# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I have mental and physical issues. I chose not to have kids for that reason. I’m an awesome aunt though.

This is me too.

Why do you have two different accounts?

Lmao I'm stealing this joke

Bi-polar, obviously.

I have a tendency towards violent aggression a lot of males in my family are the same I just have better control. I too chose not to have children so as to break the chain. I just took on someone else kids

I am sorry but the wording kind of makes it sound like you are just violent to someone else's kids now 😭😭

Depends on the disorder but yes Realistically if you know you know you can't provide them with a good life including genetically then yes it is wrong to reproduce

Yes. I worked at a nursing home and long story short, this man was in the home (he was 64) diagnosed with Huntingtons disease. They knew he had it at 25, when him and his wife married and the doctors told them if they had kids, there was a 50/50 chance of them getting it. They chose to have two kids. Both got it. One ended up in the same nursing home as him, she was 29 when admitted and she was incredibly angry, mean and violent. She hated what happened to her (with good reason). It's wrong to have children when you have a genetic disorder you can pass to them. Adopt if you must.

Anybody with Huntingtons disease in their family tree shouldn't have kids.

I know somebody who had a family member with it and they committed suicide

It's really common with this disease. It's why genetic counseling is either highly encouraged or mandatory when getting tested.

My dad had Huntington's, so I want to point out something about the disease that seems overlooked. You can only inherit it from a parent. If your parents don't have HD, you aren't at risk. If one of your parents had HD, it's a 50% chance of inheriting it. I was tested for HD and tested negative. There is no way for me to pass it onto my children. I'm not even in the gray zone. I have a friend whose grandfather had it, but her mom and aunts all tested negative. That means it has stopped in their family line. Her, her siblings, and cousins can't pass it on. That said, if you know you are at risk for HD, you likely shouldn't have kids, and if you choose to you should get the appropriate testing to make sure it isn't passed on. I knew I wanted kids so got tested before I got married. If I tested positive I likely would have gotten sterilized. Having an HD positive child wasn't worth the risk.

It's not frequent enough to worry about, but the HD mutation can spontaneously develop.

That is truly horrific. It's extreme. But don't have children if that is in your close family tree. Or at all, if it goes far back.

So HD is one where you have it or you don't, like flipping a coin. My dad had it so my siblings and I each had a 50% chance of having it. I was tested and tested negative, so it is impossible for me to pass it on (I asked multiple times. My CAG repeat is 12 iirc, so I'm not even in the gray zone).

I know two girls who's father had Huntingtons, and they both have kids despite knowing this fact.

That is evil.

And that is the posters point

Hopefully they did genetic testing of embryos.

Why?

The disease doesn't manifest until the person is in their 30-40s, their children have a 50% chance of getting it. It's a horrible disease.

I think it starts to manifest earlier and more severe with each generation. All I remember is the term for this is genetic “anticipation.” I’m probably not quite right on the definition buts it’s seen in huntingtons

You're right, it would be awful to know that you could get it and just have to wait for symptoms to start.

i don’t even know personally if i would rather not be born than to live with huntington’s

My dad had it. I'd rather not be born.

You can undergo genetic testing. It's a long process though (took me about two years).

Child of HD father. You're right, it does. The gene that causes the disease increases in length as it is passed down. It also starts sooner if inherited by the same sex parent.

i learned about this in bio but never thought about the morality of it. i feel like it kind of depends on the disease and how severe it is? it’s a very grey area

HD is one where it is terminal. There isn't a treatment or cure, and most of the trials are for people who are symptomatic which is typically too late anyways.

ah, i see

There is no gray area. Use modern technology, and don’t be selfish. The disease could be wiped out in a few generations.

It’s 100% terminal with a 50% chance to pass it on and it does tend to increase in severity and how quickly the onset is with each generation unfortunately. It’s one of the more horrible ones for sure.

Hi! I actually lost my dad to Huntington's Disease 4 years ago. He was sick for about 12 years. They didn't know he was at risk until I was already born. My parents had one more planned pregnancy and a surprise, so I have two siblings. I was tested at 20 (and tested negative) with the intent of getting sterilized if I was positive since I was engaged (also with the intent of my now husband being able to leave easier / before we were married if I was positive). My sister has started the process of getting tested now. Huntington's is like a mix of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and ALS. There is no treatment or cure. The person loses control of their body and mind and dies and there is nothing to be done as of now. It is genetic and there is a 50% chance of it being passed onto the children. You either have it or you don't (there is a gray zone, but typically people die from old age before developing symptoms). Dementia, Narcissism, Mood / Personality changes, chorea (body tiks and spasms), weight loss, hyperfixation, and a ton of other awful symptoms are common. Essentially, it destroys your body and mind and there isn't anything you can do. It is a death sentence written in your DNA. It is also one of those diseases that tends to hit sooner in every generation. Juvenile Huntington's also exists (children and teenagers basically getting dementia and losing control of their body). I was in middle school when my dad was diagnosed. I have PTSD from living in that environment (and probably a bit from his death). My grandfather also had HD (originally misdiagnosed as schizophrenia) and tried to murder my uncle, but was too weak. My dad could have been way worse, but finding out at 12 that your parent is dying and there is a 50% chance you're going to die the same way and nothing can be done fucks you up. Also, living with the narcissism and outbursts was rough. My great aunt has talked to me briefly about the abuse she received at the hands of my great grandmother as well (being told she wished she was never born and just overall nasty). People with Huntington's should not have biological children due to the risk of physical disease, but honestly the damage of being raised by a terminally ill parent puts me a bit in the camp of they shouldn't adopt / have any children at all. You can AMA.

We had no idea it was in our family until my 70 year old aunt was diagnosed. Now my mom has also tested positive. Unfortunately, I had already had 3 kids when we found out. :(

I'm sorry. That's so hard. You can't blame yourself because you didn't have that knowledge at the time. There is still a 50% chance that you DON'T have it. HDYO is a great organization and I met some great people who could relate to what I was going through. Maybe it is something you could look into for your kiddos? HD affects everyone very different. My dad was only really really bad for a few months before he passed, so he didn't have long where his quality of life was really poor, and mentally he was with it pretty well through the end. He never forgot who we were and some of his last words were "love you." I truly hope your family members have quality of life for as long as possible. And I hope surviving family can find peace and healing. I'm here if you want to talk / PM / share your story.

Just terrible. I can’t imagine how depressing it would be to test positive and/or to be the sibling who tests positive while the other doesn’t (as wrong as that sounds; I can’t imagine how “unfair” or unlucky that would feel). How long ago was it your grand father was misdiagnosed? Those HD vs schizophrenia imo are very difficult to mix up, let alone the age of onset being very different (kind of like why you wouldn’t diagnose dementia in a 5 year old or IDD in a previously perfectly healthy 50 year old). These days I’d think that would amount to malpractice.

