake up some of those in the Republican party who remember when it was the party of small government, not the party of the radical right. Maybe,.

I wonder if any of these anti-birth-control advocates think about the effect on children. Would it really be in your children's best interest to continue having babies ad infinitum? I have two children and a job I enjoy, and we can afford a decent house and go on vacation for a week in the summer and take them to the doctor right away when needed and let my daughter take ballet lessons...nothing really fancy, but things you want your kids to have. But apparently some people would prefer that I have fifteen children, not be able to work, feed the family beans and rice every day and pretty much go nuts. How can that possibly be an improvement?

The reality is that parents sometimes need to occupy a small child while they take a quick shower, or engage in a cooking step that must go uninterrupted from start to finish for a few minutes. Sometimes a parent is exhausted or sick and needs the kid to focus on something other than mommy that can keep them busy for more than 30 seconds. That's most parents' reality, so is it so terrible to give them a video that lets them do so without tremendous guilt? Is it so terrible to let a child watch something while Mom's busy that they will actually enjoy and maybe even model? You know what's not terrible? Having a video to fall back on that is NOT BARNEY, that's what.