AIBU to continue having children? Despite knowing they all would have a life limiting condition.

[stripedeyesdown]

I have named changed as i am probably going to get flamed for this.

I am a member of a Facebook group, i have just seen a post & a child of a member of this group has recently died.

It was noted on the message that this is their 3rd child, who has died from the same genetic life limiting condition.

They knowlingly went ahead with the following 2 pregnancies, knowing the children would be severely disabled with little quality of life.

AIBU to think that they have been selfish for a number of reasons, to continue having children knowing that each child would be born with this life limiting condition?

[StarUtopia]

Reread what I wrote. My MIL is just a cow. Nothing to do with her decision to carry on having kids regardless. But her response made her a cow imo. Typical of the type of selfish attitude she has in general.

I would be happy to adopt. I have friends who've adopted and those children are as much theirs as any biological child could be. It's not blood or DNA that makes a family. Sorry, but I do think that if you're desperate for a family, but that could bring pain to a biological child, it would be the right thing to do to adopt. What's wrong with adopting? I can't have a third child (for medical reasons) Doesn't mean that I've put the idea of a 3rd child to be at all. And trust me. That 3rd child if I do adopt will be just as much my child as my two biological children.

[LouKout]

Her response didnt make her a cow. Read what I wrote. She may be a cow anyway but thats not a cowlike way to think.

[LouKout]

Its not for us to say what others should do and judge their choices IMO.

[Jazzywazzydodah]

Jazzy any pregnancy could result in a child that is born sick. Should no one have children?

Actually this specific thread is about parents who continue to have sick children knowing full well that the next child has a very good chance of having a life threatening illness.

That to me is selfish. And I would judge some one who continued to choose to have sick children because what a burden to put on a young life knowing you may prematurely die because your parents had a 'right' to keep having sick kids.


This thread isn't/wasn't about :- people having children that turned out to be sick with no idea they could be, sick children being an apparent drain on NHS, etc..

I think posters are clouding the original post with other issues on purpose

[imjessie]

Complicated is one word for it , I really don't get it though but I do have an older daughter who is unaffected so I guess in that respect I'm lucky . I just feel really strongly that you shouldn't burden others with your choices . My son will burden others financially and emotionally in the future and although I felt I did everything I could to avoid it ( trusting the doctors ! 🙄) he is here .. there is no way on earth I would do it again.l however much I love him( and I really really do with all my heart ) . It's not always about 'ME' ..

[LouKout]

Its high handed to judge if you haven't been in the situation jazzy

[Orangebird69]

Absolutely Jazzy.

[MaisyPops]

so crass to judge people when you haven't walked in their shoes, and to casually state that other people should just adopt rather than have their own biological kids. You have no idea.
You can have a personal view on an issue without judging others.
I personally would rather not have a biological child than know i was passing a condition on which would cause suffering. I would feel terrible watching my hypothetical child suffer. I would want to adopt (something DH and I have spoken about doing in due course).

I can say that without having been in that situation (obviously if this did happen i may respond differently but were being hypothetical).
I can also say that without judging others.
I say that without it being an instruction on what other people should do.

[Jazzywazzydodah]

lou why would you keep purposely having sick kids though?

One sick child - tough but maybe manageable then to go on to have another sick child - risky, tougher and I would think thought provoking but to go on and have a third - knowing your risks put an unborn child in the firing line of untold illness, upset, pain is negligence.

I can't think of any situation where that would be ok.

[RainbowsAndUnicorn]

Having a child knowing it's going to be ill and it's life limited is selfish, it's about what the parent wants not what the child wants.

Ultimately all children are born of a selfish desire but some worse than others such as the scenario the OP quotes, children born to be carers etc.

[Devilishpyjamas]

I've met a whole family with dwarfism and they seemed happy enough. I'm sure their condition(s) caused some issues but it didn't make their lives not worth living and the kids appeared to be happy. I certainly didn't see anything that made me think they should have adopted That's if they would be allowed to adopt -SS are pretty un-PC about all that. A friend adopted because she wanted to avoid a second child with the same condition as her eldest and she was only approved to adopt a child with a disability.

Having siblings has been very good for my eldest disabled son. And having a disabled brother has been a positive experience for his siblings as well. Any issues have arisen on the whole from difficulties accessing suitable social care rather than anything fundamentally awful about growing up near a disability.

[ZackyVengeance]

where are MNHQ>>>

[ICantLikeDirtyTuna]

Not the same situation, but when I found out I was pregnant I was very concerned my child would have my husband's genetic condition. We went to the hospital to speak with his specialists who were able to put my mind at ease. (This is more likely passed on maternally)

I honestly don't know how I would've dealt with it had they told me our baby would have had the same condition.

[MaisyPops]

I've met a whole family with dwarfism and they seemed happy enough. I'm sure their condition(s) caused some issues but it didn't make their lives not worth living
I think (at least to me) there is a difference in a life long condition that might have some challenges abd a life long condition where a child isnt likely to live very long/will likely be in lots of pain etc. I know some people will shout at me for saying that, but thats honestly how i feel.

