What genetic disorders are you referring to?
Dating someone with 'Bad genes'
- Thread starter Loofy
- Start date
- Status
What genetic disorders are you referring to?
terrisus
Member
And my opinion is that he's a jerk, making a jerkish decision.
Well, just to give one example - I was born with hydrocephalus, which would have killed me as a child without proper medical treatment, but instead am sitting here typing this message.
It's unfortunate, but I've heard of people breaking up over diabetes being potentially passed down to kids. That sounds gross, but ultimately it's a personal decision.
Your friend's reasoning is far more sound and, frankly, the responsible move if he wants no part of raising a severely disabled child. Not everyone wants to deal with that and plenty choose to abort a fetus that has a high likelihood of being born severely handicapped. I don't think it's fair to judge a couple for making that personal choice, so I can't judge your friend for choosing to stop things before they get there.
On the flip-side, my friends had a happy and healthy boy last year and the wife has a severely handicapped brother; I'm sure they did the research prior to trying, so it's possible your friend may be over-reacting.
Your friend's reasoning is far more sound and, frankly, the responsible move if he wants no part of raising a severely disabled child. Not everyone wants to deal with that and plenty choose to abort a fetus that has a high likelihood of being born severely handicapped. I don't think it's fair to judge a couple for making that personal choice, so I can't judge your friend for choosing to stop things before they get there.
On the flip-side, my friends had a happy and healthy boy last year and the wife has a severely handicapped brother; I'm sure they did the research prior to trying, so it's possible your friend may be over-reacting.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
And I am free to think that you are judging him from a position that is lacking tremendously in empathy for his situation, and only on a superficial and juvenile "you should always stay with someone you claim to love" footing.
terrisus
Member
And yet I know that your judgment of why I am thinking that is incorrect.
But, continue on.
That's not a genetic disorder, although genetic factors seem to contribute (which is the same for any disorder). I see what you're saying though..
terrisus
Member
I mean, it was just a quick and easy example.
There are certainly countless other examples of things which are quite significantly genetically tied, which in the past would have resulted in someone dying, which doesn't kill them due to medical intervention.
To everyone saying "but adoption !", step into reality for a second. Adoption isn't for everyone. It's very difficult and can be outragishly expensive. If that's what "you'd do", then say so, but don't call the OP's friend an asshole because he wants to have children of his own and doesn't want increased odds of having a lifetime burden on his hands.
Maybe having children is a very high priority for the guy. It's easy to take the holier than though approach on issues like this when you're sitting in front of your monitor in your undies, knocking back a few cold Dews, and enjoying the single life. You can't say for certain unless you were in this guys shoes though.
Maybe having children is a very high priority for the guy. It's easy to take the holier than though approach on issues like this when you're sitting in front of your monitor in your undies, knocking back a few cold Dews, and enjoying the single life. You can't say for certain unless you were in this guys shoes though.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
I can judge your stance based only on the words you type. If you'd like to be judged in some other capacity, type different things.
Or better yet, type nothing else, because this is interminable and I have lost interest.
A bit OT, but I think he means this:
Nowadays there is lessened natural selection amongst people because of the quality of our modern healthcare. There are many genetic defects being passed on that would likely never be passed on back in the old days, because those people are allowed to function in modern society due to the current state of our technique's. On the long term, this leads to more and more people being dependent on the high quality healthcare. I honestly cannot say anything about the relevance, scope and rate of this problem, but it does impose a potential long term challenge for society.
To make it slightly more on topic, this is one of the reasons why I consider looking at the genes of risk families (such as the girl in OP) and using IVF to be a good thing and a viable consideration.
Cameron122
Member
You make a good point
I've heard some sin family silarities from my own family members. Not necessarily in regards to illnesses but for looks.
I had one Aunt that said
"don't bring home any ugly girls"
"don't bring home a short girl" etc..
It's tough, i think it's very crappy move but kind of understand where he's coming from
I had one Aunt that said
"don't bring home any ugly girls"
"don't bring home a short girl" etc..
