I know I'm risking some flack for that particular term, but I wanted to explore this thought: Have you ever considered not having children due to illness which may have a strong hereditary factor (or indeed, entirely genetic)? It's something I've thought about from time to time, and being an avid dog person, the concept of "responsible breeding" (especially in regards to health) comes up quite frequently in the field - hence the title. Please note this is not a topic on restricting rights of procreation, just as a personal choice. What severity and loss to quality of life would you consider to be too great to risk? What level of risk (e.g. 50% or more)?
An awful disability rated at 100 x a probability of 1% = 1
Deafness rated at 5 x a probability of 20% = 1
A result over 1 could be considered to risky, how you actually rate the disability would be a personal thing.
I'm not aware of any family history that puts us at higher risk of having a child with a horrible illness. But I plan on doing some minimal genetics testing to make sure we aren't at high risk of some of the major untreatable stuff. Then there is also testing that can be done during pregnancy and they can detect things a lot earlier now than they could not too long ago (things like downs can be picked up by blood samples now rather than amneosynthesis..not sure how it works though, just read something about it briefly). I will not bring a child into the world knowing that s/he will have some large disability that makes independence or quality of life impossible...it's not fair to the child to make them go through that when they wouldn't have to and I just don't' think I have it in me to deal with a special needs for the rest of someone's life.
Don't worry, Dober. Not many of us are offended.
I've thought of this topic a lot. I think everyone should be screened if they are thinking of kids. Play it safe, right?
Personally, having kids is overated, especially considering how many people infest this earth.
Meh, that's just me.
Interesting question. I didn't know until I got pregnant with T, but apparently I am a carrier for the Cystic Fibrosis gene. That one came out of left field, it is just part of the standard testing that my ob does when you get pregnant. Following that, we got Husband tested, and found out that he is not a carrier, so T may also be a carrier, but he was not at risk for the actual disease. If it had turned out that Husband was also a carrier, we would not have terminated, but we wouldn't have gone on to have more children either.
My husband is from Newfoundland, my mom's family is from Nova Scotia and my Dad was born in Montreal (one of his parents was french and the other was a Brit), so I knew our son's genes were going to be relatively diverse. Newfoundland itself has a pretty small gene pool (one of my husband's grandmother's had a really rare disorder due to this fact), so, I think, if I had actually been born there and my parents had been from there I would have seriously considered testing.
As it stood, I was 24 when I got pregnant and both my husband and I had been pretty healthy most of our lives without any really apparent issues in our immediate family so we decided to "roll the dice", as it were.
With the alleged wisdom of age, I think now I should have at least posed the question- do I really want to be responsible for producing another me? Fortunately for them (and me) they in fact avoided that dire fate.
Quote from: En_Route on February 21, 2012, 11:17:35 PM
With the alleged wisdom of age, I think now I should have at least posed the question- do I really want to be responsible for producing another me? Fortunately for them (and me) they in fact avoided that dire fate.
not only does the idea of having a child physically repulse me, I know I am not only not nuturing , but too selfish to think about diapers, food, schooling , and everything else it takes to raise another human being.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 22, 2012, 12:00:26 AM
Quote from: En_Route on February 21, 2012, 11:17:35 PM
With the alleged wisdom of age, I think now I should have at least posed the question- do I really want to be responsible for producing another me? Fortunately for them (and me) they in fact avoided that dire fate.
not only does the idea of having a child physically repulse me, I know I am not only not nuturing , but too selfish to think about diapers, food, schooling , and everything else it takes to raise another human being.
I like the idea of raising a human being from infancy to adulthood. Part of it has to do with my fascination about the world, and I like the idea of passing on this fascination, teaching and nurturing and eventually finding out what sort of human came out of my genetics and muddling attempts at child-raising. I also confess to liking the idea that half of me lives on after my death - not referring to just genes, but also in their values, memories, and (hopefully) eternal curiosity. It's a selfish and biological motivation, and I haven't decided on whether it's something that if I didn't do, I would regret.
What I also consider is the hereditary illnesses that I have . . . these things have not only set me back in life, but have made living a lot harder (not nearly as hard as some, but still). And it's likely to get harder yet, as I get older. I do not regret being born, though, and I am happy to have the opportunity to live. Do I risk fulfilling an essentially selfish motivation, knowing the high possibility that my offspring may face the same difficulties? Is this very different from those who 'roll the dice', not quite knowing the odds? I try not to live my life by 'what ifs', but there's enough on the list that I've regretted already.
Kate, in my admittedly limited experience (only have one, and he's only almost 4) raising a child is one of the most appealing and fulfilling ways to spend time I can think of. Selfish or not, I can't even tell you how cool I think it is. He's currently been wearing his Batman mask for 3 straight days and counting (and insisting that everyone call him Batman) and I couldn't be more charmed.
