7 ms·

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 aspec

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.

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.