It's tough, i think it's very crappy move but kind of understand where he's coming from
family_guy
Member
I don't think anyone can really say what they would do until actually faced with the situation. I once said I would never date a girl with a kid, but I ended up doing it. We're not dating anymore though.
Knightmarre
Member
Ashkenazi Jewish can never date people from the same region because of an inherited genetic disorder common in that region.
I'm not that much of a dick to break up with someone over something like that, but if it was a genetic disease that would seriously impair my kids quality of life?
I'd have to discuss it with them, and I definitely wouldn't have children if it meant they'd have a lesser quality of life.
I'd have to discuss it with them, and I definitely wouldn't have children if it meant they'd have a lesser quality of life.
soul creator
Member
Obviously I can't verify that it's the same exact people in this thread, so this is more just a funny observation rather than accusing "GAF" of anything, but it is kinda interesting to go from one thread where it's like "nah man, she got the herp, I can't get over that" and that being accepted as normal (even though HSV is by no means some death sentence or whatever, and those same people may very well already have the virus), but "your kid might have a serious genetic disease" is seen as being a prick.
If he was abandoning an existing kid or something, then that would be more worthy of scorn, and of course, how he broke up with her could define his prick status, but as long as he was honest about his feelings and communicated them fairly, I can't really see him as too wrong. If you're gonna do something big like have kids, you might as well put some thought into it and be as up front as possible with whatever hangups you may have..
Icyflamez96
Member
Or maybe raising a child with his and his SO's own passed down genes is important to him and doesn't like the idea of raising a child who isn't genetically related to him?
That's how I feel on the matter. Adopting doesn't appeal to me at all when opposed to raising my own blood.
I understand the gestalt of this but I think it's worth noting that disorders that we have effective treatment for tend to be polygenic, so, it's hard to draw a direct comparison there. Most severe genetic disorders still do not have treatment that's effective (A.C.S., Fragile X Syndrome, Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, etc.). And again, I think in our future, environment might play a larger role. For instance, I have a friend who studies the links between ambient pesticides and the growing rate of Parkinson's Disease. Or Erin Brockovich's current work on ground/water contamination and how the maps overlay nicely with "hotstpots" of cancer rates in the United States. I don't think it will be as straight forward as "soy causes autism," but we haven't evolved in an environment that resembles where we are now.
It's much more complex than people like to think. Dumping someone because her brother has a disease is really jumping the gun. So little information to make such a decision: it's like selling your car because you hear a funny noise. It could have been an opportunity to learn a thing or two about genetics.
and penetrance
So, imagine you raised a child and years later the hospital contacts you saying your baby was accidentally swapped with the one next to it (does happen), you would love them less?
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Do those of you who are calling him a prick believe in evolution?
Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
But it takes a narcissistic asshole to think "I must pass down my genes" and/or "I will not raise children other than my biological ones".
squarerootofpie
Neo Member
Seriously? We're not neanderthals anymore. It still baffles me that we're so concerned with the idea of "bearing offspring". If they're not going to be healthy and you're desperate to fill the world with more kids get a surrogate, or ifv with an egg donation if it's that important. That is if you're not adopting.
I want kids, but not to the point where i'd leave someone i'm prepared to marry on the offchance that they might have something that's out of their control.
Basically.
I want kids, but not to the point where i'd leave someone i'm prepared to marry on the offchance that they might have something that's out of their control.
Basically.
AtomskEater
Member
Has your friend ever looked into his own family medical history? His own genes are likely far from ideal.
I don't necessarily fault anyone for feeling that the health of potential offspring is a higher factor in a relationship than other things, but he just sounds like an idiot that got scared off by a WebMD article and lied to her face about his reasons for suddenly breaking up. As people have stated there are a lot of options regarding screening and assisted insemination methods that might have been a help, and if he really loved this woman enough to consider marrying her you think he'd have given that the same cursory google he gave the disease (or talked to a professional).