I fully agree that if someone thinks that raising a child is not for them, they should avoid it. Raising a kid basically means that you never get to sleep in or watch adult themed movies before 8:30 pm or spend the day laying on the couch reading a book. It's a big job, not for the queasy of tummy or faint of heart, and if someone is not up for it, I fully encourage them to skip it. But for those of us who want and like it, it's awesome. I think it's supposed to be - it's built into most of our genes, or else the species would have died out a long time ago.
[
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 05:12:21 AMWhat severity and loss to quality of life would you consider to be too great to risk? What level of risk (e.g. 50% or more)?
Well, many conditions can be restored, regenerated or substituted adequately.
nasty conditions with 100% lethality before adulthood- so misery and pain for childhood, qualify clearly
legs, arms, sight, hearing handicaps do not qualify, an otherwise healthy CNS evolves and expands to miraculous new territories
mental retardation, neurological disorders is a tricky one. I can't say with percentages none qualify. If you can relate to a pet iguana or a pet snake, or be a companion to a dog, a retarded kid may not be such an abomination
I got pregnant at 22, back when my life was a lot more stable, I had a much better income, and things were more balanced in a lot of ways. At the time, it made perfect sense... as things only can when you're in your early 20s. :D I chose to have her a bit earlier, because of a family history of pregnancy issues past the age of 25 or so. My kiddo is also nearly 4, and she's the joy of my life. I got pregnant deliberately -- without going into details, let's just say I had to methodically make choices I wouldn't ordinarily make in order to have her, but it was more than worth it. :) Her dad is one of my best friends, and he adores her as much as I do. Our decision at the time worked for us, and it's still working now, very well. She's funny, smart, very cute, and just an awesome little girl.
That being said, he and I had serious conversations about whether or not to even try for a child. Depression runs in our families, but we decided that since it's treatable, there wasn't enough of a risk to choose not to have a child. Cancer runs in my family, and it runs in his. We've both lost more than a couple relatives to it. We made the choice to go ahead anyhow though, because anyone in our families who had cancer developed it after the age of 50. No childhood diseases, nothing that would claim a young person's life in their mid 20s or 30s. When it came right down to it, we both agreed that we would NOT go ahead with a pregnancy if something excruciatingly painful or delibitating were discovered -- it wouldn't be fair to our child. We didn't think it right to go ahead and have a child if her childhood would likely be stolen from her, if she'd have a life of pain and agony. Thankfully, nothing at all was discovered that would be problematic... so we went ahead, and we celebrated when she was born.
Looking back on it all, now, I wonder about the depression risk. I wonder about the cancer risk. I wonder if we were selfish, to want a child who might have an ordinary life for the most part but might still struggle with these issues later on. Maybe we were selfish, but we wanted to share our love of kids and life with a child, so... I think our hearts were in the right place. When it comes down to it, a lot of families are affected by these common issues, anyhow, and most families go ahead and have kids anyway. I don't know. All I know is that I don't regret my choice. If there is such a thing as having a 'calling' in life... being her mommy's it for me, until the day I die.
We all die of illness, accident or old age in the end. So roll the dice.
Quote from: Amicale on March 17, 2012, 05:39:09 AM
I got pregnant at 22, back when my life was a lot more stable, I had a much better income, and things were more balanced in a lot of ways. At the time, it made perfect sense... as things only can when you're in your early 20s. :D I chose to have her a bit earlier, because of a family history of pregnancy issues past the age of 25 or so. My kiddo is also nearly 4, and she's the joy of my life. I got pregnant deliberately -- without going into details, let's just say I had to methodically make choices I wouldn't ordinarily make in order to have her, but it was more than worth it. :) Her dad is one of my best friends, and he adores her as much as I do. Our decision at the time worked for us, and it's still working now, very well. She's funny, smart, very cute, and just an awesome little girl.
That being said, he and I had serious conversations about whether or not to even try for a child. Depression runs in our families, but we decided that since it's treatable, there wasn't enough of a risk to choose not to have a child. Cancer runs in my family, and it runs in his. We've both lost more than a couple relatives to it. We made the choice to go ahead anyhow though, because anyone in our families who had cancer developed it after the age of 50. No childhood diseases, nothing that would claim a young person's life in their mid 20s or 30s. When it came right down to it, we both agreed that we would NOT go ahead with a pregnancy if something excruciatingly painful or delibitating were discovered -- it wouldn't be fair to our child. We didn't think it right to go ahead and have a child if her childhood would likely be stolen from her, if she'd have a life of pain and agony. Thankfully, nothing at all was discovered that would be problematic... so we went ahead, and we celebrated when she was born.
