

Well, this is the worse scenario. If he goes down the “FASD route” it will be rather easy to debunk. An “increased risk” route will be much vaguer, more believable, and harder to disprove.
This might also go down the route of “if it wasn’t safe in the womb we should think twice about giving it to my baby who has a high fever” resulting in brain damage and death. (For the record: Fever is good, but high fever in babies is dangerous.)
This, then, adds up to “I didn’t give my baby tylenol when it had a fever, then it was hospitalized, they gave tylenol after all, now the kid has XYZ, it was the tylenol”.
That’s true, there isn’t much sadness going around. It reminds me a bit of the reaction to the healthcare CEO shooting.
I remember the take that resonated with me the most was in a piece by Josh Johnson at that time. He first told a story about a friend named Marty that had died from disease. “Brian Thompson was a human being. He was a husband, a father. Ok. So was Marty.” It feels the same this time around.
It is sad that a person died. It is sad that kids are now left without a father. But you can simultaneously acknowledge that the person who has died has actively helped to create more people who lost their loved ones. And once you do that, it is hard to hold up the general sympathy.
It’s not my thing to celebrate the death of a person. No matter how evil. I cannot wholeheartedly yell out good riddance. But weighing one against the other, I can’t force a tear.