I don't necessarily fault anyone for feeling that the health of potential offspring is a higher factor in a relationship than other things, but he just sounds like an idiot that got scared off by a WebMD article and lied to her face about his reasons for suddenly breaking up. As people have stated there are a lot of options regarding screening and assisted insemination methods that might have been a help, and if he really loved this woman enough to consider marrying her you think he'd have given that the same cursory google he gave the disease (or talked to a professional).
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Are you kidding me? Someone who wants to have children of their own blood is a narcissistic asshole? What a load of crap. This thread is filled with some garbage opinions but this ranks pretty highly.
No it doesn't most people if given the opportunity will choose to raise their own children rather than adopt. It's basically in our DNA to attempt to procreate and pass down our genes.
Narcissistic asshole, huh?
SniperHunter
Banned
Threads title reminds of the two twin brothers from Mexico or South America whoes entire body from head to toe was covered in thick hair and how they were dating beautiful blonde girls (saw a segment on Ripley's believe it or not long time back)
Realistically, adoption, IVF and surrogacy aren't going to be possible for a great many people. A quick google search reveals that the average cost for a single cycle of IVF is approximately $20,000. If particular genetic screenings are necessary, it's probably more expensive and its likely multiple cycles will be required. The average cost of surrogacy is between $100,000-$150,000. Lastly, adopting a baby (which is what most want) generally costs between $10,000-$25,000 (assuming you adopt within the U.S., but then the amount of babies up for adoption in the U.S. are lower than other countries and you have to hope you're selected by the biological mother). If you try to adopt internationally, it could be even more expensive. In some countries you have to factor in large bribes to government officials.
My point is: It's easy to say there are other options, but for a lot of people there really aren't other options.
My answer: I probably wouldn't end the relationship. I don't think I'd be able to walk away from someone I still loved, even though not doing so would obviously result in pain in the future. I would research though, if it was a genetic disorder that could be detected through amniocentesis, to see if there was a chance we could still have children together. If we couldn't, I'd likely just accept not having children.
The Shadow
Member
Racism, prejudice, and rape is also in our DNA. Are those ok because they're built in, or should we try to rise above nature?
Edit: Most people if given the opportunity would do nothing if a person was attacked on a busy street (bystander effect). Does that make it ok?
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
You're really reaching here. Literally our entire point as biological life forms is to propagate our genetic material and produce healthy offspring. Saying that is the same as racism is idiotic.
The Shadow
Member
I didn't say it was racism. I said that racism is human nature. Rape exists in every culture and is human nature. I'm asking you, since rape, racism, and other aspects of human nature are biological, are they something we're programmed to do, or are we capable of being better?
Serious question.
Another point, since it's "biological" to want kids with your own genes, should I treat my step-daughter objectively worse than my biological kids?
Again, serious question. It's biological to want to spread my genes. Am I programmed to do so? Am I a bad person if I do in fact treat my step-daughter objectively worse?
If that's so bad, why isn't it narcissistic to think that having your own kids is objectively or subjectively better than having adopted kids?
FunkyMunkey
Banned
I guess every single person who reproduced in every single one of our bloodlines is a narcissistic asshole then.
Give me a break. The reality is if you choose to refrain from having or flat-out refuse to have biological children in your lifetime, you are actually the first to do so in your biological genealogy, dating back tens and tens of thousands of years. Far from an asshole.
Topic: Do I think the guy seems like a bit of a dick? Sure. But sexual selection is a very real thing and has played a huge part in our evolutionary history. Him choosing his partner based on a necessity to have children and what her family's genetic history looks like, is valid. Terrible thing to think about sure, but people do it both consciously and subconsciously all the time.