I have 2 friends (both in their 20s) with cerebral palsy and one is significantly more effected than the other. 1 can get by but finds too much walkinh hard and she drives an adapted car. The other used to have to be carried from her wheelchair, now after operations can walk with a frame for short distances. Ones at uni. One has their dream job, but knows because its physical that therell come a time when theyll need to move to a desk based role. One of them (mid 20s) isnt sure theyll have their own child if it turns out their cause js genetic, but might if a genetic cause can be ruled out (some is genetic and somes to do with birth apparently).
Their lives are most definitely valued and they are both happy people but i can also empathise and see why my friend might have reservations about passing their condition on.
According to some people on this thread my disabled friend is morally wrong to say that. I dont think she is.

[Devilishpyjamas]

Maisie -a previous poster said that parents with dwarfism should have adopted (showing little knowledge of the adoption process, let alone dwarfism).

No-one has said that people with disabilities are morally wrong to decide not to have children. That's a total twisting or lack of understanding of what is being said. People are saying that it's wrong to look in from the outside and judge other families for the decisions they made - especially in the unpleasant way the OP did (with very little factual understanding of the situation).

There's also an awful lot of assumptions about disabled lives on here and how difficult and awful such lives must be.

[MaisyPops]

Maisy then start a general thread on it, don't do it on one about a specific family
Ive already said that the OP could have taised the discussion without using one family as an example countless times on this thread so im not repeating myself explaining.

Adopt? Yeah ok have you read some of the threads on adoption? That's not going to guarantee you a child without additional needs
My discussion was about actively choosinh to pass on a life limiting condition by actively TTC.
At no point have I said anything about having a problem with children who have additional needs. But youre (incorrectly) assuming that prefering adopting over passing on a condition to a new life means that i must be againsyt kids with additional needs.

Why it being assumed that when somebody says (hypothetically) theyd choose not to actively pass on a genetic condition (which would be MY choice if i were in that situation) suddenly youre accused of eugenics, hating kids with additional needs and think some peoples lives arent valued (all things which have been said on this thread)?

Making a decision not to pass on a condition by actively creating new lives is a choice. It does not mean you hate people with disabilities or additional needs. It does not mean you think some existing lives arent worth living. If someone never disclosed their reason for not having kids (when the reason was about conditions) people wouod respect that.

[MaisyPops]

Devilishpyjamas
I missed where somebody else said that about dwarfism. Thats awful if somebody said that.
People are saying that it's wrong to look in from the outside and judge other families for the decisions they made
I agree with it being wrong to judge other families.

Equally, its wrong to jump on people who are saying 'hypothetically this is how id feel/approach it' and suggest that they are vile people for saying theyd choose not to pass it on because they feel its ethically uncomfortable for them.
Theres been a lot of 'oh so you must hate ny DC who has additional needs' etc when having additonal needs is often very different to choosing to pass on a generic condition.

[springflowers11]

I think people would have responded better if you had posted this purely as a hypothetical question rather than it being about a real family.
Having said thatthat posters on here are being hypocritical
They bleat on about families on benefits having more children, yet that is drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer incurred by a seriously ill child

[Devilishpyjamas]

A lot of the comments have revealed a deep ingrained prejudice maisy. I'I not surprised as I have observed the prejudice against people with severe learning disabilities for years. There's often an assumption that those lives are second best and not quite real or meaningful. And if you are non-verbal you cannot argue against that.

And sorry my own views on what I would do prior to having a disabled child were bullshit. Partly because I'd been fed the 'tragady' narrative about disability for so many years. I didn't even know what I didn't know.

The one thing I have learned to do is not judge others when I know jack shit about a situation.

[Devilishpyjamas]

Here you are Maisy - this is what the PP said about a couple with dwarfism planning to have a child:

I do remember thinking, couldn't you just adopt one of the desperate children who needs a home right now rather than insisting on having your own DNA, at whatever cost that may bring

That's what I was responding to. That's the sort of comment I find outrageous. If you decided you were going to adopt rather than have a child I have no opinion (not my business - however if you already have a severely disabled child you may not be approved to adopt a non-disabled child - that was certainly the case for my local friend - it may be similar if you had a significant disability yourself).

[Nessie71]

My daughter got diagnosed type 1 diabetic at the age of 6 14 months ago would i be selfish to have another child knowing that they MAY get diabetes.....none of your business.

[Orangebird69]

Nessie, this discussion is meant to be about hereditary genetic life limiting illnesses that you know are going to be a factor BEFORE YOU EVEN CONCEIVE. Not a diagnosis months or years after birth. Seriously, how many professionally offended people can you get on one thread? Why are so many taking the OP out of context just to create an argument?

[dowhatnow]

A lot of the comments have revealed a deep ingrained prejudice maisy. I'I not surprised as I have observed the prejudice against people with severe learning disabilities for years. There's often an assumption that those lives are second best and not quite real or meaningful. And if you are non-verbal you cannot argue against that.

But it still boils down to one simple thing. Why would you choose to bring a child into the world actively knowing the hardships that child will have to face?