meltzerboy
New member
Is it morally permissible to have children if one has a genetic disorder that is highly transmissible, such as Huntington’s disease?
Transmitting genetic disorders to children
- Thread starter meltzerboy
- Start date
- Status
B
Bezant
Guest
Not necessarily, although I think it’s best avoided. Considering severe and highly transmissible genetic diseases like Huntington I think the Church’s position on contraception is too narrow.
L
LJN21
Guest
Perfect use contraception and perfect use NFP have about the same failure rates. Point is if you are having sex there is always a “risk” in getting pregnant. I personally know of someone who went the contraception route because of the very high risk to her health (possible death) if she got pregnant again, and guess what, she’s currently pregnant. The safety of avoiding pregnancy with contraception is nothing but a lie. The only way to insure you will not got pregnant is to not have sex.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Is a child with a genetic disorder less of a child?
R
ringil
Guest
I have a %50 chance of passing on congenital cataracts to my offspring and my wife and I have one daughter- who did inherit the condition.
She is pregnant again and we are hopeful that the condition will not pass on this time.
I am asking St. Lucy to intercede in this matter. The Lords will be done.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Sure, have your kids and enjoy them as long as possible. Perhaps they won’t get it, then look what you have missed. If they do get it, it will give you a chance to advance in your spiritual life. Contraception is out, you know that. If the whole thing still bothers you, don’t get married, devote yourself to good works and scholarship or something else worth while. I never married and there has been a lot of peace in my life.
meltzerboy
New member
I’m not saying that and realize you are personally involved. Having a child is always a joy. And I’m not talking about abortion either. I was just considering whether there are possible moral implications of knowing one might have a high likelihood of passing on a (fatal) disorder to one’s child.
B
Bezant
Guest
Not all contraceptive methods are as effective as others. And considering contraceptive practice outside the lab, the imperfect failure rate is of interest here and shows a very clear difference in effectiveness between NFP and other methods.
(cks.nhs.uk/contraception/background_information/effectiveness_of_contraceptives)
I believe you, but I don’t necessarily think that your view is realistic or fair.
R
robwar
Guest
quote your sources on this, because that is not true. This question can be expanded to a number of genetic disorders but because someone has a genetic disease are they less than human? does it mean that they should not be around because they are not perfect? One should only have children because they will produce only the physically perfect?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
It’s certainly just cause for using NFP But there’s no requirement to do so.
H
hannajomar
Guest
Yes, it is morally permissible. I suppose the argument could even be made that choosing not to have children for fear of illness is immoral. If we choose to not have children for fear of devastating diseases such as Huntington’s, that could lead us down a slippery slope. If Huntington’s is a reason to not have children, what if deafness, or Turret’s syndrome, or Albinism runs in your family? This is a valid concern, but it comes dangerously close to the beginnings of eugenics.
M
mgoforth
Guest
Even if a child is born with such a genetic condition, God will grant them the fullness of health in Heaven that they were lacking on Earth. A child in Heaven would be thankful for the gift of life that his/her parents helped God to bring about. At that point they either won’t remember the hardships they experienced in this life, or they won’t care anymore because they’ll have eternal life and happiness with God.
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21: 1-4
1
1ke
Guest
If you are asking what Church teaching on the matter is, the answer is yes it is morally permissible.
Children are always a great good, whether or not they may be born with a disease. One is under no obligation to avoid children, such a mentality would imply that being born with a disease is a moral evil. It is not.
God loves us all and wants many, many souls in heaven with him where we will all be perfect.
Now prudentially, a couple may need to consider their resources to care for a child in such circumstances when making a decision on when and how many children to have. One already born with a serious condition may strain resources and preclude having more children. In which case, a couple would be able to use natural family planning.
But no, the possibility that offspring might receive a gene that causes or carries a disorder is not a reason in and of itself to avoid children.
R
Rence
Guest
I believe that if one knows that there is a high probablility that their child will have a devestating disease, that yes, they should not have kids. But I wouldn’t count on contraceptives to make that happen if it’s that important…
1
1ke
Guest
Well, we all die. So we all pass on a fatal disorder to our children-- Original Sin.