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Serious answer: Your analogy, again, is ridiculous. Nobody here is suggesting that you treat ANY child, or person, worse than your own. That's such an odd stance to take. I was merely combatting the statement YOU made that anybody who wants to have their own children is a "narcissistic asshole". All this other shit, racism rape and whatever other nonsense you're trying to lump in is so far beyond the point I'm not even going to address it past this response. Frogs aren't racist, neither are butterflies or otters, yet all of them are designed from the ground up to mate and produce offspring. Claiming that this biological drive to procreate is in any way related to racism, which you claim is biological and that's SO fucking stupid I can't even wrap my ahead around how you came to that conclusion, makes no sense.
serious answer 2: YES, you are programmed to spread your genes. That's basic biology. NO this has nothing to do with how you treat adopted children or step-children. No one said it was objectively better, all we're saying is most people are programmed to WANT to have children with their own genes, not that it was better or worse or makes them this kind of person or that. You're injecting your own insane logic into this conversation and trying to steer it places nobody else has even mentioned.
Pretty sure that would make him the narcissistic asshole, thinking he's the bee's knees for choosing to adopt and be different than everyone else.
Someone who would dump "the woman of their dreams" over it definitely is.
And again, say you were to find out your 18 year old child had been switched at birth, would you love them less?
Yea but what if you search a tad harder and find the love of your life without bad genes?
Putting aside the fact that I do not want children in general.
My Wife has really really bad genes on her side (Diabetes, RA, Cancer, Anxiety and a bunch that don't come to mind atm)
I don't have a clean slate either.
If we decide we want children we will probably adopt. It would be really cool to see what our kid would look like, but I am legit worried we would set this kid up for some very unpleasant things in his/her life.
My Wife has really really bad genes on her side (Diabetes, RA, Cancer, Anxiety and a bunch that don't come to mind atm)
I don't have a clean slate either.
If we decide we want children we will probably adopt. It would be really cool to see what our kid would look like, but I am legit worried we would set this kid up for some very unpleasant things in his/her life.
I really don't understand why you guys are hating on him. Raising a child is a serious thing, and he's taking genetic compatibility seriously. It's very mature actually and has more basis than just physical attraction.
Secondly, I wouldn't want to ever adopt before having my own. Raising your own blood is completely different than taking care of a child that isn't from the partners or self's genetic pool.
Secondly, I wouldn't want to ever adopt before having my own. Raising your own blood is completely different than taking care of a child that isn't from the partners or self's genetic pool.
Alpha Centauri
Member
If we're throwing out hypotheticals, let's make it more ominous. What if your wife had an affair and knew that the kid wasn't your child, and still allowed you to raise them as your own?
No, I wouldn't love the child any less.
I would however feel betrayed by my (soon-to-be) ex-wife. If I could go back in time and find that out, I wouldn't want to raise the child as my own, nor be with someone who would do that to me and keep up a lie for almost two decades.
The OP's friend's decision doesn't have to do with the child. It's about the prospects of the mother providing a healthy child. Historically, finding a mate to have a healthy child with is as ingrained in the human psyche as eating, sleeping, and breathing. As its been stated previously by other posters, I've never gotten the prevailing sentiment that preferring your own healthy child is narcissistic, Hitler-esque eugenics. It is natural and society shouldn't tell him differently.
Is it selfish? Yes, as selfish as self-preservation.
The Shadow
Member
You misunderstand what I'm saying. I didn't imply anyone suggested that. I'm asking. Let's try this again:
You suggest it's "biological" to want to sprad your genes, to have your own kids. How does that change when, say, if I married someone who had kids from a previous marriage? If I want my own kids and desire to have my own kids is biologically driven, then the same "biological drive" exists if I marry someone who has kids from a previous marriage, correct? The "biological" rules are the same, they don't change, correct?
Then if I want my own genetically related kids and desire them more than raising someone else's kids, doesn't it make it "biological" that I should treat my own genetically related kids better than my step-children?
If not, why did these "biological" rules change? This isn't an odd stance. I'm asking why the rules change essentially, since you've honorably suggested that I shouldn't treat my step-chidren any different, despite they're not being my genetic heiritage.
I didn't say anything about "narcissistic asshole". That was someone else. Please pay attention. Moreover, the racism, rape and other "nonsense" were biological examples of human nature, as is wanting to have your own kids. Again, please pay attention.
Are frogs human beings? Are butterflies human beings? Are you an otter? Let's not talk about other species when we're talking specifically about humans, and human nature.
