Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know someone who has the Huntington's gene. Although she would probably have had no trouble conceiving naturally, she chose to do an in vitro and had the embryo tested to make sure it did not carry the gene. She now has a healthy child who, whatever diseases or conditions it may or may not eventually get, at least won't get Huntington's. I can certainly understand not wanting to pass that disease on. So, given that the parent knows about the existence of a devastating gene and has enough money, this process is an option.
Honestly, passing a severe genetic disease is NOT a good idea, to say the least. Sometimes it's better not to burden a child with something like Down Syndrome or any other disease (Besides, people with Down Syndrome won't usually get a viable pregnancy). The child will obviously be bullied by the rather obnoxious people some schools have to offer. Insecurity will be a much larger problem once the child realizes he is different. The parents would be very selfish to procreate and burden a child with such a complicated disease. Adoption is a very reasonable answer - if the parents are ready to raise a child, then by all means, they should. But crippling a child with the same disease that crippled you is cruel, especially when you know how it feels to have the problem. Younger kids with disabilities are hard to deal with. I have experience helping kids with autism, and many have expressed concerns about "falling behind" of the other kids. Most are afraid to socialize, fearing they will be made fun of. The same applies to kids with other genetic developmental disabilities. Even worse if they affect the physical features. Only bulling and pain will come out of it.
If "society" starts to ban people who carry certain undesirable genes (for Alzheimers, cancer, Parkinsons, MS, whatever) from reproducing, the human race would die off pretty quickly....
Interesting group of conditions there ... Were those choices deliberate? Or just random?
Well, either way ... hmm. Alzheimer’s, four very specific types of cancer, Parkinson’s & MS are forms of Teratogenic conditions. There is no Alzheimer’s gene. You could not detect future Alzheimer’s by prenatal screening.
You can detect a gene that is susceptible to causing neuroinflammation when exposed to a certain chemical, bacteria or virus. But having the gene doesn’t mean you are doomed; it just means we have to figure out what that trigger is. Every single condition you chose is an equation: susceptible gene + neuroinflammation= condition.
Many people may not be aware that Down’s is not inherited. It’s a random, abnormal occurrence involving an entire extra chromosome.
That should apply to all genetic diseases, like schizophrenia.
Teratogenic. So is Autism, btw. A gene that is susceptible to an “agent” (chemical, bacterial or viral) + that agent, causing neuroinflammation = condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Okay, fine, let's do that, but then don't come begging to me for an handout, saying you need Food Stamps, or you need government subsidized housing, or you need tax-payer funded health care, or you need special schools with special teachers or you need something else at my expense.
Mircea
There are many disabled children whose parents are well off enough that they don’t even qualify for EBT, SSI, etc. There are many non-disabled people who wind up on subsidies, even through no fault of their own.
People are permanently injured in the workplace or on the highways. There are hurricanes, fires & floods. And early-childhood intervention with SPED is the best thing we have to increase a child’s chance that they will be able to contribute vs being a burden as an adult. That’s an investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme
Many adoptees have suffered sexual, emotional, & mental abuse at the hands of their adoptive parents as well. Abuse exists across all classes & most abuse goes unreported, so home studies really aren't that effective in weeding out potential abusers.
We would do better to eradicate child abuse if we outlawed single mom’s being allowed to date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingwater
From a personal perspective I would not have children if I knew a genetic disease ran in my family but I know someone and this person's mother that feel the opposite. Cystic fibrosis runs heavily in their family. In fact she is the only surviving sibling out of 4 children. Her mother's only regret is that she didnt have more children. Even though this woman watched all her siblings die from this disease she went on to have 5 children of her own. None of her children developed the disease so in her mind, her mother was right. Its more about god than science in their opinion.
Ah. Now that is an example of an inherited, genetic condition(recessive). It only occurs when both parents have the abnormal gene. If both parents are carriers, the baby has a 25% chance of having CF.
If medicine can advanced where genes can be selected. That would resolve this issue.
With many the many conditions that are Teratogenic, we already have the capability to predict & prevent (but only to a certain extent. There will always be the chance of random exposure). Yet nothing is being resolved. This is where we go from a slippery slope to a sheer cliff off of an iceberg.
From a personal perspective I would not have children if I knew a genetic disease ran in my family but I know someone and this person's mother that feel the opposite. Cystic fibrosis runs heavily in their family. In fact she is the only surviving sibling out of 4 children. Her mother's only regret is that she didnt have more children. Even though this woman watched all her siblings die from this disease she went on to have 5 children of her own. None of her children developed the disease so in her mind, her mother was right. Its more about god than science in their opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
Ah. Now that is an example of an inherited, genetic condition(recessive). It only occurs when both parents have the abnormal gene. If both parents are carriers, the baby has a 25% chance of having CF.
I found out during my second pregnancy that I am a CF carrier. My husband was tested and he was not. So no matter how many children we had, none of them would have been affected by CF.
It's highly likely the husband of the woman whose siblings had CF knows that he is not a carrier, and the woman herself may not be either. Therefore none of their children could have had CF and people wagging their fingers and judging her for "rolling the dice" by having 5 children should just shut up. It is about science.
The part of the story that is unlikely is that 3 out of 4 children of a couple who are both CF carriers have the disease. It could happen, but the odds are 1/64.
For example Huntington's disease is an absolutely devastating and horrible condition. What makes it worse also is that it is an autosomal dominant defect, meaning you only need one copy from one afflicted parent (not two).
Should someone with Huntington's disease be allowed to procreate and have kids that can suffer the same horrific consequence as them with a condition that has no cure?
Government regulation of private lives to this degree doesn't work. Prohibition didn't work, the drug war doesn't work, and the genetic war won't work either. All that happens is that we lose our constitutional rights and the government moves closer to fascism.
One of my old school classmates was a girl whose father had, from my understanding, severe hemophilia. She did a presentation on it in middle school, and understood then that any son she bore would be at high risk for it. She now has a son with the disease. I'm not sure I could have taken the risk.
Laws against procreation by people with certain genetic-disease, nah. But I think the people who have these genetic-diseases, should really think long and hard about what they are passing-on to their potential offspring, BEFORE they make the decision about procreation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though this woman watched all her siblings die from this disease she went on to have 5 children of her own. None of her children developed the disease so in her mind, her mother was right. Its more about god than science in their opinion.