Looking back on it all, now, I wonder about the depression risk. I wonder about the cancer risk. I wonder if we were selfish, to want a child who might have an ordinary life for the most part but might still struggle with these issues later on. Maybe we were selfish, but we wanted to share our love of kids and life with a child, so... I think our hearts were in the right place. When it comes down to it, a lot of families are affected by these common issues, anyhow, and most families go ahead and have kids anyway. I don't know. All I know is that I don't regret my choice. If there is such a thing as having a 'calling' in life... being her mommy's it for me, until the day I die.
Love this post. :)
It's definitely important to take genetic factors into consideration before having a child, for a whole host of reasons, but most importantly is so the child doesn't have to suffer through this wonderful experience we call life. In my family, things like depression and substance abuse are most common place, with genetic abnormalities largely unknown, at least on my side of the family tree. Cancer causing tobacco has ended both my maternal grandparents rather early. Being from a semi-economically depressed are can explain some of these issues, none of which would've prevented me from having any children. I, myself, have asthma and allergies, and worry that my kids may develop these, but nothing TOO serious in my book. However, after the birth of our second daughter, almost two years ago, my wife was diagnosed with common variable immunodeficiency, which has genetic components, but is too complex to predict the probability of it showing up in our children. Her particular illness requires regular infusions of igG, so as you can see, if one of our children is to get this is, it would be quite a burden for them for the rest of their lives. We've had both our children checked, but nothing significant has shown up so far. Needless to say, we would probably have "rolled the die" and had children anyways because kids are just AMAZING!!! :)
Quote from: Jimmy on March 28, 2012, 02:41:26 PM
It's definitely important to take genetic factors into consideration before having a child, for a whole host of reasons, but most importantly is so the child doesn't have to suffer through this wonderful experience we call life. In my family, things like depression and substance abuse are most common place, with genetic abnormalities largely unknown, at least on my side of the family tree. Cancer causing tobacco has ended both my maternal grandparents rather early. Being from a semi-economically depressed are can explain some of these issues, none of which would've prevented me from having any children. I, myself, have asthma and allergies, and worry that my kids may develop these, but nothing TOO serious in my book. However, after the birth of our second daughter, almost two years ago, my wife was diagnosed with common variable immunodeficiency, which has genetic components, but is too complex to predict the probability of it showing up in our children. Her particular illness requires regular infusions of igG, so as you can see, if one of our children is to get this is, it would be quite a burden for them for the rest of their lives. We've had both our children checked, but nothing significant has shown up so far. Needless to say, we would probably have "rolled the die" and had children anyways because kids are just AMAZING!!! :)
Yes they are! :)
I would have LOVED to have two, and I'm not totally counting out having another, but before I did that a few things would need to be more stable than they are right now. So for now, I'll just be content with the one I have. I adore my daughter and I know I talk about her far too much on this site :D but I can't even begin to describe how much JOY she brings to my life. She just lights up a room. I never have, and never will, love anyone more than I love her. Even through the sleepless nights when she was a baby, and the teething and the getting into a million things, she's just a joy. I'm so glad you have two awesome daughters, that's so great. I hope that the treatment your wife is taking works well for her, and really hope your daughters don't get it either. As you and others here have suggested... it's really a roll of the dice, we don't want to burden our children with anything horrible, but when nothing obviously horrible pops up that we can see, then we often figure 'well, let's go for it anyway'! :)
Quote from: Amicale on March 28, 2012, 05:03:27 PM
Quote from: Jimmy on March 28, 2012, 02:41:26 PM
It's definitely important to take genetic factors into consideration before having a child, for a whole host of reasons, but most importantly is so the child doesn't have to suffer through this wonderful experience we call life. In my family, things like depression and substance abuse are most common place, with genetic abnormalities largely unknown, at least on my side of the family tree. Cancer causing tobacco has ended both my maternal grandparents rather early. Being from a semi-economically depressed are can explain some of these issues, none of which would've prevented me from having any children. I, myself, have asthma and allergies, and worry that my kids may develop these, but nothing TOO serious in my book. However, after the birth of our second daughter, almost two years ago, my wife was diagnosed with common variable immunodeficiency, which has genetic components, but is too complex to predict the probability of it showing up in our children. Her particular illness requires regular infusions of igG, so as you can see, if one of our children is to get this is, it would be quite a burden for them for the rest of their lives. We've had both our children checked, but nothing significant has shown up so far. Needless to say, we would probably have "rolled the die" and had children anyways because kids are just AMAZING!!! :)
Yes they are! :)
I would have LOVED to have two, and I'm not totally counting out having another, but before I did that a few things would need to be more stable than they are right now. So for now, I'll just be content with the one I have. I adore my daughter and I know I talk about her far too much on this site :D but I can't even begin to describe how much JOY she brings to my life. She just lights up a room. I never have, and never will, love anyone more than I love her. Even through the sleepless nights when she was a baby, and the teething and the getting into a million things, she's just a joy. I'm so glad you have two awesome daughters, that's so great. I hope that the treatment your wife is taking works well for her, and really hope your daughters don't get it either. As you and others here have suggested... it's really a roll of the dice, we don't want to burden our children with anything horrible, but when nothing obviously horrible pops up that we can see, then we often figure 'well, let's go for it anyway'! :)
Thanks for the kind words:) It's sounds great what you have with your daughter, you definitely seem like an awesome parent, and I'm sure your daughter adores you. Keep enjoying your time with her because, as you know, they are SO precious!! They grow so fast too!! My oldest will be six and has lost two teeth already! Where has the time gone? ::)
BTW, it's been great talking with you! :)
(I think I've gone off topic....lol)
Anyways, going for it is the only way to go....