Also, if you can't accept that certain aspects of human nature are natural, I'm not sure you're qualified to talk about the biological drive to procreate. Moreover, I've come to that conclusion, because many scientists before me have studied it and observed it time and time again. I bring them up because I wish to show that just because something is "biological" and "natural" doesn't necessarily follow what people in general feel is "good". We can't cherry pick what is acceptable and what is not just because it's "biological".
I really hope that's more clear. I don't see how I could explain it more plainly than that.
You're rejecting an argument you refuse to address. Why do the "Biological" rules that you seem to be holding dear change depending on the situation? You say we're programmed to want to have children with our own genes. Ok. Let's accept that as fact. Why would I desire kids of my own genes, but treat all kids equally after conception? Do the biological rules change?
Since I'm "programmed" to want to have children with my own genes, why would I raise someone elses? Why would I treat someone elses children with someone elses genes equally to my own children with my own genes?
Again, I'm "programmed" to want my own kids with my own genes. We'll accept this as fact. Since this is "programmed" into me, that I have a preference for kids with my own genes, why would this change if I married someone with kids that have someone else's genes? Do I still have that "program" with that preference for my own genes? Do the rules somehow magically change?
I really want you to answer that and stop rejecting arguments you're uncomfortable with or can't be bothered to think about.
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Racism is not natural, I have no idea why you keep saying this. As far as I know racism is a fairly recent social construct, definitely not something hardwired into our genes. If I'm the ignorant guy here please post some studies or articles that show some evidence, not being cheeky, legitimately curious.
Nowhere did I even insinuate that you were programmed to prefer, or treat better than others, your own offspring. I said you were programmed with the drive to procreate and make your own offspring, how you treat them vs. anybody else is an entirely different argument. There are plenty of people that have the drive and programming to create their own offspring and them treat them like shit, raising a child is different than the drive to make one. I think you're taking an extreme example to illustrate your point. Just because I have the desire and drive to make my own cookies doesn't mean I won't eat ones made by someone else. This is where I think the biological and genetic side of things differs from how you view modern, intelligent humans who can take a step back and realize "This isn't my offspring, but I can still be a decent human and raise them well." Believing one thing does not negate the other. We are programmed at a base level to procreate, but we can operate at a higher mental level to realize that this may not always work and look at other options. This guy wanting to ensure that he A. Makes his own and B. Wants them to be healthy does not mean he would be shitty stepdad.
Do you believe in modern science? We have the tools to screen both the parent and the potential offspring. If I liked someone enough to consider marriage, I'd at least seek genetic counseling in this situation. He is a prick to drop her over his amateur research on the Internet.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Aren't we all carrying bad genes inside of us that lays dormint? throughout the generations we carry many lineages worth of supressed genes for all sorts of ailments.
you could make a baby with someone who has no health problems, and be unlucky brecause their bad genes even if they are dorment, matches yours, giving your child the bad genes.
The way genes work and seems to pick themselves out, seems to be a lottery. if both parents have brown eyes, there is almost certanity going to have a child with brown eyes. the genes make that probability much more likely. but if both parents carry a gene of blue eyes from past ancestors even if they didn't have it themselves, it's very possible.
you could make a baby with someone who has no health problems, and be unlucky brecause their bad genes even if they are dorment, matches yours, giving your child the bad genes.
The way genes work and seems to pick themselves out, seems to be a lottery. if both parents have brown eyes, there is almost certanity going to have a child with brown eyes. the genes make that probability much more likely. but if both parents carry a gene of blue eyes from past ancestors even if they didn't have it themselves, it's very possible.
Your judging someone because of not agreeing with the methodology. Maybe he didn't want to do genetic counseling or pay a lot of money for a more complex reproduction cycle. Just because dumping someone over genetics is more obtuse than the typical reason, doesn't make him a prick for making that decision. In fact, it's very mature and people like you that can't conceptualize that are just being sanctimonious.
Deaf Spacker
Memb
Agreed, sounds like she dodged a bullet.
- Status