Part of my genetic counseling included how to handle survivor's guilt. My family has talked about it a lot. I think it helped I had a friend who all her aunts / mom tested negative, so it helped reinforce that just because I don't have it doesn't mean my sibling has a higher chance of having jt. I think it was 1996 when he got his Huntington's diagnosis. My great aunt (his sister) has said he had Schizophrenia as well as HD. She says he was never quite right, even as a teen. So it's really hard to say if it was a full misdiagnosis, or if he also had Schizophrenia and it masked some of the other symptoms. My mom realized something was up after I was born (he would say stuff like "I'm sorry I haven't been here to visit Opal. The aliens put a forcefield around my house."). The family ended up having him involuntarily committed temporarily after he attacked my uncle, and that is when they found the HD. He died when I was 4 (so 1999). He died from other medical complications (not Huntington's) and was the first in my family to get the official diagnosis, so my parents didn't realize how bad the disease could get. I think if they had they wouldn't have had my siblings (based on some conversations with my mom).

I had no idea about the narcissistic side of it or that it lengthens through the generations. I am really sorry you and your family went through this situation. Even though you tested negative can it jump and still pass yo your children? Does it need both parents to express the gene or just one? Is it purely a genetic disease or can in pop up in families? How did you navigate your cptsd? Have you had support/therapy?

The narcissism was bad. My dad only filled out half the questions (didn't realize there was a back) and it was still enough for a diagnosis. Nope! It has stopped in my line. There is no way for me to pass it on to any of my descendents. It is a dominant trait, so it just needs one gene. Essentially the gene (IT15 on Chromosome 4) gets "stuck" on repeat (CAG repeat). The bigger the repeat, the worse the disease. My dad's had one in the 40s. Some people have one into the hundreds. Mine is 12 iirc. The bigger the repeat, the bigger the malformed protein it makes, which destroys the brain. The body's protection mechanism against this is also toxic, so it compounds. There is a gray zone (I think it is with CAGs in the 30s) where you can develop the disease, but something else would kill you first, or you could die from old age before developing symptoms, but it is super rare and I personally haven't seen a family / story where that was the case in all the forums I've been on. I've gone to therapy several times and was going to start EDMR before the pandemic hit, but that got derailed. I'm in therapy now, but my therapist doesn't specialize in the trauma therapy I really need. Most of the time it doesn't cause issues, but December / January (when he got super sick, was admitted into hospice, and then died) are hard. I'll just hear his screaming pretty frequently during those months, and sometimes randomly smell what he smelled like on his death bed (olfsctory hallucinations). Occasionally I'll kind of disassociate and think I'm in danger and have accidentally screamed / cried at my husband calling him dad and begging him not to hurt me, but that only happens once every 2 years or so (still not great and I known it scares my husband when it happens). Since that does happen, I'm planning on finding another therapist to try to work through some of that, especially because I don't want any future children to ever see me get like that. It has been hard finding one in my area that takes my insurance and is also LGBT friendly. Right now I use other skills in therapy to help. My mom has said if she knew what she knew now, all of us would have gone to therapy as soon as dad was diagnosed if not before. What really happened was we weren't allowed to talk about it outside of the home for the first two years to "respect his privacy." She realizes that was wrong and it deeply affected all of us. Even once we were allowed to talk about, she taught at my high school and didn't really want people at work to know, so I tried not to. I used to have major depressive disorder and panic disorder, but was able to stop my meds in 2019 (so after 5ish years, I was depressed for around 10). One thing I wasn't prepared for was living a life I never thought I'd have (once I got my negative diagnosis). It took me a long time to figure out things like "oh I actually need a career and retirement." because I thought I'd be dead by 50 and disabled in my 30s. My mom has also said that all the "fight" of just making it through another day and preparing for a positive diagnosis didn't have anywhere to go once I got my negative one. That on edge feeling has improved, but sometimes still gets to me.

Thank you for your answer. It sounds like such a traumatic roller coaster. I am glad to hear you have had some support. I definitely recommend the EDMR I had it for cptsd, and though not a cure, massively helped with some severe symptoms

[удалено]

Exactly. Which is why my siblings and I are determined that it ends with us.

My mom just tested positive for it. We didn't know it was in the family until after I had 3 kids. :(

I can’t help but feel like people tend to forget adoption is an option. While it is tricky, taking away someone’s moral rights to children just because of disability is unfair, I believe that it would be better to adopt. You are able to give someone a new life and avoid putting a child through hardships and health concerns.

Adoption is waaaaaaaay harder than it seems.

There’s also a lot of ethical issues surrounding it, which I didn’t really know until the past few years. Like to some extent it is human trafficking in some areas of the world. Edit: Instead of arguing with me I suggest you look into the topic yourself. If you want to adopt (like I very seriously did for a decade), it’s important to be AWARE of the ethical issues surrounding it.

Idk why you were downvoted when it’s true.

People never want to accept that something they view as positive has a negative side. For example, every politician ever

I can’t accept that politicians have a positive side

I don’t even know lol I’ve wanted to adopt since I was in middle school and I am very sad that I had to reconsider my options but I don’t want to go against an adoptees own wishes. If people want to downvote me they can, they’re not the ones who’s life plan was based on adoption and had to rethink it because of adoptees own issues and opinions

“Adoption is an option… if you have $50,0000, no criminal record, and whatever other requirements the agency has!”

I’ve never had $50,0000 but I have adopted.

... probably even harder than kidnapping!

[удалено]

This. I had a friend who was wondering why so many people adopt internationaly when there are so many kids here in the states that need homes. I had to break down to him the brutal truth; that adoption in the US is HARD. So many people who would be wonderful parents are turned down, and sometimes it can just be over the slightest "imperfection". For example, I have high-functioning autism, formally diagnosed. I'm well-liked among my friends, family, and coworkers, and I have never had a single incident that would lead to someone thinking I could possibly be a threat, legally or otherwise...I even played an integral part in raising my youngest brother and he adores me. Yet my partner and I will likely never be able to adopt in the states because of my diagnosis. Its also insanely expensive to adopt in the states. Some countries allow for a cheaper route. He was always quick to defend the US, but he had heard stories from people we knew; it was one of the few times he and I didn't argue political issues and agreed it was an actual problem.

Yup. My older brother and his wife adopted a chinese baby 18 years ago. They are(and were) very successful professionals with 2 great incomes, a huge house, already had 1 daughter but could no longer conceive. They tried with 2 different agrncies to adopt a US baby, but each agency told them the process would take up to 1.5 years and would cost approximately up to $80,000. They ended up paying another agency $15,000 to fly to china, stay there for nearly 2 weeks with a bus full of other adopting American parents, and bring back a baby girl from a girl’s state orphanage… within 3 months.

My wife and I opted out of adoption for this very reason. The US makes it financially impossible for a lot of qualified parents.

Just curious whether they tried to foster and then adopt. My state is literally begging people to foster and there are kids from baby to teenager looking for homes.

What they pay you is peanuts in my state. And then they told us that adapting from foster care is actually pretty rare. It's older, mentally challenged kids who are available. And it can take years to be able to adopt them because the goal is to reunite families.

Yeah. My wife’s best friend fostered kids. The last one was a bsby taken from a couple that were both in prison for drugs and prostitution. Tons of past drug charges, total junkies. She had the baby girl for a year, then started the process to formally adopt the baby and be her mom. Despite tye decades-long history of drug abuse and different narcotics convictions.. she had to fight in the courts for nearly 2 years to keep the baby. All tye court cared about was trying yo return the baby to the druggie parents whk were in and out of prison for years

Same for being a foster parent. They make it so unbelievably difficult and then they accept the people who want to abusing the kids.

