Should two reccessive genetic carriers for Sickle-cell have children? Get married? Get a vasectomy?

[Exalt]

Let’s say a man and woman fall in love and decide they want to get married.

They both have a history of Sickle-cell anemia in the family, so they decide to get genetic counseling. It turns out that they are both unaffected carriers of the disease. They don’t have the disease itself, but they are genetic carriers for it.

If they were to have child, there is a 25% chance that the child will have the disease itself, a 50% chance that the child will be a unaffected carrier for the disease, and a 25% chance that the child will be completely free of the disease.

“The disease is chronic and lifelong. Individuals are most often well, but their lives are punctuated by periodic painful attacks. Life-expectancy is shortened, but contemporary survival data is lacking. Older studies indicated that sufferers could live to an average of 40 to 50 years, with the average age for males being 42 and the average age for females being 48.”

In fact, and this is no joke, a friend of mine just died of complications as a direct result of SS. He was 21.

It is my contention that the couple have a responsibility to keep this disease from passing on. I don’t think they should break up, but I think they should seriously consider adoption as an alternative to concieving a child themselves. I don’t think they should give up sex and I definately think they should use contraception.

What do you think?

 

[bluerose]

What do I think?

I think that if my BIL had known that his wife would eventually develop an incurable and ultimately fatal disease that has been passed along in her family for generations and decided NOT to marry her… if they married and opted NOT to have their three wonderful children (my niece and two nephews who are my son’s best friends) who MIGHT someday develop this disease…

I don’t know. What do YOU think?

 

[C2K2]

So your life would have been better without your friend?

As an only child,because my mom found out she had a genetic diease when she was pregnant with me, I am against the idea. My life as an only child because of my mom’s choice to contracept was lonely and sad and very hard when I had to plan her funeral by myself. I had the option of testing myself for this disease and my mom really tried to push me into it but choose not to and have welcomed 4 DDs into my life and I would not trade them in because they Might suffer in thier life. They have been great blessings to others that I have loved.

Steph

 

[rpp]

So life is not important because it **might **be short?

I could die in a car accident tonight.

My 22 year old son could have an undiagnosed brain aneurysm the bursts next week he dies.

My 45 year old younger brother does have very advanced lymphoma and his prognosis is very poor.

When I was 2 years old, I cut my left hand off. Medical science was able to reattach it and it works (almost) perfectly now. But I still nearly bled to death.

None of us know how long we have. It is wrong to condemn people to childlessness, or worse abort a child that has been conceived, for fear of a disease, even one as serious as sickle-cell anemia.

What is next, forced sterilization?

 

[jmcrae]

It’s okay to have imperfect children. God loves them, too.

 

[bluerose]

I don’t think they should give up sex and I definately think they should use contraception.

What do you think?

That’s just great. Don’t give up sex, give up on life.

Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket, folks?

 

[graceandglory]

It is my contention that the couple have a responsibility to keep this disease from passing on. I don’t think they should break up, but I think they should seriously consider adoption as an alternative to concieving a child themselves. I don’t think they should give up sex and I definately think they should use contraception.

What do you think?

If they feel so strongly that they don’t want to take that risk, (and that’s all it is) then they should practice abstinence in their marriage. They can still have marital relations during their naturally non fertile times. NFP is 97% effective when practiced correctly. It is equivalent to ABCs.

Your friends’ chance of having a baby with this disease would be diminished when you take NFP into account. If God WILLS that a baby is born, that’s God’s prerogative, it would be God’s will.

I faced this very same thing a few years ago, when I was dating someone who has a 50% chance of passing on a very painful and crippling genetic disease to any child he fathers. It was during this time that I became so convinced about the correctness of using NFP in ALL circumstances, and to TRUST GOD with the results.

If I were to get pregnant at my age, I think my chances of having a child with Down’s Syndrome is much greater than 1:100. I am still commited to the Church’s teaching on this subject. While I wouldn’t prefer to have a child with a birth defect, the decision is really up to God.

TRUSTING GOD is at the heart of all Catholic teaching on contraception. Choosing a vasectomy is placing your trust in the vasectomy and not in God.

 

[seekerz]

Maybe if they are really afraid of passing this disease on, they should consider not getting married to each other. How do you get married and then plan to remain childless?

The way I understand Church teachings, even permanent use of NFP is wrong. If their faith is not such that they can overlook the scientific odds, then it might be better to look elsewhere for a spouse. I think that might even be my choice if I were faced with the quandary.

But then who can tell about life? The kids might escape sickle cell disease and still suffer or die young from other causes…

 

[Exalt]

You people …

I don’t see how you can call yourselves ethical with responses like that.

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t even make sense in Religo-logic. Could someone explain it to me how you people could be so callous and thoughtless so as to hold the fertility of human life above any and all considerations? Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences. What’s the point? Populating heaven? Making God happy? Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades?

 

[rpp]

You people …

I don’t see how you can call yourselves ethical with responses like that.

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t even make sense in Religo-logic. Could someone explain it to me how you people could be so callous and thoughtless so as to hold the fertility of human life above any and all considerations? Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences. What’s the point? Populating heaven? Making God happy? Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades?

Why get married if there is no desire to have children?

Sexual relations is not a requirement, or even a right. Why this obsession about sex?

But you knew how faithful Catholics would answer before you asked the question. Seems to me you just want to mock us. So why do you want to do that? In reality, all you have done is show that you are the one who is obsessed with sex.

 

[graceandglory]

Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

We call it LOVE.

C’mon, I spend a lot of time working with special needs children. Every single one of them is a gift, and a wonderful blessing to their family and to me. Just because someone suffers doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be afforded LIFE.

