4 ms·

I don't understand people who have serious hereditary medical conditions and have children. Yes, I know that "I just don't get it". Though I do have friends for

I don't understand people who have serious hereditary medical conditions and have children. Yes, I know that "I just don't get it". Though I do have friends for whom serious illness in the family is the reason they don't have biological children. I do find it a bit selfish to reject adopting a child (and thus presumably making that child's life better), instead of essentially saying "no, I only care about my own genes. If it's not from my body it's worthless". I said I know people who chose to not have biological children for this reason. I also know people whose life is full of pain and suffering because they chose to reproduce their illness. One wanted multiple children, but after the first came with the illness they now know that caring for just that one (who will never not need help) is their full time job, so they can't have more. And this in a country that actually greatly supports you. And it's not about the money.

Smaug123 6y ago
I'll quote Doreen from elsewhere in this thread: > I didn't get a diagnosis until my kids were like 11 and 14, I think. I didn't have to think about that aspect, in part because my first child was the result of failed birth control.
- knorker 6y ago
  Ah, yeah that adds information (not in the article) to this case. But note that I have downvotes on my comment. I'm not surprised. I think I'm being respectful here, but people take as a personal attack when the choice to have biological children is in any way questioned. So this woman did not have that information available to her at the time. Like I said I know people that did.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    Yeah, questioning peoples' biological choices is pretty bad stuff and you should avoid it. I understand the concern over somebody with a hereditable condition "maliciously" reproducing. That would certainly be pretty bad. What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feeling that the author owed you an explanation. I'm childfree; pretty much the opposite of some kind of rabid "everybody should have kids!" breeder type. But my default reaction to somebody having a child is that it was some kind of reasoned choice on their behalf and that they don't need to justify themselves to me. Especially after the fact. Where is the logic or humanity in questioning the value of having a child once the child already exists?
    - knorker 6y ago
      > "maliciously" reproducing. That's not what I said. Not even in the slightest. > What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feeling that the author owed you an explanation. Jeezus, talk about reading something looking to do the worst interpretation possible. You might as well have called me a eugenicist nazi. How about when you read a comment have an open mind that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't written by a nazi? My comment was pretty general, and mostly talked about people I know, who did do such a thing. > Where is the logic or humanity in questioning the value of having a child once the child already exists? That's not what I did. I'm asking why someone with perhaps multiple heritable psychological and physical problems, both in their own body and in their family, would take this huge risk. Do they presume to love an adopted child less than a biological one? I'm CLEARLY asking about the logic decision BEFORE. Because it's not actually a decision afterwards. Obviously. And it's not about the "value of having a child". That completely misses the point. > don't need to justify themselves to me Wow, you sure are a better person than this straw man you're building. Good for you. Should I apologize for wanting to understand the world, and people, better? Would you say the same thing about the entire fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology? No, nobody owes anybody an explanation. Of course not. But what kind of answer is that? If to you entire fields of knowledge have a taboo on the word "why", with the default answer "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN MYSELF TO YOU!!" (and neither must anyone else) then you sure are not anybody I'd like to talk to. Good day.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    Your first comment isn't exactly the most diplomatic framing, but I'm sorry you are getting a pile on about this. This site of mine (below) has already been outed by someone in comments, so let me link you to a page that gives a little more detail about that aspect of my life: https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/p/atypical-cf-defined.html https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/p/atypical-cf-de...
    - knorker 6y ago
      Thanks for the link. I think this quote from it enlightens me a lot in your case: "Cystic Fibrosis is a homozygous recessive genetic disorder. That means it requires a defective gene from both parents to cause the child to have the disorder". That tells me that with the "The disease occurs in 1 in 2,500 to 3,500 white newborns" I got from Google, those are not significantly dangerous odds, even if you'd chosen to optimize them even more by not avoiding white men during the relevant years. (but I may be miscalculating, since you said "defective gene", not "diagnosis" (which is presumably the number from google), and it's not important to my point) With this extra information I don't put you in the group of people I don't understand with this. (of course not that you'd need my approval or understanding, like that other guy seemed to think I was saying) But say (from a real example) someone has a grandmother, mother, and sister, with varying degrees of paranoid schizophrenic diagnoses (e.g. ranging from "being a jerk in that particular way" to "institutionalized and forced medication"), I do think that this person, even though apparently asymptomatic, would not be responsible, and would be selfish, if they'd choose to have biological children.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lonelappde 6y ago
I don't know, why do people try to propagate their genes? I'm sure you've got a better handle on the situation the the force of billions of years of evolutionary history.
- knorker 6y ago
  Sure. I'm saying I don't understand how the rational part of their brain isn't overruling that, though. The best thing you can do for evolutionary things is to donate all the sperm and eggs that you can. Literally do that as often as you can. I understand why people don't, though, because humans and animals only instinctively connect their will with procreation, even if it's connected, and instinct doesn't do abstraction. It only does connections with what's worked before. Wide hips, health, liking sex, etc... that's what we've evolved to. But who knows, the few mutated humans who give to sperm banks nonstop may become the majority in a thousand generations, and wanting sex may be a trait that'll be phased out. I want to stay home and eat candy all day, but I don't. There are many things humans don't do that the "reptilian brain" would have them do nonstop. I don't want to pay into my pension, and realistically my survival post-65 in the west isn't going to affect how my genes live on. Yet I do pay into my pension. On the scale of human civilization so far, especially after the pill came around, procreation is not that connected to nature. Same as our other pleasures. What's tasty to eat is largely bad for you. Evolution hasn't adjusted to that. And it probably never will, since we'll invent just-as-tasty-but-healthy before it'll adjust. And we've learned to trigger dopamine rewards without good behavior too. It's just illegal to consume such chemicals. Also evolution doesn't demand wanting to procreate. It just demands wanting something that has the effect of procreating (historically), i.e. sex. Your question is more on point than the other guy who just wanted to call me a nazi. So thanks for that. :-)