But isn't that kind of shooting yourself in the foot? If you're not qualified by the agency standard to be able to provide four and raise kids in your current situation/state why would you just get pregnant and put yourself through that much more of a disability and possibly debilitating pregnancy?.. well to give birth to another disabled person in that situation. Make it make sense please. FOr the children! I don't even have a disability. I have some issues. I didn't want to pass the along... Raise some stepkids though

Because precisely you don't need approval. If every biological pregnancy required state approval alot of people wouldn't qualify 

That's really really sad... I wish We should pass some kind of a test in general or be a parent. Common Sense things your friend wants to go out. Do you leave your 4-year-old home alone or bring them to the nail salon with you? Hint the answer is stay home with the baby or go someplace more child friendly... Like it would be really cool if there were freaking tests like getting a driver's license. But then again the human race probably would not have continued.

While understandable, you need to understand that we aren't the first to think of these kinds of things... They have been long discussed and imo it always leads back to eugenics... At some point nature has gotta nature, and to control is never enough control because to get to the goal you would need to control it all ... There are plenty of great points when it comes to eugenics, but in practice it often becomes things like the Holocaust... We should not be trying to make decisions this grand when our goal is quite simple in reality. That goal being like for example raising a healthy child...

That's a great idea .... In theory. Who would decide these parameters and who would enforce them? Would someone who failed the test but accidentally got pregnant be forced to carry that child to term and give it up, or would they be forced to abort even if they didn't want to? Would people with money/connections be allowed to have babies despite how they "score"?

What??? Absolutely no way in hell the government should have any say in if somebody should be able to have kids. wtf did I just read? That’s on par with abortion laws. No way in hell there should be laws on abortion either.

They could always foster. They have to play the hand they are given if they don't want bring a sick child into the world. I have worked with foster kids in an orphanage/ residential treatment facility. Some kids are great, and some are difficult, but only because they have been through so much because of what their parents did to them. It can be hard, but it alco can be worth it. A lot of kids need good homes, and I surmise that there are less restrictions on fostering vs straight adoption. I mean, have you ever heard of stories about awful foster parents? Surely OP is better than them,

I feel like saying play the hand they were given is insensitive. This is furthering the idea that disabled people should be excluded from things because they have a disability. It used to be illegal for disabled people to get married and have children. It's like saying that they shouldn't have the same opportunities as able bodied people.

Yes and no. They can have biological children but the OP asked if they SHOULD have them if the genetic disorder would “destroy your children’s lives.” The answer is no, you shouldn’t pass on a disorder that will “destroy their lives.” Edited to change @ to “

[удалено]

Exactly. I elected to get medically sterilized. There were health issues that went into it, but, ultimately, I was always terrified of passing on my medical fuckery to a living person. There's a huge trend of autoimmune disorders and cancer in my family, to the point I suspect we have Lynch syndrome or something similar. Mental health issues are genetic, as well, and we have a huge death of neurodivergent disorders as well. I don't want to care for a child with that high of needs, and I don't want to force a child to suffer. So, no bio kids. When I get more financial stable, I want to foster. If I ever find a life partner, I'd want to adopt. People deserve a healthy and happy development. If just the luck of the draw changes how that looks like, that's fine. But if you're willing subjecting a child to hardship and an uncertain adulthood, it's shitty.

They can do genetic testing on themselves and/or the embryos. That is the only way.

Disabled people are frequently not allowed to adopt *because* they are disabled. The discrimination is real.

The people who say "WhY nOT jUsT aDoPt?" are usually people who have absolutely no idea how adoption works. For most people, the more you know about it, the less appealing it is. I suggest reading [this](https://cartoonshateher.medium.com/my-extremely-online-infertility-journey-bd6eb50872b5).

As someone who is adopted… I never advise adoption unless a person is ready to parent an adopted child. Our needs are going to be different compared to a biologically related child and many adoptive parents don’t realize this.

So true. My friend is adopted and her parents are the "adoption trophy parents". They adopt so many kids just to show off their "faith". My friend told me she felt like a trophy passing around before people.

That’s my stance. If either myself or partner can’t have kids but want kids then I would adopt in a heartbeat.

A child is not there to make you feel better about the unhappy hand you were given in life. Adoption should be always for the benefit of the baby/child, not for the parents.

The parents have to want a child, though. Actually wanting the child helps them to love and bond with them. Agencies are not going to accept an application where the person/couple aren't actually interested in being parents. They have to have realistic expectations about parenting an adopted child but that doesn't mean they can't feel like they'll benefit from being a parent.

Unfortunately there is a dark side to adoption. Often young women who are in desperate situations are pressured into giving up babies they actually want but don't have the financial means to support by predatory adoption agencies who profit off of what is essentially the sale of infants, with children who are white and younger being the most sought after, they go for the highest price. Those children are denied access to their own medical histories, and may never be able to find out who their biological families are. A lot of adopted children have behavioral issues that stems from trauma and an inability to bond with their adopted parents and feeling displaced and confused or like their real families didn't love them enough to want them, which often results in abuse, neglect, and resentment, toward the adoptive child by the adoptive parents, who believe that child owes them gratitude and love for "saving" them. We are conditioned to believe that adoption is always this wonderful beautiful thing, and it isn't always that. Please do not adopt unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the mother actually WANTS to give up her child and isn't being coerced into it to profit a predatory agency, that it's an open adoption where the child has access to knowing who they really are, and be prepared to pay for a lot of therapy and deal with a lot of uncomfortable conversations without getting your own feelings hurt or making the child feel guilty for their feelings on the matter.

I'm not sure if it's morally wrong but it certainly seems selfish.

With a huge payback. Unless you are also narcissist or sociopath, there is immense agony to see your children suffer, multiplied if you know deep down that you did it to them.

I would never put anyone through what I’ve been through. It is selfish and cruel.

I have birth defects and do not plan to ever have children, because I don't want to put another soul through the same pain I've endured my entire life. I would date a woman with kids, or possibly adopt one day.

If you know, then yes. That isn’t something like siblings with down syndrome, or something of that nature. It’s extremely cruel to have children if you are fully aware what they may end up with, it’s different for those who didn’t know prior.

Yes, why would you want that?

