Catholics that say they'd never have any biological children for this reason

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s not odd to me because I know of a lot of people who test for inherited, especially if certain conditions run in the family. I think the more educated patients are, the more they seek out information.

Exactly. Which is why it would be odd that she would insist on that if there were no hereditary conditions in the family. The OP was unclear on if there is some sort of family history. The other thing that was confusing was that the OP made the statement that since her sister was a carrier then she automatically had to be as well. That is not a correct diagnosis and tells me that perhaps there is a whole lot of conjecture and assuming going on here. And not enough science.

So, I would like to know exactly why the sister not only was tested genetically but insisted her husband be tested as well.

In some areas of gynecology it is being pushed to unnecessarily run batteries of tests for genetic diseases.

 

[Rence]

So, I would like to know exactly why the sister not only was tested genetically but insisted her husband be tested as well.

Because having two parents as carriers is more risky than if only one is a carrier of a gene for a particular anomaly.

In some areas of gynecology it is being pushed to unnecessarily run batteries of tests for genetic diseases.

I disagree. Sometimes, it helps the couple to better prepare for caring for a child with special needs when they know in advance what resources to look for.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Because having two parents as carriers is more risky than if only one is a carrier of a gene for a particular anomaly.

I disagree. Sometimes, it helps the couple to better prepare for caring for a child with special needs when they know in advance what resources to look for.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.

BEFORE the sister or her husband got tested. What prompted the test in the first place?

As to the second part. I agree that a normal battery of test could be beneficial but some people, (my sister for one) have had a complete genetic makeup done to determine the chances of birth defects. My sister and people like her can sometimes misinterpret this or use it as a reason to never have children. My sister once told me that because the odds of autism were 1-70 (a stat she heard on a PSA) She would never want to have children.

Am I missing the reason this testing was insisted on in the first place or are we all just assuming that is was a valid reason.

Like I alluded to before. There is more information needed before we assign any blame or praise on the sister.

 

[Memaw]

It was your remark about her being more concerned about herself.

I didn’t see much concern for anyone else. God Bless, Memaw

 

[manualman]

Perhaps I’m not terribly sophisticated theologically here, but it strikes me as a peculiarity of modern western culture that the notion that only 3/4 of one’s children would survive to adulthood is so horrific as to be grounds for never having children at all. It’s only VERY recently in human history that ANYBODY could expect a child survival to adulthood rates that good and yet people had babies in droves anyways.

Sometimes I think we modern Western folk are all just a bunch of wussies (me included, I assure you!). The slightest risk of suffering is enough to make us live a life of cowering in bubble wrap.

 

[Memaw]

Perhaps I’m not terribly sophisticated theologically here, but it strikes me as a peculiarity of modern western culture that the notion that only 3/4 of one’s children would survive to adulthood is so horrific as to be grounds for never having children at all. It’s only VERY recently in human history that ANYBODY could expect a child survival to adulthood rates that good and yet people had babies in droves anyways.

Sometimes I think we modern Western folk are all just a bunch of wussies (me included, I assure you!). The slightest risk of suffering is enough to make us live a life of cowering in bubble wrap.

Agreed, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rau]

Perhaps I’m not terribly sophisticated theologically here, but it strikes me as a peculiarity of modern western culture that the notion that only 3/4 of one’s children would survive to adulthood is so horrific as to be grounds for never having children at all. It’s only VERY recently in human history that ANYBODY could expect a child survival to adulthood rates that good and yet people had babies in droves anyways.

Sometimes I think we modern Western folk are all just a bunch of wussies (me included, I assure you!). The slightest risk of suffering is enough to make us live a life of cowering in bubble wrap.

I guess this goes to the difference between avoidable and unavoidable suffering. This arises in other contexts to, eg. Home births, remote from medical assistance, carry a risk similar to all births of many years ago. But these days, that added risk is avoidable, and most choose to avoid it. And that is rational.

