"Maybe you should think twice about having children."

[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.

[columbine]

I totally agree with everyone who said that genetics is just too complicated to predict with any kind of accuracy, and that people who aren't in a position to raise a special-needs child (e.g. wage-earners, as opposed to well-heeled professionals or people already on public assistance anyway) do well to consider the possibility before starting a family.

Love, Columbine

[Samantha Puppy]

But science is nowhere near advanced enough to be able to tell you if you have a 1% chance or a 99% chance on some things. My son's eye issues, for example. We've enrolled our family in a study at NIH to try and learn more about it. Is it hereditary? Or a fluke? Are his other issues connected to the eye issue or not? Is it all related to his two-vessel cord? The purpose of the study is to try and find the gene affected and get to the point where they could tell people the chances of them having children with those issues.

For some things - neural tube defects, just to name one - they have come up with ways to test for the liklihood. But there are sooooo many other kinks that can come up and no tests for those. Therefore, though your eyes may be 20/20 and your spouse also has no history of any eye problems in his family either, doesn't mean your children won't. In that respect, it's a crap shoot. It may be already predisposed, but you don't know that until they're born. That's my point. The science of genetics is not. The fact that we can't test for everything and often can't find out until the child is born is where my "crap shoot" term comes into play.