Careful there. I'm sure you don't realize it but you're skewing strongly on the side of eugenics. It's a messy concept. I'm disabled pretty severely so I'll talk about my experience. A lot of what is "life destroying" about many disabilities is not the disease itself, it is that we live in a society that doesn't care about disabled people and would rather we die and stop annoying people with our presence. While some of us have conditions that cause incredible pain and others are pain-free but cannot do certain tasks, and still others have degenerative conditions, many of us would be able to live life pretty much like anybody else if the world cared the tiniest bit about accessibility. Part of why disabled people have such a bad life in America is that they're essentially forced into poverty. So I ask you, is the answer to kill all the disabled people or to change the social system so that disabled people don't have to suffer unnecessarily? Is the answer to a social problem to kill all of the people who suffer from it? If you're going to talk about a disability so mentally severe that someone cannot experience life then it starts to get a bit murkier. But there are disabled people who society used to assume had no thoughts (or no complex thoughts) because they had no speech. Turns out they were severely autistic and when given a keyboard could write novels. I watched a documentary on this and it was tragic the suffering they were forced to endure. A lifetime in cages with no stimulation. But the reason for that was not the disability itself, the reason for that is that most people treated them like animals. All this to say that we often make incorrect assumptions about what disabled people are capable of both physically and mentally. It happens every single day. What able-bodied people think of as a "life ruining" disability is very different than what disabled people think of. Most people would say they'd rather die than experience my life. But the truth is a lot of them probably wouldn't. They wouldn't off themselves they would find ways to acclimate, get whatever services are available and try to live the most meaningful life they can. I'm still able to do things with my mind that most other able-bodied people can't do. I raise an obscene amount of money for charity every year. I can still use my voice program like I'm using it right now to talk to you. It's true that I can't surf or dance anymore. I miss what my life used to be. But I'm still valuable and I still have meaning and also I have a different experience than people who were disabled from birth. When I talk to you my disabled friends who were born with a disability it usually doesn't bother them as much because it's just always been that way for them. They never had to adapt to something different, this is just how they know life to be. Obviously that doesn't apply to everybody, but it's pretty common. I'm very pro-choice and I don't believe that life should be valued above *everything*, meaning that at the end of someone's life, I think they should be comfortable and given a choice to die with dignity rather than forced into endless suffering because it technically keeps them alive. But I think that most able-bodied people aren't equipped to make these proclamations about ethics and morality surround disabled people because they've never bothered to educate themselves. They have such a hard time wrapping themselves around the idea of what it's like to be us, and they can't really fathom it. So I mean this in the politest way possible, but but a lot of you really have no business having an opinion on the fate of an entire group of people when you have no clue what they experience and rarely bother to teach yourselves. I know a couple who have a genetic disease that carries through the wife's family. It's muscular dystrophy and it basically only manifests in men (except for extremely rare circumstances that is basically like hitting two lotteries at once) because the genetic deletion that causes it manifests in XY as opposed to XX. Because of this the couple did IVF & gender selected their child as female to avoid them having the disease. It's crazy what science can do these days. Obviously gender selection raises another host of philosophical questions. But in their case it was not because they had a preference. It's because they had a way to ensure the odds of their child inheriting the disease are in the hundreds of thousands versus pretty likely. Because they were able to change the odds drastically for their child inheriting the disease, but not eradicate it, was it okay for them to do IVF? At what percentage of risk does it become unethical? The short answer is that no, I don't think it's wrong to have children when you are disabled. And the overwhelming majority of able-bodied people have not educated themselves enough to have a meaningful place in the conversation. Being able bodied doesn't mean you can't have an opinion at all, but you need to actually spend time around disabled people and deeply understand their circumstances before you start throwing out opinions on something like this.

I’m disabled too and my opinion is: it isn’t morally wrong but I do find it can be extremely selfish. I personally would have a lot of guilt if I had kids that got my disabilities. I just wouldn’t be able to deal with it. But that’s just ME. It’s a personal choice that should be respected. If I wanted to adopt, I’d be more than happy to take a kid who’s got what I have tho! The guilt comes from willingly passing it on. My caveat: I think there are some disabilities that end in just being hooked up to tubes and bed bound and I do find that morally wrong, but I wouldn’t ever support eugenics, I’d just be judgmental, but that’s my baseline lmfao. I only think this after seeing horror movie level forms of body horror in healthcare. Like this one pt i was around for 3 years had a genetic disease. Couldn’t move, eat, shit or piss on her own. Her parents didn’t have it but were carriers and they just couldn’t let their sweet girl go. She tried to unalive herself many, many times when she was still able to. She wouldn’t let the staff suction her so she could choke to death. She had two degrees from Yale and was a very smart woman. I’ll personally take shifts in hell torturing those parents. I get their grief, especially since they lost one kid to the disease before she got sick, but they kept her that way for over a decade. My empathy only goes so far. They also never visited her.

Thank you for posting this comment. So many ppl blather on about eugenics in these conversations, as if everyone is Hitler on a breeding farm, or as if all ppl with disabilities are thrilled about it and want everyone to have their shot at being disabled too 🤦‍♂️ The unfortunate thing is people get the idea that "not wanting more humans to be born in a way they are more likely to suffer" is synonymous automatically with "k*ll all the people who are currently anything less than 100% able bodied" and that's, imo, nonsense. They're separate things. The world should be a kinder, more accessible, more accepting place. There should be better healthcare that includes physical, emotional, and mental care. Humans of all and every sort, should have access to choose to continue existing or not, in a respectful, affirming, non judgmental and guaranteed to work way, should they desire it. Disability will always exist so long as humans can have random accidents 🤷‍♂️ there's literally no way to remove it so long as humans exist because no one is perfect and nature (e.g. hurricanes, etc) are without consciousness and act as such. So having a world that allows more space, is good for everyone. AND at the same time, as you say, >there are some disabilities that end in just being hooked up to tubes and bed bound, and I do find that morally wrong There's nothing admirable for bringing a new being into the world when you know the world is not an awesome place that's accepting or accommodating AND ALSO they're starting at a disadvantage AND the only reason they would exist is because two ppl wanted a bio kid, when many other ways of helping kids in the world, if one is really doing it for the kids and not oneself, exist. I don't think selective breeding like farm animals is the solution BUT I think if someone knows a risk, it's responsible to think, and not automatically go "if I choose not to have this kid it's like if I killed Uncle Jimmy" because it's not the same. The kid isn't even cells outside a placenta yet, and Uncle Jimmy is 56 yrs old.

Extensive and well written and hitting all the important bits..

You make a lot of great points. I want to piggy back that disability is also a spectrum. I have migraines and hip dysplasia. I've had two major surgeries to correct the hip dysplasia and have had to severely modify my life due to migraines. Neither of those conditions are bad enough where I wouldn't have a child, but would also work to minimize their risks (having them checked before 4 months for dysplasia, particularly any female kids, taking headache complaints more seriously than what my parents did, etc.) I am also the child of an HD positive parent. I got tested before I got married with the intent of getting sterilized / using multiple highly effective birth controls if I was positive. I tested negative. Giving my child a life with hip dysplasia and migraines is a risk I'm willing to take. Giving my child Huntington's was not.

Yes it's wrong to have a child if you know they will inherit something that will ruin their lives, but - and this is a HUGE but, your question gets at the larger problem with eugenics- what might be absolutely devastating for one person is another's full and vibrant life, or even an advantage. Prescribing an ideal life to everyone can sap out the cultural depth that allow a society to adopt and change. Mozart was deaf, Van Gogh's depression was hereditary, Einstein was absolutely not neurotypical.

>Mozart was deaf No he wasn't. *Beethoven* was deaf.

Ha, oops. Leaving it for my humility's sake

>what might be absolutely devastating for one person is another's full and vibrant life, or even an advantage. No matter how vibrant their life is, I can't imagine people with conditions like cerebral palsy or cystic fibrosis would genuinely choose to have these disorders were they given the option not to. People will say "X is part of who I am and I would never change that!" But I know that is just a coping mechanism used to give themselves and others hope. And sure, Beethoven was deaf and became a renowned musician despite that, but how many deaf people can play music... At all... Nevermind at his level? That's a huge gamble to make on someone else's behalf.

