"Maybe you should think twice about having children."

[Sevaede]

The oh-so-delicate words of my gracious MIL upon learning of the history of autism in my family (one brother just recently diagnosed as having Aspergers Syndrome). Two brothers and one aunt, that I know of.

(Just as a note, we are not planning on having children any time soon, if at all.)

Is autism really such that it should prevent two folks from having children? Would you consider that abuse (or neglectful) if two folks willingly had a child, with one family sides history of autism, and s/he also came out autistic? What's your view on any related question?

[Argranade]

"Maybe you should think twice about having children."

This is what SO many people don't do in life, I would never have a child after seeing my brothers.

That tittle should be the law!

[caseysmom]

My brother has a son with autism, my children didn't get autism. I don't think you can predict autism but I am not sure about that.

[areias]

Now, I am just saying this to any one in particular, and please don't take offence, but I don't think anyone should have a child unless they themselves are prepared to handle birth defects and other problems. I knew someone who gave birth to a child with a deformed back...child lived, but she put it in a foster program. Few months later, she's pregnant again...comes out with a healthy child, and keeps it. That angered me more than anything. But no, I don't believe you shouldn't have children if you have certain disorders in your familys background. No one would be able to have children, then.

[Samantha Puppy]

Human genetics is a crap shoot. You never know what you're going to get. My mother had two children with neural tube defects - my sister, who died at birth, and me. I have always been worried about passing along such defects (anencephaly, spina bifida) to my children. My son's spine is perfect. But his eyes, that's another story. I had no history of his eye problems in my family, nor are they in Josh's. But it happened with Aidan. Am I a bad person because I want to have one or two more children even though the chance of them having my problem (spina bifida) or Aidan's problems (coloboma, etc) are raised? I don't think so. So long as you realize that problems or not, that child is your flesh and blood. Would you love them any less if s/he had Downs Syndrome or Autism or spina bifida? If the answer is yes or maybe, then yes - you ought to think twice before you have any kids. Otherwise, do what your heart says and realize that just because it's in your family doesn't mean a thing.

I knew someone who gave birth to a child with a deformed back...child lived, but she put it in a foster program. Few months later, she's pregnant again...comes out with a healthy child, and keeps it.

That makes me sick.

[Karen]

I moved this into "The Dog House" because the topic is an upsetting one.

I do think people should think at least twice, if not more than twice, about having children, even if everyone on both family trees is perfectly healthy. Having children is not something people should do without thought.

That just my opinion.

However, scientists are not sure of the causes of autism, it is still a mystery in many cases. And autism isn't a death sentence, nor does it mean the child will be any less of a human being, or a good person. Look at Temple Grandin (if you've never heard of her, Google her) and all the good she has done in this world. She's autistic ...

[Pembroke_Corgi]

The cause of autism is still unknown. As of now, we know it tends to run in families but that is by no means an indication that you will have an autistic child. There is a new study that actually links early exposure to television to autism.

Like Karen said, having children should be a well-thought out decision regardless.

[CathyBogart]

I think everyone should think twice, three times, four or more times about having children.

That said however, she should have kept that particular opinion to herself. Whether you have children or not is between you and your DH. As long as you know about the history and are prepared to handle an autistic child should you have one, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't.

I might be concerned for someone whose family carried something like tay-sachs disease (a painful and 100% fatal neurological disorder), but even then I would never EVER presume to tell them they should reconsider reproduction.

I could not see it as abusive or neglectful for someone to have a child if they had a history of autism in their family.

[BC_MoM]

I don't think there's a need to think twice. We just covered genetics in biology.

My teacher asked us, "If you knew that if you had a child, it could potentially have a serious illness, deformity, or mental illness all throughout it's life, would you have one?"

The majority of the class said no - but he said, "Why not? If you knew there was treatment, or help and aid that you could get - why not?"

My Mom is a TA at a school at works with an autistic boy - he is such a funny kid, and quite clever in different ways than the other children - still making him a smart little guy!

I would just ignore what your MIL has to say - it's not her child, it's not her decision.

Human genetics is a crap shoot. You never know what you're going to get.

Clearly you haven't studied genetics in biology lately. It's not a "crap shoot". Ever heard of a punnet square? Or doing a chromosome examination? (maybe not the scientific title - but that's what my bio teacher called it"). There are many different tests that can be done to determine the chances of a child(ren) having different problems - all of them very accurate!!

[CathyBogart]

Clearly you haven't studied genetics in much depth. No matter how much genetic testing you may do, it is still a crapshoot. There is no way to know EVERYTHING that you carry in your genes.

If the families of both you and your partner carried a recessive gene for a disease like cystic fibrosis and it had never before appeared in wither family, how would you know to look for it? (Yes, I know CF is commonly tested for now anyways, I just used it as an example)

There aren't tests that exist for every disease. Less than 2% of Down's syndrome cases are hereditary. There is no way to predict over 98% of Down's syndrome cases, though we do know that the risk increases as the woman gets older.

