Maybe too deep for OT, but here goes.. Would you have children..

[Chunkee]

Knowing you carried a gene that could get passed onto them? As well as knowing you were going to die from the ailment and that they would see you die before they did?

Read article on Cystic Fibrosis in Newsweek. They are living longer now, up into 30s and 40s. Having children and getting married. The still die early.

The question is posed..

Would you have children?

jC

 

[Feldenak]

No. Then again, my wife and I don't want children anyway.

 

[Udel]

No, not fair to do to them.

 

[jaysgirl]

I don't know if I ever want children, anyway.

 

[PingSpike]

No. I might adopt I guess. But the last part sort of calls even that into question.

 

[blackdogdeek]

is there a 100% chance of passing on the gene?

does having the gene mean 100% they will get the disease?

can the gene be screened by an amniocentesis?

is there the possibility of a cure in my or their lifetime?

 

[spidey07]

sure.

Parents are supposed to go before their kids anyway. Plus you never know what will happen in this life.

 

[desk]

i think id rather adopt anyhow (even being healthy), so id just go that route.

 

[Lola]

No. In that situation, i couldn't put another life (especially that of a child) through that.

I don't want children right now, I don't know if I will feel different in several years, I hope i do.

 

[Linflas]

Classic biased poll slanted to elicit the answer you want. Where is the "No even though there is no 100% certainty that this gene would be expressed in my child" answer?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
No. Then again, my gf and I don't want children anyway.

QFT, fixed for me

 

[Stretchman]

Originally posted by: spidey07
sure.

Parents are supposed to go before their kids anyway. Plus you never know what will happen in this life.

Yea, I like that view. As Ian Malcom said, "Life finds a Way."

 

[Atomicus]

Eugenics FTW?

 

[DaShen]

Your genes push you to procreate. Even if you have bad genes. If it were left up to people without social construct, people with bad genes would be neglected by the good genes for procreation, but with social constraint and new developments in health care it is easier for people with bad genes to get along fine. This still happens for the most part though. Mentally ill, physically handicapped, visually impaired people have a harder time finding somenoe to mate with. Unless you excel in another things that is developed in your DNA (Stephen Hawkings for instance, and even still his wife beats him), your chances of having offspring with a "good" gene person are fairly slim. It is sad but true.

Adoption would be a good method to salvage that, but in reality your nature would push you to have children. If I was a genious like Stephen Hawkings, I would of course have kids. They could further benefit mankind.

***EDIT***
Knowing that you could cause problems in your family, neglecting the genetic factor, is a different issue though. If I knew enough ahead of time, maybe I could make sure that my family would be taken care of. If I couldn't do that, then I may put off having kids.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Hmm, I'd probably adopt in that situation.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: blackdogdeek
is there a 100% chance of passing on the gene?

does having the gene mean 100% they will get the disease?

can the gene be screened by an amniocentesis?

is there the possibility of a cure in my or their lifetime?

Exactly, it would depend entirely upon the circumstances. Also, everyone dies at some point, so why would a life be considered not worth creating just because it may be shorter than normal?

And typically most children see their parents die anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[EatSpam]

Adopt

 

[akubi]

no

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: Udel
No, not fair to do to them.

 

[MBentz]

If you dont have kids you provide nothing to the evolution of the gene pool... but I still wouldnt.

 

[jEct2]

its hurts thinking about it

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
Knowing you carried a gene that could get passed onto them? As well as knowing you were going to die from the ailment and that they would see you die before they did?

Read article on Cystic Fibrosis in Newsweek. They are living longer now, up into 30s and 40s. Having children and getting married. The still die early.

The question is posed..

Would you have children?

jC

We've seen a ton of advancement in the field of treating cystic fibrosis. In the next ten years, the disease should be easily controlled by treatment to the point where patients can live fairly long, healthy lives.

But another fact to take in is this: if you had cystic fibosis, would you have wished that your parents never had you?

 

[Abe Froman]

Adoption...I have a friend with a disease that as a 25% chance of passing on to his children, he has already had his tubes tied/snipped, so that he cannot reproduce. He is already planning on adopting children.

I admire him for that.

 

[blakeatwork]

No.. it wouldn't be fair to any children I might have.

 

[tk149]

YABP

Yet Another Biased Poll

Cystic Fibrosis is a recessive gene, so it doesn't mean that your children will have CF, just that they'll have the gene. And you're probably going to die before your children anyway. Lawyers in large New York firms and pro football players tend to die in their 50's. Should they not have children?