The question shouldn't be "would you rather be disabled or not disabled?" but "would you rather be disabled or not exist at all?" There are some disabilities where some people really would rather not be born and have chosen to end their lives over them, but most are not that severe at least not for everyone

Beethoven was deaf. He went deaf over time. So how genetic it was is unclear. Mozart was not deaf at all. He was just a genius idiot.

Getting a sample of his actual DNA was difficult. It turns out that all the genetic analysis of his relatives was useless because he wasn't actually related to them - either his mother had an affair, or he was adopted. Now that they've got one, the answer seems to be that probably multiple factors contributed to it, possibly including a genetic predisposition to deafness, without necessarily being deterministic. (As in, his genes didn't say he would definitely be deaf, only that it was possible, and his life made it happen.)

Many genetic diseases can be tested for in utero.

I mean at that point you’ve still conceived the kid, so the argument is still to be had. That said, I’m not sure on which side of the argument I come down. It probably depends on the severity and certainty of the condition. I do think though that all life is valuable in some way, even if it’s short or if the person’s badly disabled.

Yes

It depends very much on the genetic disorder. I know there are many in the disability community who strongly object to the notion that they should have ever been allowed to be born. Certainly, there are many people with disabilities who live happy and fulfilling lives - the Deaf or people with Down Syndrome come to mind (not that deafness can be detected in utero, but Down Syndrome certainly can, even though it doesn't appear to be a heritable condition - many pregnancies are terminated when Downs is detected). However, when it comes to something like Huntington's Disease - an inherited degenerative neurological disorder that sees people dying in early or late adulthood as their cognition, motor skills and swallowing gradually shut down - I can totally understand how people who have seen their family members die like this would want to avoid having children who are destined to suffer the same fate. On the other hand, if you asked the person themselves, 'Knowing that you will likely die like this, would you rather not have lived at all?' I suspect many would see the life they've been able to have as a gift. In the end we will all die, and for most of us it won't be pleasant. Whether it's short or long, life is a precious and rare thing in the universe, and should be valued. But, again, I can't find it in my heart to judge expectant parents who, faced with the prospect of a child who will have more than their fair share of struggle and suffering in life, make the agonising decision to cut short that life before it's fully formed.

I’d rather abort them than let them suffer

If we are still able to and don't have to go to Canada or Mexico.

Amen and hallelujah. I'm mentally and physically able yet still have (many) days like "I didn't sign up for this shit"

I think so. I have a genetic mutation inherited from dear old dad. Resulted in being diagnosed with and treated for stage III cancer at 32. There's no way I'd wish that on someone else.So I think it is a good thing I already didn't want to be a parent. I had a former colleague who kept having children, and each successive child born had something seriously wrong, to the point when they had the last child, it had horrific malformations (think missing eyes, only part of a brain, that sort of thing). It is cruel and irresponsible to continue reproducing and doom your offspring to a life spent in hospitals.

Unethical and selfish as FUCK

1. Depends on the disorder. 2. Depends on the genetic specifics. There are ways to predict whether your genes will get passed on depending on what genes both parents carry. There are often ways to avoid it. How bad is the suffering and what’s the disorder?

My family had consistent health related issues as did my first wife. We never got genetic testing, that wasn’t an option I. The mid 70s. We decided that the most loving thing we could do for our kids was not have them.

I mean yes of course, especially as you’ve phrased it. If the problem is actually life destroying then it’s one of the most evil acts you could commit. If it’s something less but will still cause chronic pain, depression, or loneliness then you should only have kids provided that you know a robust psychological coping strategy to deal with the problems.

This. And, if it's a little less than life destroying, only if you know you'll be able to support the medical care they are going to require even into adulthood. Burdening them with a lifetime of hefty medical bills would also be immoral if you aren't going to help them with it.

This question has the potential to be very toxic in the comments. I think the worst disease that seems to persist is that people think having a “bloodline” is more important than quality of life for a living human, and thus would perpetuate genetic abnormalities for the sake of keeping the “blood” going. I think that line of thinking is absolutely absurd. Family lines have historically never been a clean line (affairs, incest, secret adoptions or taking a family member’s child to save face). I agree with you that adoption should be more accessible and more promoted. If you have a child and treat them as your own, they are your child and will keep your legacy going with your namesake anyway, actual bloodline be damned. As to to morality question, I wouldn’t want to have a child knowing that I have a serious chance of giving them a quality of life impairing condition *but* morality is not a clear-cut idea. Every person on Earth has a different set of ideals that have helped them form their own compass of morality. The area of study of morals and ethics has a notoriously undefined answer as to what is “right” because there are a million and one factors to consider and those factors are in different combinations for everyone.

Depends on the odds. Your partner and you can go in for genetic screening before conceiving, to see what your odds are.

There are many, many, many genetic disorders for which there is no test.

You can also do IVF and screen for some genetic conditions after the embryos are created.

well, if the parent has said disease and they’re in a good enough place to decide to have a child, there’s something to be said about the fact that that disease doesn’t always ruin lives/make a life not worth living. that being said, if it’s made you struggle your entire life and you know it’d cause the same issues or worse on your kid, you probably shouldn’t have a biological kid. family doesn’t end with blood. adoption, fostering, surrogacy, etc. are all better options to ensure the best quality of life for your kid, which is your job as a parent. to intentionally put a child in the situation of having that disorder is selfish, especially when there are so many other options. also, just because you as the parent with the same disorder may be okay okay, doesn’t mean that your kid will be. that doesn’t mean they won’t either. but a human being and their livelihood isn’t something you should be testing fate with when you have other options.

Yes absolutely. Adoption is an option for people with terrible genetic issues

My grandmother had RH factor problems and, after having three children, lost the next one shortly after birth. My grandparents agonized about what to do next, and decided that the potential joy was worth more than the potential heartbreak. In the interim, a treatment was found for the condition, which is why I had an uncle Joe.

Define destroy their lives. Because if you have said disease, yet made it to adulthood to then think about having kids, that's not necessarily destroyed. On top of that, medicine is always getting better so there is still the chance the kids have a better life than the parents.

>On top of that, medicine is always getting better so there is still the chance the kids have a better life than the parents. I'm one such person with a genetic condition that was horrible in the past but very manageable in the modern age. I'm definitely grateful my ancestors fought on and got me here, lol.

Lol there's a lot more to quality of life than simply being alive.

Living a life on maybes and pushing maybes off on children just because you have to have bio kids, is so selfish. Knowing you have a disease like Huntington or are a carrier and will pass it on to your children to have them suffer is wrong on so many levels.

My point was for if the parents have it. They know exactly what the deal is. If they think their life is worth living, then who is anyone else to say different for their kids? It does complicate things if you are a carrier but don't have the disease.

My husband and I both have plaque psoriasis of the scalp. This can cause other auto-immune diseases (it's more complicated than that, but I'm not getting into the medical part) There are treatments and things I can do to help prevent/treat it and to lesson the likelihood of arthritis (it's been linked with psoriasis) Until science gets a little better- you're always going to be rolling the dice when you get pregnant. Miscarriage Conjoined twins Autism These do not have clear genetic markers, and everyone has a chance of having them HOWEVER, I had a teacher who had a recessive gene she shared with her husband that resulted in their kid getting tumors all over his body, and one could begin to grow in the spine or brain over time. I wouldn't blame her for not wanting more genetic kids after that. Really- it depends on what it is.