I know you mean the kind that may bring suffering and pain, but we all have our trials. Even those born “perfect” can experience pain, suffering, and even physical issues through disease, accident, illness, etc.
W
wmw
Guest
What is unfair? These statistics for one.
The NFP program that I’m familiar with says that a learning time of 6 to 8 months should precede the beginning of intimacy.
The study that produced the 25% failure rate in the first year ignored this part of the NFP program out of fairness. I read this on an NFP web site, can’t remember where exactly, but given the number of couples I know using NFP 25% can’t be even close to realistic.
Mark Twain - There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
T
tabycat
Guest
There are some illnesses that havr a genetic componit to them (ie mental illnessnesses).
:hug3::flowers:
E
EasterJoy
Guest
My understanding concerning Huntington’s disease is that if you know you carry the gene, you also know that if you live long enough, you will eventually suffer from the disease yourself, and the disease will progressively incapacitate you. I hope you do not actually know that you carry such a gene. If so, you have my sympathy.
Again, according to my understanding, as the disease is passed along in families, symptoms tend to develop at younger and younger ages, because the genetic issue is compounded as it is passed along. This adds another element to this decision: that is, that you know your ability to parent will be compromised at some time. Even though you don’t know that it will be compromised while you child is still at home, you do know that you will not be in a position to personally give your child the care that the condition would require.
If it is morally permissible to have children even though you know they will be born into original sin and will leave the world through some sort of a death, with all sorts of trials and temptations in between, I don’t know what could be worse than that. Children are a blessing and a delight to God–each one of us is!–even with all of that to deal with. Next to that, in the big picture physical trials are a much smaller thing. Having said that, knowing that you are afflicted with Huntington’s means that you will be afflicted at some point and that your spouse might well have to expend serious resources to see to your care. It is reasonable to anticipate that your capacity as a couple to parent is going to be severely compromised at that point. That is definitely a well-grounded reason to avoid conception.
It is certainly morally permissible to get genetic testing as a way of determining whether or not you can expect to have limits placed on your own future ability to parent. It is not a moral necessity that you get such testing, however. OTOH, my understanding is that if you do not have the disease yourself, you cannot pass it on, because it is not a condition that is passed on via recessive genes. You can pass it on while you are early in life and still symptom-free, but you won’t pass it on while only being heterozygous yourself.
Again, according to my understanding, as the disease is passed along in families, symptoms tend to develop at younger and younger ages, because the genetic issue is compounded as it is passed along. This adds another element to this decision: that is, that you know your ability to parent will be compromised at some time. Even though you don’t know that it will be compromised while you child is still at home, you do know that you will not be in a position to personally give your child the care that the condition would require.
If it is morally permissible to have children even though you know they will be born into original sin and will leave the world through some sort of a death, with all sorts of trials and temptations in between, I don’t know what could be worse than that. Children are a blessing and a delight to God–each one of us is!–even with all of that to deal with. Next to that, in the big picture physical trials are a much smaller thing. Having said that, knowing that you are afflicted with Huntington’s means that you will be afflicted at some point and that your spouse might well have to expend serious resources to see to your care. It is reasonable to anticipate that your capacity as a couple to parent is going to be severely compromised at that point. That is definitely a well-grounded reason to avoid conception.
It is certainly morally permissible to get genetic testing as a way of determining whether or not you can expect to have limits placed on your own future ability to parent. It is not a moral necessity that you get such testing, however. OTOH, my understanding is that if you do not have the disease yourself, you cannot pass it on, because it is not a condition that is passed on via recessive genes. You can pass it on while you are early in life and still symptom-free, but you won’t pass it on while only being heterozygous yourself.
L
LJN21
Guest
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm
lewiscrusade.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-2007-nfp-study-revisited/
I’m not speaking to the idea that you shouldn’t have a child because of a possible genetic disease. Just that the Church ban on contraception is “too narrow”.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Not in my personal opinion.
- Status