I have thought of it in the terms of developing a more intelligent human. The problem is each of us seem to have a different idea of what an intelligent human should possess. I think after the WW II, and the efforts of the German breeding program, most agree it is better to just let nature take its course. As for selective breeding for myself I know I was attracted to my wife not only for her looks but for her intelligence also. I looked for a partner I could relate too, and who could relate to me. Now that we are older it seems it is more important than the looks part.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 05:12:21 AM
I know I'm risking some flack for that particular term, but I wanted to explore this thought: Have you ever considered not having children due to illness which may have a strong hereditary factor (or indeed, entirely genetic)?
Yes. I was born with a coarctation of my descending aorta, which was a severe pinch of the blood vessel to the point where basically no blood passed through it. Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for my enemies! muhahaha), enough of the blood vessels around the area were able to allow blood through, so I didn't die. When I was young, I had corrective surgery, basically a plastic tube which connected the functioning parts of my aorta, so that the blood could circulate more normally. While I'm fine now, according to my cardiologist and depending on the genetics of the woman I have kids with someday, my kids have about a 5% chance of having a circulatory malformation or deformity. While I'm not planning on having 20 kids, that is a serious risk to consider. Because of this risk, I've often wondered if adoption might be a more viable or reasonable option for me. Don't get me wrong, I do want to father children (both as an innate biological urge and as something that sounds like an amazing thing to do), but that 5% chance of a child I would love dearly possibly being in mortal danger because of a problem with my genetics gives me pause.
Quote from: Will on July 12, 2012, 03:06:37 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 05:12:21 AM
I know I'm risking some flack for that particular term, but I wanted to explore this thought: Have you ever considered not having children due to illness which may have a strong hereditary factor (or indeed, entirely genetic)?
Yes. I was born with a coarctation of my descending aorta, which was a severe pinch of the blood vessel to the point where basically no blood passed through it. Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for my enemies! muhahaha), enough of the blood vessels around the area were able to allow blood through, so I didn't die. When I was young, I had corrective surgery, basically a plastic tube which connected the functioning parts of my aorta, so that the blood could circulate more normally. While I'm fine now, according to my cardiologist and depending on the genetics of the woman I have kids with someday, my kids have about a 5% chance of having a circulatory malformation or deformity. While I'm not planning on having 20 kids, that is a serious risk to consider. Because of this risk, I've often wondered if adoption might be a more viable or reasonable option for me. Don't get me wrong, I do want to father children (both as an innate biological urge and as something that sounds like an amazing thing to do), but that 5% chance of a child I would love dearly possibly being in mortal danger because of a problem with my genetics gives me pause.
I really don't envy your position. I think this is definitely a scenario where there is no "right" or "wrong" decision, just a very personal one.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 12, 2012, 03:36:54 AM
Quote from: Will on July 12, 2012, 03:06:37 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 05:12:21 AM
I know I'm risking some flack for that particular term, but I wanted to explore this thought: Have you ever considered not having children due to illness which may have a strong hereditary factor (or indeed, entirely genetic)?
Yes. I was born with a coarctation of my descending aorta, which was a severe pinch of the blood vessel to the point where basically no blood passed through it. Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for my enemies! muhahaha), enough of the blood vessels around the area were able to allow blood through, so I didn't die. When I was young, I had corrective surgery, basically a plastic tube which connected the functioning parts of my aorta, so that the blood could circulate more normally. While I'm fine now, according to my cardiologist and depending on the genetics of the woman I have kids with someday, my kids have about a 5% chance of having a circulatory malformation or deformity. While I'm not planning on having 20 kids, that is a serious risk to consider. Because of this risk, I've often wondered if adoption might be a more viable or reasonable option for me. Don't get me wrong, I do want to father children (both as an innate biological urge and as something that sounds like an amazing thing to do), but that 5% chance of a child I would love dearly possibly being in mortal danger because of a problem with my genetics gives me pause.
I really don't envy your position. I think this is definitely a scenario where there is no "right" or "wrong" decision, just a very personal one.
I agree.