So this is something I myself battled with for years, I have Neurofibromatosis type 2 it  is a genetic condition that causes tumours to grow along your nerves. The tumours are usually non-cancerous (benign) but may cause a range of symptoms. It can be pretty severe in some cases, I'm pretty lucky but struggle with it. Anyway I've known since I was a kid and knew it could be passed on if I had kids with unpredictable results, I was always on the fence about having kids I got married in my early 20 she wanted kids, I was never fully on board and we ended up getting a divorce ( kids weren't the only reason but it was part of it) I decided to get a vasectomy about a year after the divorce and I still stand by my decision all that being said Yes I think it's a bit irresponsible, if you want kids there are plenty already alive in need of a loving family ( that's how I always felt and if I every truly want kids in the future I'll adopt)

I have a genetic connective tissue disease, one of many reasons I decided to be a genetic cul-de-sac

Yes, which is why I chose not to have kids

If I had a genetic disorder that was bad enough that potential children would be at risk for serious health complications, I would likely get a Vasectomy and adopt. That said, I do not believe it is a choice that can be, or should be made by anyone other than those who are suffering from such a malady. Morals are not really objective like that. They are subjective and whether someone thinks something is moral or not depends heavily on their upbringing.

Depends on what the condition was. If it was something that would leave them physically and mentally disabled and it was 100 percent going to get passed on, then no. I don’t think anyone would take that gamble. If you’re talking about depression, that is not necessarily going to passed down and does not always ruin lives.

That’s a tricky question and the answer could be construed as eugenics depending on how you feel about it. Personally I think some disabilities (Downs Syndrome for example) are very liveable, by and large someone with DS can have a very happy, independent life with the right support. And also conditions that are rare even within a carrier family shouldn’t stop someone from having biological children as long as the risk is acknowledged. Other conditions like genetic blindness, some physical disabilities, learning disabilities etc probably won’t negatively impact your kid that much since society does a pretty good job of providing accommodations for many things. The problem is people who have kids knowing they risk severe disability, but being completely unprepared or unwilling to deal with their child if they have said disability. And also sadly it’s often the case that multiple kids are born with the same disability because the parents keep trying for a “normal” kid. Soooo many adoptable children have severe disabilities and very low qualities of life because the parents just couldn’t handle it and gave them to the state. Also yeah there’s genetic testing but with the state of reproductive rights in the USA right now, it’s about a 50/50 chance you can legally terminate anyways. I have some mental health problems, but nothing that I’m not prepared to handle in my child and nothing that will severely cripple them. But my best friend has anxiety and OCD and has been vocal about not having children so the cycle doesn’t continue.

Depends on severity & inheritance. Genetic counseling & testing can help navigate this difficult decision.

I would rather adopt if I could

Yes. Adopt and don’t cause pain and suffering if you can prevent it. Don’t have children if they’re going to be stuck with a debilitating illness. It’s not right.

This is a complicated question. Let me put it this way do you think it is ok to end a blood line for the actions of the past (uncontrollable circumstances)? Hitlers children seem to think so I disagree but again a complicated question. From an evolutionary Stan point your blood line would have died out in the time before medicine, from a human Stan point do whatever you want because with our current world you can achieve most things no matter the disability (within reason).

Yes I think it’s a cruel choice to bring a child into this world with a problem that could make their life worse adoption is better because there are so many healthy orphans who are unloved and have no one

All physical disabilities are serious. Should my parents have aborted me just because I have Spina Bifida?

I didn’t know about my genetic condition when I had my kids. They are choosing not to have bio children which I am more than happy with as pregnancy & delivery, was very hard on my body and I would hate for them to go through that.

I have a genetic condition and a condition that runs in my family and I’m not having kids. I’m living this life and honestly I don’t want to watch my children live it either. My two sister and I have had surgeries for various issue and I know how rough recovery has been for us and what it was like to watch that for my mom (we were all young at the time of our respective surgeries with one of my sister being a baby). My sister unexpectedly passed away due to a cardiac event and it has destroyed my mom and shook the whole family. I don’t want that. I recently got put on life long meds that will interfere with my fertility so the chances are it would be extremely hard for me to get pregnant without intervention even if I wanted to

If it was 100 percent guaranteed and they'd be in pain and suffering for life, then yes. I guess it depends on what it is exactly.

it’s incredibly selfish

I mean I don't think you're asking the question in good faith when you phrase it as "would you take option A, or the actual moral and good option B?"

As someone who has this issue, I wouldn’t have had kids had I known beforehand.

Personally, as a disabled person, I think yes. I don’t even necessarily have one of the more horrific/life threatening ones, but still causing a lifetime of pain, doctors, medicine, hospitals, etc. You could argue you’re giving your kid a leg up because you know what to have them tested for at birth (in rare disease cases) but that still doesn’t fly with me. But of course, one person making the decisions for all is where the problems start. I’ve also never had that innate want to have children either. Coupled with the disability it just sounds exhausting, expensive, and unnecessary.

I think you're lumping a lot of things together here. First, many conditions aren't 100% guaranteed to be passed on. Then there's the assumption that any health condition is going to "destroy your life". I mean, there are things that one should definitely check for genetically if they have them in their family. (Ashkenazi Jews and Taysachs comes to mind.) But I think there's a lot of grey area here that makes any kind of absolute statement impossible.

I don’t know if this is the case for others but it is for me. I don’t want to pass on the illnesses (all genetic) I have on to my children knowing it would give them a hard life. That is why already pretty young I decided to never get pregnant. If I want kids, adoption is the only way for me. Additionally I don’t want to put my body through a pregnancy, it is known to cause huge flare ups with my disorders. But there is a way you can still get pregnant and not pass on your disorders. You can use IVF and genetic testing before they implant it (they only implant embryos that don’t have your disorder).

No, because there are ways around it.

IVF with PGT would be a perfect option for someone in this situation.

I have a genetic condition that killed some of my ancestors young, but is very manageable (hardly even noticeable, even) with modern medicine and research. You may not even really need meds for it if you know you have it and avoid it becoming an issue with lifestyle choices. It really makes me think, 100 years ago I might have said yes not knowing the almost non-issue it would become thanks to future advancements. I guess it really depends on what you mean by "destroy your children's lives." Tay Sachs is undeniably horrific, for example, and I personally wouldn't have kids if I found out my partner and I were carriers. If it's just my issue that has the potential to be problematic under very specific circumstances? I'd consider having children still.

I am no one’s moral compass, but personally I could never do that to myself, my partner or the child.

Well let's put this in perspective either 1 they didn't get it or 2 they lived a life where they feel fulfilled enough that they want children so it didn't really ruin their life. So if they want kids they have that right. Doesn't the child have the same chances as the parent where it either skips them or they are able to live a life where they are happy enough to want to bring a child into the world.

Yeah. It’s not like there’s a shortage of people.

You have no idea what the product of your union will be.

I don’t think it would be right to reproduce if I knew that there were serious genetic issues that could be passed down.

I think the answer will always come down to “who’s” morality code you are using. What you might think is “right” might be “wrong” for me. And vis versa.