If that couple doesn’t want to take that RISK, then, according to Catholic teaching, they should be abstinent. The Church doesn’t force anyone to abstain. You say the couple is absolutely opposed to having children. That means they are not open to God’s creative force in their marriage. They should not get married in the Catholic Church.

Life isn’t all about having sex.

Some people are eunuchs.
Eunuchs are not permitted to be married in the Church because they “can’t” have sex. It would make a marriage “invalid” in the eyes of the Church.

Your friends refuse to be open to life. That invalidates a sacramental marriage. If they want to get married, they’ll have to go protestant. They are protesting the Church’s teaching on marriage.

 

[C2K2]

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences. What’s the point? Populating heaven? Making God happy? Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades?

The ultimate goal in life is to be happy with God in heaven. But you sound as if it is best to take all the good things in life and run to the hills when the bad things hit.

If you choose to love someone esle you choose to put your heart in the path of pain and suffering. Wether it is a spouse, child, friend, parent, sibling, etc you choose to love them then you choose to face the pain of loosing them.

 

[bluerose]

You people …

I don’t see how you can call yourselves ethical with responses like that.

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t even make sense in Religo-logic. Could someone explain it to me how you people could be so callous and thoughtless so as to hold the fertility of human life above any and all considerations?

No, not fertility of human life, just human life. Regardless of its many imperfections.

Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

What happened to the 75% chance that the child born would NOT have the disease, even if they were a carrier?

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences.

Take the “un” off of “protected” and that’s what most people seem to think is the ultimate goal in life. How is that better?

What’s the point? Populating heaven? **I hope it’s not the other place we’re populating! **Making God happy? **Problem with that? **Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades? Oh, please. Then by all rights you should be happy that people with life-threatening illnesses are willing to have children that live short lives rather than long healthy ones with a greater chance of increasing the population!

 

[1ke]

It is my contention that the couple have a responsibility to keep this disease from passing on.

They have no such responsibility.

I think they should seriously consider adoption as an alternative to concieving a child themselves.

That would be something the couple could discern through prayer.

I don’t think they should give up sex and I definately think they should use contraception.

Contraception and sterilization are intrinsically disordered and can never be a moral choice.

 

[1ke]

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t even make sense in Religo-logic. Could someone explain it to me how you people could be so callous and thoughtless so as to hold the fertility of human life above any and all considerations?

“We people” believe that every person has inherent dignity and worth, not worth based on utility or perfection.

Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

You have a very limited view of things. Life itself is a risk, and there are no guarantees for anyone. And, while our life here is short, our life with God in eternity is not. Depriving a child of life also deprives them of eternal life. Temporal afflictions are transitory. And, as has been pointed out we can be afflicted with disease or other tragedy at any point in our lives.

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences.

Yes, the purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. You are catching on.

What’s the point? Populating heaven? Making God happy?

Why, yes.

Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades?

God created the earth for Man, so it is unlikely we would exceed its ability to provide for us. And, my aren’t we the exaggerator…

 

[StCsDavid]

You people …

I don’t see how you can call yourselves ethical with responses like that.

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t even make sense in Religo-logic. Could someone explain it to me how you people could be so callous and thoughtless so as to hold the fertility of human life above any and all considerations? Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences. What’s the point? Populating heaven? Making God happy? Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades?

So why stop at Sickel cell anemia? Why not sterilize those who carry the genes for Type I diabetes? In fact, let’s create what we believe the ideal human life should be; test people for the right genetic make up; and then sterilize those who don’t make the mark. I don’t thinks so.

I personally know a couple whose child had a severe genetic defect and lived for 77 minutes. You can read her story here. That couple and those who were a witness to this little life found great value in her short time on Earth. I’ll put my faith in God and His plan way before I entrust it to the egos and conveniences of humanity.

As to the 80 or 90 billions souls you fear. We have plenty of room and resources on the planet despite what the eco-warriors who try to lead with fear might say. Besides, nature, which was designed by God, has a way of balancing itself out. We humans are the ones with the messed up equilibriums…a direct result of original sin.

Don’t you know that God loves you? Why not try trusting Him a bit?

 

[1ke]

So why stop at Sickel cell anemia? Why not sterilize those who carry the genes for Type I diabetes? In fact, let’s create what we believe the ideal human life should be; test people for the right genetic make up; and then sterilize those who don’t make the mark. I don’t thinks so.

Oh wait… they already did that… in a little place known as Nazi Germany.

Didn’t work out so well.

 

[lak611]

Maybe if they are really afraid of passing this disease on, they should consider not getting married to each other. How do you get married and then plan to remain childless?

One of my cousins found out that her fiance had a chronic illness, so she chose not to marry him. She later met another man whom she did marry and has children.

 

[rpp]

Oh wait… they already did that… in a little place known as Nazi Germany.

Didn’t work out so well.

Yep. The Nazis did lots of things people are trying to re-package today.

And I would agree that the results of the Nazi programs were sub-optimal.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You people …

I don’t see how you can call yourselves ethical with responses like that.

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t even make sense in Religo-logic. Could someone explain it to me how you people could be so callous and thoughtless so as to hold the fertility of human life above any and all considerations? Could someone explain to me how you could risk the intense suffering and quick death of your child by not having the *common ethical sense *to make 100% certian that pregnancy wouldn’t happen?

It’s almost as if a man and a woman getting married having lots of unprotected sex is the ultimate goal in life, with no regard for the consequences. What’s the point? Populating heaven? Making God happy? Destroying the planet when we’re 80 or 90 Billion strong in a few decades?

Maybe you need to look at yourself? Especially the way you use the first two words of your post!

Maybe ‘us people’ love life?

Maybe you only care about having as much inconsequential sex as possible?