There is no 100%. I don't care if you are the finest genetecist(sp?!) in the world, you still cannot predict with ANY certainty that your child will be free from disease.

[K9karen]

Genetics is a crap shoot, I agree. Plus, some problems skip generations.

But I did know someone whose grandson was born with Cystic Fibrosis. Apparently, it takes both parents to carry the gene. There was no evidence that anyone in either family had it. But what were the chances of 2 people meeting, marrying and both carrying this gene? Anyway, the poor child had so many surgeries by his first year, and is still quite ill. They were told NOT to have another child because there was a very high percentage of CP happening again. There was an unexpected pregnancy, and now, the daughter, is worse off than her brother. So, so sick. Both grandmothers quit their jobs to "babysit". They had to learn medical procedures in case of an emergency. Etc.

I think in this case, knowing the odds, the suffering of these defensive children, the life span, an accidental pregnancy could have been avoided.

[Pam]

This is a decision that the potential parents, and them alone, must make. I would rather see someone take the stand that they won't have children in the face of a questionable *gene pool* rather than have a problem confirmed on a routine ultrasound and then decide to abort.

My daughter's last pregnancy, that brought forth sweet precious adorable Jeremy was scary. Her ultrasounds showed that something was wrong with his kidneys and they didn't know what. It could have been a sign of Downs Syndrome or any one of a number of things. They were even sent to talk with a genetic counselor. After he was born they thought it was polycystic kidney disease (a hereditary disease,) meaning that she and her hubby each carried a gene for it even though there were no family members on either side with the condition.

Well, it turns out that Jeremy is a healthy little guy. His kidneys are still somewhat bright on ultrasound but the diagnosis is not nearly as ominous as at first. The nephrologists feels it isn't PKD thank God and she has been told to treat him as a normal child.

I say all of that just to say that even when you think you have no family history of a problem you just might, so in that way I feel that it is indeed a crap shoot. If, however, you come from, for example, a Jewish background and there is a history of Tay Sachs disease you might do well to think long and hard about the repercussions of bringing a sick child into this world who might only live to the age of 5.

Regarding autism, I know little except that my co-worker has a son with Asperger syndrome which is very similar to autism. He is now 15 and in a special school but doing pretty well. She did go ahead and have another child who is completely normal.

[Muddy4paws]

Now, I am just saying this to any one in particular, and please don't take offence, but I don't think anyone should have a child unless they themselves are prepared to handle birth defects and other problems. I knew someone who gave birth to a child with a deformed back...child lived, but she put it in a foster program. Few months later, she's pregnant again...comes out with a healthy child, and keeps it. That angered me more than anything. But no, I don't believe you shouldn't have children if you have certain disorders in your familys background. No one would be able to have children, then.

You said it perfectly! As long as the parents are willing to look after their children no matter what I think its the parents joined decision and no one elses.

[Twisterdog]

My husband and I were just talking about this the other night, after watching that show "Little People, Big World."

First of all, that was not a very polite thing of your mother in law to say, if she said it out of the blue. If you two are close, and were already having a serious conversation on the topic, then I could see the subject coming up. But just to spout that off out of nowhere, that's in very bad taste.

Secondly, I don't know enough about the genetics of autism to comment on that disease specifically. My great-nephew has autism and has suffered SO much in life. But no one else in the family has it.

I, personally, would not choose to have children if I knew I carried a gene for a disease that could be passed on to them. I'm not talking about some minor thing, but a serious disease. I would not intentionally inflict that on another human being, especially my own child.

What I have always been appalled by is parents who continue to have more and more children knowing there is a good chance they will have a disease, after their first child is born with it and they have genetic testing done. And these people always seem to rate television programs talking about their 3 out of 4 children born with whatever genetic disease. I just don't see how anyone could possibly do that ... look at this little, innocent child suffering, going to die an early death, terribly ill for all of its childhood ... and think, "Oh, honey, let's have four more kids. Odds are only three of them will have it." OMG. I just don't get it. Of course, they don't know until the first child is born that they carry the genes. That's a sad fact of life. But to intentionally put other human beings through hell, knowing they stand a very good chance of having the disease and consciously choosing it anyway? That's so incredibly wrong to me. If they want more kids, adopt.

[timlewis]

I have 2 children when my wife was pregnant the 2nd time they run tests and told us it might have some kind of disease. They wanted to send her to another hospoital to have blood took from her cord to see if Emma had this disease, im not sure what it was some of you all probably know what they check the cord for. Anyway we decided she should not go because no matter what she was still our baby and we would love her just as much. So i myself dont think it would matter even if your baby has autism you will love the child the same, and as the mother you may be closer to him or her because youu will be giving more attention raising the child. And I also believe that GOD will give you whatever he sees fit for you and your husband. And Emma is fine she is a healthy mean little girl lol.