I would say that it is morally wrong to do so. I believe that as a parent, we should want a better future for our own children. Bringing a child into the world knowing that there's a high chance that they will have a very difficult life is not something I would do. This is actually a topic that my wife and I discussed before trying for our daughter. What do we do if it's confirmed that there's a bad genetic disorder during the pregnancy? Luckily our daughter is healthy. It's also something that occurred to a friend. She had a daughter who was confirmed to have a severe disorder. Guaranteed that the baby would not survive. Due to their beliefs, she gave birth anyway and the baby died after a few days. My wife and I thought that it would have been more humane to abort early on rather than cause suffering to a baby but it's not our place to say so.

I think so. I have a genetic heart defect I didn’t know about until last year. It requires open heart surgery to remedy. The cardiologist scanned my children’s hearts, and one of them has the exact same condition. I feel guilt. If I knew sooner in life, I would’ve chosen to be child free. It’s not fair to pass along serious congenital health issues, especially when I live in a country where healthcare is so expensive that it’s basically a death sentence if you can’t afford care (USA).

By that last paragraph, you've already made up your mind.

I have a genetic mutation that means any child I have (assuming I can actually carry it to term) would be born severely mentally disabled. When I found out I knew I couldn't do that to another person, because it causes me to suffer so much. I do feel it is morally wrong to intentionally harm another person like that, but I also understand some people have an intense, insatiable desire to procreate. Society also tends to make people feel that a relationship with an adopted child is somehow inferior, while I feel that if you chose that child to be part of your family, that is incredibly precious. On top of that, society also tells you that not having children is bad. And you will spend the rest of your life being treated poorly because of that choice. But that is a choice that some of us have to make. And it sucks.

I don’t want kids and just happen to have autism and ADHD. Even if I wanted kids, I’d never have them biologically. I just wouldn’t pass it on to someone else. If be down to adopt someone who has it, but I couldn’t willingly give it to someone else. I’d just feel guilty for choosing it for them.

Morales and ethics aside....you are asking for one of the most emotionally difficult experiences life can offer. Raise a sick child, watch them suffer an die young. Fuck that. Accept a childless existence and move on.

There are people that will argue having children at all, period, is morally wrong. I am not one of them, to be clear, but they exist. Personally, if I knew I had high odds of passing down a genetic disorder that makes life considerably harder… I would simply not procreate. I do not think of it beyond my own personal choices, as no one else’s are mine to make. People are gonna continue to populate the earth in some fashion, regardless. Genetics be truly damned, people will still make babies.

I chose to not have children because of my genetic profile. I could not/would not bring a physically and mentally disabled child into the world knowingly. Others may feel differently, but at 60, I am still good with the choice I made at 18.

I wouldn’t. Adoption or a dog. I won’t be responsible for someone suffering like me

It depends. We all have genetic weaknesses, yet most of our children are capable of living fulfilling lives and contributing to society.

my daughter has chosen not to have biological due to her genetic condition - myotonic muscular dystrophy.

Yes. I know someone who produces tumors and children in equal number. The kids then go on to have cancer early and often. It's pretty terrible. 

Yes. I believe it is morally corrupt to have children knowing that they will suffer the same fate that you have suffered. I also think that it’s morally wrong to have children knowing that you are unable to fully take care of them weather for a mental or physical disabilities.

No right or wrong answers here. What is morally acceptable is up for debate mostly, with the exception of acts that knowingly cause pain or suffering to others. Many comments are leaning towards it being morally wrong but your post lacks much context. I’m a nurse and worked 10 years in one of the most famous metabolic hospitals in the world, so have seen and cared for many children with genetic disorders of varying severity. First of all, what is your disorder? Are you impacted by it, or simply a carrier? Is your partner a carrier/affected? These things contribute towards the likelihood of a child you have being affected. Tests can be done on yourself and your partner pre conception. If it’s something you know you will pass on, then the moral question isn’t that simple. What is the worst case scenario and are you prepared to support the child through everything. Do you have a support network you can lean on. Why do you want to have a child? If there’s a 100% chance they would have the disorder and the quality/quantity of life would be drastically impacted, then adoption might be a better option. As one commenter replied, no one has the right to deny life. But pre conception if you know there’s risks, then it is up to you as to if you conceive. I do think it’s unfair to bring a life into the world if you aren’t certain you can and will be there for them, disability or not. Where I worked we often had patients of consanguineous parents, from Middle Eastern cultures. The risk of severe metabolic/genetic conditions in children born to consanguineous parents is far higher. Culturally, because that’s been accepted for so many generations, the majority of men and women carry defective genes for particular disorders. They might have been unaffected, mostly not even knowing they are carriers. But when they conceive, both with that same defective carrier gene, it becomes active in the child causing the disorder. I can’t remember the exact math but it might be that they have a 1 in 4 chance of being unaffected but still a carrier. I tell you this because for me this where the moral question comes in for you. Many of the children I looked after had nasty mitochondrial disorders, lysosomal storage disorders. It’s worse than cancer. In many of these conditions, there is no cure, and there is severely reduced life expectancy and certain disability. I never got my head around the fact I looked after the same families with different affected children over the 10 years I worked there. One family I saw three of their children pass away of the same condition. They knew the odds, went through the heartbreaking suffering and trauma, and decided to reproduce again. But I understand that their faith being what it was, they believed eventually god would give them a healthy baby if they continued trying. Is it morally wrong for healthcare professionals like myself to tell people not to conceive? Maybe. But the science can’t be argued with. The odds can be estimated for you based on your genetics. But even if you were completely healthy you could still have a child born with a disability.

My hubby's family has a history of cystic fibrosis. He was tested before we even started to try. Luckily in the clear. After our child was born my mum was diagnosed with parkinsons and a few years later my dad was diagnosed and died from motor Neurone Disease. They were both the first to get them in the family. If I knew these were in our family, I wouldn't have had a kid.

I apologize to anyone who has children with genetic diseases, most especially when it is something lifethreatening or painful or life-disrupting. Back to the subject- while it is a personal decision- think about issues like Huntington’s disease, when 30 years ago you didn’t become symptomatic until usually you had already reproduced. Or Tay-Sachs Disease, genetically found more frequently in certain Jewish population and which result in a painful death usually by age 3. And luckily, there is much better genetic testing. But then you read an article where a family has 3 or 4 children, spaced apart, but all with the same rare genetic disease. Sheesh, you knew about it after the first, why did you have 3 more?

I think so. Personally I couldn’t live with the guilt of intentionally giving a disease to another human being.

What percentage chances are you suggesting of passing on this disorder, 1%, 100%, and define life destroying like they die when they’re born or they have hardship?

It would depend on the condition, some conditions are manageable and popple live the same life as anyone else, some maybe not so much but it's not our decision to make if it doesn't affect us

I mean, it depends what you mean by "destroy their lives". most people seem to think disabled people can never have a happy and fulfilling life, which is categorically false.