Smaug123 6y ago

I'll quote Doreen from elsewhere in this thread: > I didn't get a diagnosis until my kids were like 11 and 14, I think. I didn't have to think about that aspect, in part because my first child was the result of failed birth control.

knorker 6y ago
Ah, yeah that adds information (not in the article) to this case. But note that I have downvotes on my comment. I'm not surprised. I think I'm being respectful here, but people take as a personal attack when the choice to have biological children is in any way questioned. So this woman did not have that information available to her at the time. Like I said I know people that did.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Yeah, questioning peoples' biological choices is pretty bad stuff and you should avoid it. I understand the concern over somebody with a hereditable condition "maliciously" reproducing. That would certainly be pretty bad. What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feeling that the author owed you an explanation. I'm childfree; pretty much the opposite of some kind of rabid "everybody should have kids!" breeder type. But my default reaction to somebody having a child is that it was some kind of reasoned choice on their behalf and that they don't need to justify themselves to me. Especially after the fact. Where is the logic or humanity in questioning the value of having a child once the child already exists?
  - knorker 6y ago
    > "maliciously" reproducing. That's not what I said. Not even in the slightest. > What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feeling that the author owed you an explanation. Jeezus, talk about reading something looking to do the worst interpretation possible. You might as well have called me a eugenicist nazi. How about when you read a comment have an open mind that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't written by a nazi? My comment was pretty general, and mostly talked about people I know, who did do such a thing. > Where is the logic or humanity in questioning the value of having a child once the child already exists? That's not what I did. I'm asking why someone with perhaps multiple heritable psychological and physical problems, both in their own body and in their family, would take this huge risk. Do they presume to love an adopted child less than a biological one? I'm CLEARLY asking about the logic decision BEFORE. Because it's not actually a decision afterwards. Obviously. And it's not about the "value of having a child". That completely misses the point. > don't need to justify themselves to me Wow, you sure are a better person than this straw man you're building. Good for you. Should I apologize for wanting to understand the world, and people, better? Would you say the same thing about the entire fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology? No, nobody owes anybody an explanation. Of course not. But what kind of answer is that? If to you entire fields of knowledge have a taboo on the word "why", with the default answer "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN MYSELF TO YOU!!" (and neither must anyone else) then you sure are not anybody I'd like to talk to. Good day.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  Your first comment isn't exactly the most diplomatic framing, but I'm sorry you are getting a pile on about this. This site of mine (below) has already been outed by someone in comments, so let me link you to a page that gives a little more detail about that aspect of my life: https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/p/atypical-cf-defined.html https://atypicalcysticfibrosis.blogspot.com/p/atypical-cf-de...
  - knorker 6y ago
    Thanks for the link. I think this quote from it enlightens me a lot in your case: "Cystic Fibrosis is a homozygous recessive genetic disorder. That means it requires a defective gene from both parents to cause the child to have the disorder". That tells me that with the "The disease occurs in 1 in 2,500 to 3,500 white newborns" I got from Google, those are not significantly dangerous odds, even if you'd chosen to optimize them even more by not avoiding white men during the relevant years. (but I may be miscalculating, since you said "defective gene", not "diagnosis" (which is presumably the number from google), and it's not important to my point) With this extra information I don't put you in the group of people I don't understand with this. (of course not that you'd need my approval or understanding, like that other guy seemed to think I was saying) But say (from a real example) someone has a grandmother, mother, and sister, with varying degrees of paranoid schizophrenic diagnoses (e.g. ranging from "being a jerk in that particular way" to "institutionalized and forced medication"), I do think that this person, even though apparently asymptomatic, would not be responsible, and would be selfish, if they'd choose to have biological children.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lonelappde 6y ago

I don't know, why do people try to propagate their genes? I'm sure you've got a better handle on the situation the the force of billions of years of evolutionary history.

knorker 6y ago
Sure. I'm saying I don't understand how the rational part of their brain isn't overruling that, though. The best thing you can do for evolutionary things is to donate all the sperm and eggs that you can. Literally do that as often as you can. I understand why people don't, though, because humans and animals only instinctively connect their will with procreation, even if it's connected, and instinct doesn't do abstraction. It only does connections with what's worked before. Wide hips, health, liking sex, etc... that's what we've evolved to. But who knows, the few mutated humans who give to sperm banks nonstop may become the majority in a thousand generations, and wanting sex may be a trait that'll be phased out. I want to stay home and eat candy all day, but I don't. There are many things humans don't do that the "reptilian brain" would have them do nonstop. I don't want to pay into my pension, and realistically my survival post-65 in the west isn't going to affect how my genes live on. Yet I do pay into my pension. On the scale of human civilization so far, especially after the pill came around, procreation is not that connected to nature. Same as our other pleasures. What's tasty to eat is largely bad for you. Evolution hasn't adjusted to that. And it probably never will, since we'll invent just-as-tasty-but-healthy before it'll adjust. And we've learned to trigger dopamine rewards without good behavior too. It's just illegal to consume such chemicals. Also evolution doesn't demand wanting to procreate. It just demands wanting something that has the effect of procreating (historically), i.e. sex. Your question is more on point than the other guy who just wanted to call me a nazi. So thanks for that. :-)