|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:33 pm
This subject is purely theoretical for my boyfriend and I, but both of us would like to have a family someday. Both of us have a family history of depression and anxiety disorders, so our child would be very likely to have the same problems. Would it be ethical for us to have a baby together, knowing that our child would most likely suffer from depression and anxiety?
I don't think that it's an issue of how good of parents we would be, as our problems can be helped through medication and counseling. But no matter what, the genes will still be there.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:47 am
Well, EVERYONE has a family history of something that we potentially pass down to our children. With mental illnesses, honestly, they don't even know what is the exact cause and there's a lot of unknown variables (for me personally) that I don't think you can definitively prove your children will have them.
Although with the moral dilemma on something that is clearly heritable, like cystic fibrosis. While now they have the test to see if you are a carrier (both parents have to be I believe) and not everyone has access to this test. I don't know if I could continue to have children if one had CF.
Adoption is a wonderful alternative and nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:39 am
I dont think that any of us can fight instinct to have a family. My husband and I both had birth defects we still chose to have a child together. He was not genetically inclined to have either of ours but got one all his own. That was not my fault or his it just happened. As time progresses it will become less of an ethics issue because all babies will be gattaca babies and be genetically engineered to be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:29 pm
I'm glad that you're concerned about the well-being of your future kin. That shows potential greatness in parenting! Though I believe that there are people out there who are not responsible enough to have children, but your case is different. Apparently, you're worried about something serious like a disorder. I say, unless you're going to love this kid any less because of his flaws, then you should have it. Nobody's perfect in this world. Flaws like these are pretty much what keeps the color in our world. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:38 pm
You have ever right to have as many children as you want, or none if you do not want any.
The average human being has approximately 6-8 mutation genes of some kind that may potentially be passed onto future children. This does not mean that everybody has 6-8 mutated parts on their body (for example most people have normal arms and legs). It simply means that, for example, if the mutation in question is a tay sachs thing (a genetic disorder somewhat common among Jews), which is passed on in an automative recessive format - it means that if both parents have this same genetic mutation, each child they have has a 25% chance of getting ill from this mutation, a 50% chance of getting the gene but not being affected by it, and a 25% chance of not even getting the gene.
So tecnically, even if 2 perfectly healthy people with no particular family histories or anything big were to mate, there's still a chance that their children could have something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:56 pm
I think it would depend on what you're passing down, and what you're willing to deal with.
The conditions you listed wouldn't necessarily be passed down, and even if they were, simple medication and counseling can help if not nullify the effects.
Now, more complex things, like down syndrome, spina bifida, god, I don't know what else, but very life-altering diseases or syndromes... well, that all goes to if you're willing to take care of a child like that.
I won't get into my personal beliefs here, because it's completely up to the parents-to-be, and the ethical grounds of it are for those people only as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:09 am
Depression/anxiety can happen to anyone regardless of genetics. Yes, it can predispose you, but it's not the worst thing out there. It's treatable, as you said.
Ultimately, the choice is up to the parents, as they're the ones who will have to deal with the disorder, along with the child.
Me personally, I wouldn't have a child if I knew I might pass down something serious that would inhibit their life in some way. I saw a show on some girls living in England that both have the Harlequin baby syndrome, though a mild case of it. (Their skin cracks/bleeds easily, as it lacks the stuff in it that makes it flexible.) After their first child, they knew the would likely have another one that had the same condition, and they had another.. With the condition.
I couldn't have a child knowing they'd have to live with something like that their whole life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:36 pm
mourning dove This subject is purely theoretical for my boyfriend and I, but both of us would like to have a family someday. Both of us have a family history of depression and anxiety disorders, so our child would be very likely to have the same problems. Would it be ethical for us to have a baby together, knowing that our child would most likely suffer from depression and anxiety? I don't think that it's an issue of how good of parents we would be, as our problems can be helped through medication and counseling. But no matter what, the genes will still be there. It would be unethical for someone to try to stop you cause of your genes, but then again in a twisted way you could be taking a human representation of a s**t and creating a crazy serial killer. But my opinion is not to regulate stuff like this, and to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kyle Chopped and Screwwed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