 

[manualman]

I guess this goes to the difference between avoidable and unavoidable suffering. This arises in other contexts to, eg. Home births, remote from medical assistance, carry a risk similar to all births of many years ago. But these days, that added risk is avoidable, and most choose to avoid it. And that is rational.

You miss the point. In earlier eras, EVERYBODY faced a much higher rate of child mortality than 1 in 4. But history demonstrates that few to nobody viewed that fact as a reason to avoid having children. It’s unfortunate that this couple faces such a risk of suffering even today. But they err badly in judging acceptable risk by the standards of spoiled America rather than the overall human experience.

 

[Rau]

You miss the point. In earlier eras, EVERYBODY faced a much higher rate of child mortality than 1 in 4. But history demonstrates that few to nobody viewed that fact as a reason to avoid having children. It’s unfortunate that this couple faces such a risk of suffering even today. But they err badly in judging acceptable risk by the standards of spoiled America rather than the overall human experience.

I did understand you. I disagree entirely with your last sentence. I don’t view medical, health and safety advances as “spoiling” anybody. They are a good outcome of our God-given faculties.

 

[Memaw]

I did understand you. I disagree entirely with your last sentence. I don’t view medical, health and safety advances as “spoiling” anybody. They are a good outcome of our God-given faculties.

So many modern technologies do tend to make us very selfish, that’s for sure. We are a me orientated people.God Bless, Memaw

 

[Allegra]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.

BEFORE the sister or her husband got tested. What prompted the test in the first place?

As to the second part. I agree that a normal battery of test could be beneficial but some people, (my sister for one) have had a complete genetic makeup done to determine the chances of birth defects. My sister and people like her can sometimes misinterpret this or use it as a reason to never have children. My sister once told me that because the odds of autism were 1-70 (a stat she heard on a PSA) She would never want to have children.

Am I missing the reason this testing was insisted on in the first place or are we all just assuming that is was a valid reason.

Like I alluded to before. There is more information needed before we assign any blame or praise on the sister.

Most likely, the sister had the test done because of Tay-Sachs having occured in the family, or because of Jewish or Creole ancestery. This is an extremely rare genetic trait and it is even more rare for both parents to carry the gene. In order for a child to have the disorder, they have to inherit it from both parents. Children who inherit the gene on one side only can only be carriers. I’m not sure that the 1 in 70 chance for autism is correct, but even if it is, why is that not a valid reason to marry with no intention of having children when a greater chance is? Where is the cutoff? Some people will declare that they “can’t handle” autistic children. When do we say, “You know, God doesn’t guarentee perfect offspring, so you might need to consider the possibility that you aren’t called to marriage,”?

 

[Rau]

So many modern technologies do tend to make us very selfish, that’s for sure. We are a me orientated people.God Bless, Memaw

But we should take a balanced view, and not see only the potential downsides of these things. Just about everything can be misused in some way.

So think also about the positives, and the opportunities which advances present for good works, and for the betterment of lives. Think about the inoculations available to prevent childhood disease. Consider wealth - it can be be misused, or great things can be done with it, eg. Charitable Foundations. Some choose well, some poorly.

 

[severus68]

Perhaps I’m not terribly sophisticated theologically here, but it strikes me as a peculiarity of modern western culture that the notion that only 3/4 of one’s children would survive to adulthood is so horrific as to be grounds for never having children at all. It’s only VERY recently in human history that ANYBODY could expect a child survival to adulthood rates that good and yet people had babies in droves anyways.

Sometimes I think we modern Western folk are all just a bunch of wussies (me included, I assure you!). The slightest risk of suffering is enough to make us live a life of cowering in bubble wrap.

No one enjoyed their infants and children dying in the past. The poor needed to have many children to help in the fields etc and to take care of them when they were old.

Its one thing to suffer yourself, its quite another to watch your child suffer terribly and not be able to do anything about it. To all who have made disparing remarks, perhaps you should adopt a baby with Tay-Sachs to have some empathy.

