"Maybe you should think twice about having children."

[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.

[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.

[Samantha Puppy]

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!!

Is there a reason you put this in size 1 font?

What I meant was, there is no way to test for all the little blips that can happen when a human is forming, so in that way, it is a crap shoot. As I said before, I have spina bifida and was always terrified of passing it along to my children. Aidan's spine is perfectly formed, but he has eye issues - none of which we have any record of on either side of our family.

[BC_MoM]

EVERYONE knows that you can't know 100% what will affect your child, if anything. Genetics is probability.

I still think that all of you calling genetics a crap shoot is way too strong.

[Twisterdog]

EVERYONE knows that you can't know 100% what will affect your child, if anything. Genetics is probability.

I still think that all of you calling genetics a crap shoot is way too strong.

I agree.

Some things are difficult to predict based on genetics. Eye color, for example, is very complex and hard to predict. (For example, my mom has dark brown eyes, by dad has blue eyes ... a rudimentary guess would be that 3/4 to 4/4 of the children might have brown eyes, and 1/4 to 0/4 would have blue eyes ... since dark is generally dominant over light. However, one of my brothers has brown eyes, one had blue eyes, and my sister and I have bright green eyes ... a color not seen anywhere else on either side of our family.)

However, some things are much more predictable. If both parents carry the gene for a disease, and it is known whether the gene is dominant or recessive, there is a very good chance of predicting the likely percentage of offspring to carry the gene in it's recessive form, and to actually be afflicted with the disease.

There is also a big difference in not knowing anything about your or your partner's genetic map (who does, for the most part?) when deciding to have your first child and in knowing with perfect certainty that you and your partner carry a defective gene, after the birth of a child with the disease, and deciding to have more children knowing full well what the probability is of passing on the disease.

Of course, no one can predict the health of any baby with perfect certainty. But if you have the odds laid out in front of you ... there is a 50% chance, or a 75% chance, that's pretty cut and dried. That's not a "crap shoot", that's a moral and ethical choice, based on scientific information.

[carole]

Thanks Glacier for the info regarding the CF, i was uncertain about that part, and yes most people do not have a clue that they are carriers, honestly if everyone got tested for every possiblility, I think the human race would die out for sure, and i so agree with you on that Glacier.

[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.

[carole]

Ok well at about 19 when i was single i was told the news that we have a hereditary disease in our family Huntingdons Chorea, at that time it did not mean too much to me and as i was not looking at marriage or having children i gave it not much thought.

Now as you all know i have two children, for those who do not know much about the disease, it is one that can be passed on and does not usually hit until say mid fifties and onwards,it is not a very pleasant one and yes eventually leads to death,I and all my cousins decided to have children because one there is a good chance if my mother does not get this disease then i will not and neither will my children, so far my mother does not have it and is in her seventies, it is looking good but we can only live in hope, there is also a chance of a cure before my children reach this age, and that is why i chose to have children, because one they may not even get it and two a cure could be available by then,i also figured the chances of getting cancer are probably higher,some may see this as the wrong choice , but i certainly do not and do not regret having had my scott and Melissa.

I also have known people with children with cystic fibrosis,infact my ex husbands sister had a son with it,having a second child would not be a good idea in this case, as they too would have it, is that correct?

I think it really is up to the individuals to make the decision, having autism etc in the family certainly would not stop me having a child,as long as you are willing to take on the responsibility of that child, it is no ones business but your own IMO.

[Glacier]

I also have known people with children with cystic fibrosis,infact my ex husbands sister had a son with it,having a second child would not be a good idea in this case, as they too would have it, is that correct?

Not quite. There is a one in four chance that the child of two CF carriers would be born with the disease. Both parents must be carriers for any of their offspring to get CF. However, unaffected children would be carriers and potentially pass the disease on to their children, if they had kids with another carrier. The vast majority of people have no idea if they are carriers of CF or most other genetic diseases. (My sister was misdiagnosed with CF many years ago)

My brother suffers from Hemachromatosis, the most common genetic disease among caucasions. He is the only affected person on any side of his family(we have different mothers so he has some different relatives than I do). His specialist says the disease has been in our family somewhere for generations, but it requires specific triggers to activate it. Big bro' just happened to do the things that set it off. He had three kids by the time he was diagnosed.

If everyone decided not to have kids because of some genetic possiblity, no one would have them! Every family has a diabetic, an alcoholic, a cancer patient, ect, ect, ect......