<blockquote><hr><i>Originally posted by Jennifer</i>
I think what you are failing to realize here is this; you suggest that becoming pregnant knowing that you have a %25 chance of having a baby with an illness is wrong and reckless even thought the odds are %75 chance the baby will not have CF because the child could be sick.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'm suggesting exactly that; just as pointing and shooting a revolver--that has only one bullet loaded--at your kids is reckless and irresponsible, even though they're likely to come out unharmed. The odds of really crippling them with that--especially if you aim at non-vital body parts--are significantly less than two knowing CF carriers playing house, too.
<blockquote><hr>The alternative to this is not giving life to that child AT ALL.<hr></blockquote>
And? You're not obligated to give life to every potential child that could ever exist. Following this reasoning to its natural conclusion, everyone who isn't 100% preoccupied with having kids every time their uterus is available is a bad parent. After all, if you decide 2 kids are enough for you, you're not giving life to a 3rd one... and if you stop at 3, that fourth one's gonna be ripped off!
That logic just doesn't work. Before a kid actually exists, it's a hypothetical, and "denying" life to a potentiality (as opposed to, say, killing someone who already has a life) is hardly the crime some would make it out to be. Especially in the case of <i>deathly sick</i> kids, what, exactly, is the problem in trying to make sure they're as limited a subset of the kiddie population as is possible? Ensuring as few people as possible ever have to experience chest CPT, PICC lines, mediport surgeries, hemoptysis, pneumothorax, lung transplant, and all that other fun stuff? If I didn't know better, I'd almost be tempted to believe there are unscrupulous doctors posting here whose livelihoods would be affected if no new patients came along.
Lastly, of course, the alternative to not taking dangerous risks with a child's health <i>need</i> not be missing out on kids altogether, so even on that point, you're wrong. One could bear another child <i>instead</i>, one who'd never <i>need</i> to go through all that, because its parents got some responsibility for once and avoided taking unnecessary risks. Or you could go one better than that, and make a child in a foster home--who'd otherwise miss out on a family while you were busy adding more as-yet non-existent sick kids to the world--really happy.
Neither my email address nor instant message IDs are a secret. My website also has a forum, and for that matter, there's an "other topics" area here which might be perfect for such gossip. This thread, on the other hand, is about "thoughts on having more children after finding out that both parents are carriers." If you'd <i>really</i> like to know something about me, as opposed to being condescending on an open board, ask. (For the record, It's far more depressing that there are people pathetic enough to make cowardly anonymous attacks on others' appearance, than any such mockery itself. Just how many hours of thinking up witty retorts did you spend, before remembering people with CF can be underweight?)
To most everyone else who disagrees with me, I suggest you re-read what I've actually been writing, rather than the interpretations of it that you've pulled out of gods-know where, and stop trying to psychoanalyze people whose points you clearly haven't even understood. Perhaps the best proof I've been right all along is that, instead of reasoned responses, no one's replied with anything more substantial than strawman (ala "you want to devalue the life of all sick people!,") or various personal attacks.
--Allan
