Grahame Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I'm confused about this. As far as I'm aware, autism develops during the second year of life and there is no definitive cause known. So how could anyone 'allow' a child who later develops autism to be born or not? How would they know beforehand? Then I don't know what to think. I thought tests revealed an abnormality? Perhaps something else rather than autism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 So you actualy believe that someone who gives birth to a child who is then found to have a disbility is committing some kind of abusive act? How bizarre! So in your way of thinking should all children born with some defect be killed at birth then? No, I would love the child for all I was worth. I thought you said tests on the foetus revealed a problem. It looks like I misunderstood you. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 You would want to stop people having children at the healthiest time for them to do so??? Able bodied people are the people who fund the state! Of course the disabled are a burden, lifelong disability benefits and healthcare, very unlikely to work/pay tax. That's a very sweeping statement and generalisation. I know of two blind people (which is classed as a disability) who both work and have responsible jobs. So you cannot say that a disabled person is very unlikelty to work/pay tax. And not all children born to 1st cousins have or end up with a disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 No, I would love the child for all I was worth. I thought you said tests on the foetus revealed a problem. It looks like I misunderstood you. Sorry. Apology accepted. And I apologise if it came across that way it wasn't meant to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Do you think that there are many parents who are screened during pregnancy, and who find out that their forthcoming child will be severely disabled, but who decide to proceed with the pregnancy....only to realise that they can not cope, and so give their child up for adoption? Because if they do, then that is simply despicable, in my opinion. (Please note: I am NOT comparing this with people who only realise at the birth that their child is disabled, and who then decide to have their child adopted due to not being able to cope with the disability, as I think that is a totally different issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 That's a very sweeping statement and generalisation. I know of two blind people (which is classed as a disability) who both work and have responsible jobs. So you cannot say that a disabled person is very unlikelty to work/pay tax. And not all children born to 1st cousins have or end up with a disability. Children are more likely to be born with a disability if their mother is 35+ The fact of the matter is, employment is lower along disabled people. It's not a sweeping generalisation, its a fact based statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 The disability spectrum is so vast. However, I do believe that people with crippling disabilities, rather than blind people etc are extremely unlikely to find employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Not necessarily, I wouldn't forbid older mother's 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. Jacob married two sisters didn't he? Leah and Rachael, the daughters of Laban. And yes, he and Laban were kinsmen. Joseph and Mary were cousins, weren't they? The law says there are degrees of consanguinity which are forbidden to marry, such as parent/child, grandparent/ grandchild, sisters and brothers, as well as aunts/ uncles with nieces and nephews, but first-cousins and beyond are legally permitted to marry. It doesn't matter if the parents are related or not, if they are both carriers of a gene for a condition, the risks are similar. Statistically (using the Mendel probabilities) there's a chance of, out of four children, they could have one healthy child, two carriers of the condition, and one affected with it. A (white) friend of mine and her (white) husband, unknowingly, were both carriers of Cystic Fibrosis. They had three pregnancies, where one live-born child was affected by CF, (he died at age 7). They had a daughter who was unaffected (but is most likely a carrier of CF) and one pregnancy where tests showed that the baby was affected by CF, but, sadly, (depending on which way you look at it) she lost that baby. I would say the problem with consanguineous marriages is not so much that the people are related, but that they would be wiser to have genetic counselling about the risks of children with congenital problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 the custom should be banned, this is not the middle ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donkey lover Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Somehow I dont believe you otherwise your view would be totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.