 

[severus68]

You miss the point. In earlier eras, EVERYBODY faced a much higher rate of child mortality than 1 in 4. But history demonstrates that few to nobody viewed that fact as a reason to avoid having children. It’s unfortunate that this couple faces such a risk of suffering even today. But they err badly in judging acceptable risk by the standards of spoiled America rather than the overall human experience.

I have responded on your first point. On your second, anyone, anywhere in the world would hesitate in taking such a risk.

 

[10gr8kids]

One day we will see all the blessings and joys we’ve missed by trying to avoid suffering.

 

[Rau]

One day we will see all the blessings and joys we’ve missed by trying to avoid suffering.

I’m sure there are occasions when this is right. But which? Can you illustrate your observation by identifying some circumstances where you see it is good to take on suffering, in a context relevant to this thread ? How would one choose whether to suffer (or have others in our care suffer), rather than prevent it or ameliorate it?

Of course, I concur that much suffering is not able to be avoided, for various reasons, including that to do so may require sin. Eg. We don’t steal in order to improve our situation. This goes without saying.)

 

[Rence]

I didn’t see much concern for anyone else. God Bless, Memaw

I do. I see a concern for the suffering of a child. This world is a valley of tears as it is. If one has knowledge that they carry a gene that passes on a painful disease, deciding not to have children and risk passing on that pain and suffering is not selfish. It’s a personal decision the one carrying the gene has to make, not everyone else.

 

[Rence]

Perhaps I’m not terribly sophisticated theologically here, but it strikes me as a peculiarity of modern western culture that the notion that only 3/4 of one’s children would survive to adulthood is so horrific as to be grounds for never having children at all. It’s only VERY recently in human history that ANYBODY could expect a child survival to adulthood rates that good and yet people had babies in droves anyways.

Sometimes I think we modern Western folk are all just a bunch of wussies (me included, I assure you!). The slightest risk of suffering is enough to make us live a life of cowering in bubble wrap.

There’s a difference there. People kept having children in droves anyways precisely because the life expectancy was so low, and they did their best to care for those children and raise them to adulthood not knowing what the outcome would be. However, knowing that one is carrying a gene, or a disease, that is passed down to a child and could cause tremendous suffering is not the same thing at all.

 

[Memaw]

There’s a difference there. People kept having children in droves anyways precisely because the life expectancy was so low, and they did their best to care for those children and raise them to adulthood not knowing what the outcome would be. However, knowing that one is carrying a gene, or a disease, that is passed down to a child and could cause tremendous suffering is not the same thing at all.

Jesus said, “Take up your Cross and follow ME.” HE will supply the Grace to do so for us all. Marriage has many kinds of crosses as does most paths in life. One never knows what path we will be asked to walk. JESUS I TRUST in THEE. God Bless, Memaw

 

[manualman]

There’s a difference there. People kept having children in droves anyways precisely because the life expectancy was so low, and they did their best to care for those children and raise them to adulthood not knowing what the outcome would be. However, knowing that one is carrying a gene, or a disease, that is passed down to a child and could cause tremendous suffering is not the same thing at all.

I’m still not seeing it. 99% of the humans in history decided to be intimate in marriage, knowing it would likely bring pregnancy and knowing that 25%+ of their resulting children would likely die before reaching adulthood from disease, accidents, famine, war, etc.) Don’t kid yourself that Tay-Sachs is worse thant he myriad of other diseases that have historically fatally afflicted children. But back then, people decided to press on anyways.

Today people faced with the SAME outcome shiver in fear because we aren’t used to it anymore. We’ve come to think that easiness and pleasure are our birthrights. They’re not. Back then they didn’t need genetic testing results to know that some of their children would not survive to adulthood. It was a fact of life for everybody.

I’m sorry that sounds harsh and I have the deepest sympathy for those have lost children. I’m just not convinced that the proper perspective on risk is being achieved here. I’d proceed to have kids normally. Actually, we did precisely that (not Tay Sachs, but another condition that posed increasing likelihood of miscarriage with successive pregnancies).