"Maybe you should think twice about having children."

[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.