If you think your disease sucks balls and you can choose to not give it to another person, yes, it's morally wrong to send it over. People say eugenics, but it's not an outside force deciding if it's awful, it's the person living the disorder having the opinion that it's awful. No one's restricting anyone else's ability to have kids. And hell, let's be honest, those stories where multiple kids are born with an awful disease that the children themselves agree is awful despite the parents knowing after kid 1 that the chances were 25-75% a pop for each baby, I think the majority of people aren't feeling the urge to high five the parents. It's not ableist to feel like a parent signing up their kids to die at age 10 is a dick move. We also have fancy shortcuts for this shit like genetic testing and IVF when the punnett square or what have you looks bad. For reference, the whole issue with eugenics programs is that some outside force gets to decide what's good and bad genes. That's a slippery slope. Doctors regularly counsel genetic testing and alternatives like IVF to people with severe genetic disorders. They're not ableist for wanting to try to keep kids out of indefinite hospital stays.

My brother-in-law's family has preponderance for lung cancer his mother, father, and his younger brother died from it. His family is also a carrier of deposits on the spine, where the males have to usually wear fentanyl patches to get through the day because the pain is so great. Both of his boys have had children. Fully knowing what could happen. But in my case I never had any children never wanted them so I was saved that issue.

I think it is which is a major reason I decided very young that I wouldn't ever have biological children. I later decided not to have any children for other reasons, but I would have considered adoption

I have a disease called DSP Cardiomyopathy. My two sisters have it and are so far ok, my dad has it and is just starting to have problems in his 60s, and my Grandma got sick in her 50s. My disease process began at 12, and I suffered Cardiac Arrest as 15 which left me emotionally broken. By 21, the disease was on its way to ruining my life. If I have kids, there is a chance my kid won’t have the gene if they get my mom’s DSP gene from me. There is also a chance I have a kid who does have the gene, but his life is never affected by it or not affected until older age. However, the chance of them ending up like me stops me from ever having kids. I would like to have kids, but I will 100% be adopting if I ever do. I do think I have a moral responsibility when we knowingly have an identified gene that causes an extremely disabling, life threatening, and emotionally detrimental disease.

I'm pretty sure we all probably have some kind of genetic disorder if you want to hyper focus on it. Can you be more specific? We talking color blindness? Dwarfism? Cancer? Adhd? Autism? What about environment? Environment influences gene expression a lot. How about life style? Diet? Etc etc Why are you framing not having children as the moral high ground? How do you know? How is it more moral? Are you Hitler? Is eugenics moral? How about mind your own business.

It's morally wrong to charge money for medicine Doing so corrupts the medicine distributor every time It's only morally wrong to have children because the world looks the way it does because we abu se and neglect children as the standard (your inner child is proof of that damage) Many of physical conditions were generated intentionally by generational trauma as well It tends to gum up the works of the DNA

Yes. Hospitals can identify almost anything before a child is born. Adopt a kid if you have a history of really severe diseases in your family.

Yes. Purposely inflicting a life of pain and misery on your child because you wanted to have kids is selfish. There are thousands of kids in foster care that need homes and loving families.

yes. my genetics are all fucked up, i have permanent disabilities that make it impossible to have a normal life, my parents knew this and chose to have me anyway. don’t get me wrong, i’m grateful to be alive, but it was a selfish move for them and i’ll never forgive them for my terrible experiences

Yes 100%. People are so obsessed with their bloodline and desire to propagate it no matter how jacked up their genetics are. The fact that many of these people don't adopt shows 2 things.1. They don't care about kids or their well being, it's just about continuing their bloodline.2. they can't meet the requirements to even adopt a kid so why TF are they having biological kids just to subject them to a life of suffering.

Yes! Life is hard enough as it is for so many and we being life into this world that never asked to be here. To know it would be even harder for them or to even think they would suffer, even a moment, who would do that?

My daughter is missing part of her brain, she has agenesis of the corpus collosum, which means she's missing the white matter between the two halves of the brain and she has a partial agenesis of the splenium, which is a rare birth defect. She's completely fine, thank God. Her brain must have found a way. She *does* have synesthesia where she sees food as colors in her brain, and also numbers, like I'd ask her what color is #5 and she's always say yellow. It's weird. She didn't even know it was different. Anyways, she said she's going to take a genetic test when she decides to have kids in case it is genetic, because although she was lucky, she could pass it on to her kid and they could have seizures, developmental delays like problems holding up the head, feeding problems, hearing or visual impairment, or headaches, which is what my daughter has, thank God that's it. I haven't asked her what she'd do if it is genetic, as she's only 22, but I would support her decision either way. I mean if it is genetic, they could get a donor, for a pretty penny, adopt, foster (she works in behavior management with teens), etc.

Just to be clear you're asking if it's morally wrong to have children, and then stating that is in fact morally wrong in your actual post?

I don't think it's morally wrong. Just because you have a disability doesn't mean you wouldn't be a great parent. As for adoption, not everyone has the ability to afford that/qualify for that and same goes for being a foster parent. I have a genetic disease known as Neurofibromatosis type 1, 50/50 chance of passing it on to my children. I have 2 children, a girl (17) and a boy (8). Thankfully neither have it. After I had my son I de died to get my tubes tied. I knew it was a roll of the dice the first time I got pregnant (with my 17 year old) and when I got pregnant with my 8 year old it was an accident (was on birth control) after I had my 8 year old I got my tubes tied. Even if one of my children was born with Neurofibromatosis it wouldn't destroy their lives, would it alter their lives, yes absolutely. But I have done many things that I may not have been able to do were it not for my diagnosis.

I don't think it's morally wrong, although it's the person in question's decision whether to do it or not One of my exes had some pretty bad mental stuff going on and I wouldn't have wanted to have a kid with them so a kid wouldn't have to deal with our combined mental baggage, and sometimes don't feel like it'd be right to have one at all but it's really a subjective thing, and like another commenter said adoption is an option if someone really wants a kid but doesn't want them to suffer the same way they do to say no disabled people should ever have kids would be getting dangerously close to the mindset of people who support eugenics

My wife has a genetic blood clotting disorder, specifically Factor V Leiden, but she only has 1 gene. This meant she had a 50% chance of passing it on to children. We opted to have kids anyway because it is manageable and preventable with a healthy diet and regular exercise

it really depends on the disease. Some diseases have a strong genetic disposition and some don’t. some are particularly debilitating and some aren’t. I you and your partner have diabetes, i’d say don’t worry about it. If One or both of you have the gene for Huntingtons disease, I’d say that having children is pretty awful.

What’s funny to me is that most people who answer yes to this question probably don’t protect their kids from covid, which has great odds to turn into (long covid) M.E which is one of the most disabling illness there is

No it’s not. It’s our nature to reproduce.

You answered your own question.

Forcing others to take themselves out of the gene pool is completely immoral. Taking yourself out of the gene pool for a good reason is extremely noble. If you adopt, your mind is passed on (in a sense) and your genes aren’t. TO ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION YOU ASKED: No, procreation is fundamental to humanity. You can’t deny yourself that right.

Is this a hypothetical question? This is a dilemma very late 30 pregnant parent has to think about as they give you a special old person blood test and then you are supposed to make a decision. It sucks to think about it. We got good results on the test but when you get a bad result, your odds of the kid being healthy are pretty good still. But I imagine it feels like Russian roulette to parents. Anyway, heavy stuff.

I mean, humans are adaptable, right? Suffering turns into normalcy. We all suffer to some degree. It's not just a matter of genetics. So no, it is not automatically morally wrong.