boyfriday Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1, 250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance. The risk of defect in cousins is double that of non cousins. The risk of defect wrt age trebles at 35 when compared to a 25 year old. Somewhere between 30-35 is where is doubles relative to a 25 year old. Given the choice between impregnating a 25 year old relative and a 35 year old non-relative, the sensible thing to do to reduce the possible risk of birth defect would be to keep it in the family! In the UK people are waiting longer to have children, were practising backwards eugenics! Extending the logic of the OP, over 35's who have children are potential child abusers based on that evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Why is it child abuse now, but it has never been previously? Wouldn't you say that bringing a child into the world knowing it might be terribly handicapped is an abusive act towards that unborn child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 kids born with disabilities that they would not have if mum and dad were not so closley related, and or tthere mum and dad were not related etc:roll:etc:roll:etc:roll: I'm not doubting the problem, I'm questioning your sensational use of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Extending the logic of the OP, over 35's who have children are potential child abusers based on that evidence. I was against cousins breeding until I saw the evidence, I was trying to find evidence to show how dangerous it was, and when compared to age, its not really dangerous at all. I'd be all for encouraging people to have children before 30. It would be good for the health of the nation and our economy, disabled people are a burden to the state. Society now frowns upon people having children at a young age, when really it should be encouraged and older woman frowned on for leaving it too late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 I'm not doubting the problem, I'm questioning your sensational use of language. your right of course, i allowed the horror of the tv documentary get to me. sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Wouldn't you say that bringing a child into the world knowing it might be terribly handicapped is an abusive act towards that unborn child. What a strange view. There are a number of people who have scans and tests who find out that there is some disability with their child but still go on to have that child and look after it - they prefer to think of that child as someone special - a gift - not some terrible crime. My nephew's child is autistic - were they comitting an abusive act by allowing their son to be born? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 What a strange view. There are a number of people who have scans and tests who find out that there is some disability with their child but still go on to have that child and look after it - they prefer to think of that child as someone special - a gift - not some terrible crime. My nephew's child is autistic - were they comitting an abusive act by allowing their son to be born? If it wasn't for the nhs, they would think about it hard and abort abort abort! People slate teen mothers for being on benefits, yet there are those who choose to have a disabled child which costs a hell of a lot more in lifelong benefits, not even taking into account the nhs, and they don't get slated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 What a strange view. There are a number of people who have scans and tests who find out that there is some disability with their child but still go on to have that child and look after it - they prefer to think of that child as someone special - a gift - not some terrible crime. My nephew's child is autistic - were they comitting an abusive act by allowing their son to be born? were his parents first cousins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Wouldn't you say that bringing a child into the world knowing it might be terribly handicapped is an abusive act towards that unborn child. Not necessarily, I wouldn't forbid older mothers the opportunity to have children because of the increased risk of a child with Down's Syndrome. Are you familiar with Leviticus 18, Grahame? The Bible places no prohibition on marriage between 1st cousins, and there are numerous examples of it, I think Jacob married a first cousin and from him were descended the tribes of Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 your right of course, i allowed the horror of the tv documentary get to me. sorry. No problem.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.