18 April 2011

Treacher-Collins syndrome


Excerpts from a thought-provoking article at the BBC:
At the age of 26, Jono is happy with how he looks, but the genetic disorder that affected the way his facial bones developed in the womb has caused him years of anguish. His condition means he has no cheekbones - so his eyes droop downwards - and he has problems with his hearing, so has a bone-anchored hearing aid.

It has resulted in years of bullying, several operations and numerous hospital visits. It also led his parents to give him up for adoption 36 hours after he was born. But perhaps the most vital factor for Jono and his long-term girlfriend, 20-year-old Laura Richardson, is that it is also hereditary, so any child Jono fathers naturally has a 50% chance of having Treacher Collins...

Jono says until he met Laura, he always assumed he would adopt. "It worked really well for me, and giving a child a second chance, I think that's brilliant.

"But Laura thinks she will have those instincts of really wanting to carry a child... "Plus she really wants our child to be 'our' child. And I really want to look after her when she is pregnant, for her to be on the sofa, or for me to run downstairs at 2am when she fancies a pickle."

"I've always dreamed of being a daddy. I crave father and son moments - my adoptive mum was absolutely amazing but I never had a father figure in my life, and that's something I really, really want. I want to do the school run, take my child to dance, gymnastics or football - whatever they want."

But for the couple - and particularly Jono - the thought of having a child naturally opens a minefield of morals, emotions and self-questioning...

To add to their predicament, Treacher Collins syndrome - which is thought to affect up to one in 10,000 people in the UK - varies in severity, but there is no way of predicting how severely a child will be affected... While some sufferers have problems with hearing and facial features, others can be born unable to breathe...

But Jono says if they decide to have a child naturally, "abortion is not an option" for him. "I want to make the right decision. Right from the very start. So if I decide to have a child naturally, we go through the whole thing. Not just give up on it halfway through." ..

[Re pre-implantation genetic diagnosis]: "It re-enforces the stereotypical notion that disability per se is a bad thing that should be excluded and that disabled lives are intrinsically less valuable... He also feels guilty that Laura would bear the brunt of the procedure.

"She'd have to inject the hormones, have the eggs taken out - it puts her under so much pressure and that frustrates the life out of me because this is my condition."
People who don't have any genetic disorders don't realize how lucky they are.

52 comments:

  1. People get upset when I say it, but if you have the resources to adopt/foster then it really is immoral to deliberately conceive your own child. Taking the risk that your child will have a 50% chance of being born with a potentially fatal illness is absurdly selfish. The idea that we should all succumb to the urge to mate and raise our own offspring is offensive, not least since overpopulation is killing our planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who are you to judge what is moral and immoral? That's your own uneducated opinion.

      Genetic screening can allow him to easily have children with no conditions at all. He can pass on his lineage, his natural right to do, and see how he really could have looked had he not had a genetic deformity.

      No one should have to adopt. Those aren't their kids and not their responsibility. And they are not important. Not every person is a special snowflake, and kids are given up usually because something is wrong with them. Family--true family--comes first. Not strangers.

      Delete
    2. "Kids are given up usually because something is wrong with them"...? Are you kidding me? From which universe did you come up with that conclusion? You are truly a terrible human being.

      Delete
    3. If you're going to throw the word "selfish" around shouldn't it be thrown at people who have a baby and give it up for adoption? Calling someone selfish for not adopting someone else's child because that person didn't take the precaution to make sure they didn't get pregnant, or didn't want to care for the child who had something "wrong" with them is absurd.

      People shouldn't not have biological children because someone else chose to not care for their own biological children.

      Delete
    4. I believe the original point is why take the possibility of having a child that also goes through this, which he said himself is a sad and frightening thing to grow up with, than to adopt if you have the resources.

      I agree with this statement. But I also am completely for the mom wanting to birth her own child. It is her decision. I agree with his opinion as well, that he doesn't want her to have all these tests done. But he said it himself, they won't abort, so screening isn't really worth the extra effort if you are already pregnant and aren't going to terminate if the child carries the disease.

      The only way to be sure that their child doesn't have the disease, which I can completely assure that neither mom nor dad actually want the child to have, is to have testing done on his half and do In Vetro. Its not that if the child has it they are unequal, because no matter what they have they are just like any other human being, it is because if the child has it it is a pain for the CHILD to grow up with. Think if you were missing cheekbones, couldn't hear well, and had to have surgeries many times because of what you look like? You're life wouldn't be that happy. The FATHER knows this, and knows he doesn't want his child to go through it. My opinion, if you are okay with adoption, and can afford to, do it. If you don't want to adopt, do all precautions to give your child a happy life. Bully's hurt and kill, and anyone can die on an operating table, if you can do more to try to prevent your child from having an unhappy childhood, or even suffer at birth, then I say go for it.

      Delete
  2. Hm. Good luck to them. I agree that disabled lives are not 'intrinsically less valuable', but the possibility of the condition being severe enough to kill a child would be enough for me to choose a sperm donor or adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People who don't have any genetic disorders don't realize how lucky they are.

    I think the same of women who are fertile. I'll never even be able to face this predicament because I can never bear children.

    I am looking forward to adoption or being with someone who already has a child. Parenting a kid I didn't birth won't mean I won't love the kid more than life itself. Perhaps this couple would reconsider their desire to reproduce as they get older. They're just kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I'm a mother to one amazing little boy that I had naturally. It truly doesn't matter how the little one came into your life, it's what you do after that. That's what makes you a mother.

      Delete
    2. Of course you wouldn't love an adopted child less, but shouldn't they have the right to decide for themselves whether they have a biological child or to adopt? They have the option, if they want to take it, that's their business.

      I'm sure if you had the option you'd at least entertain it, whether or not you'd decide to take that option.

      Delete
  4. +1 for selfish. I remember there was a newscaster in Los Angeles with a genetic deformity that cause her hands to not develop correctly. She willingly passed it on to her daughter who willingly went on telivision and told her mother that she hated her and would never forgive her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And how old was this daughter? It was probably some girl tortured by her peers at high school. I dare you to go back years later and ask her if she regrets being born. Those who fight for our freedom many times pay much more than that so WE can live. Do not mistake peer pressure for a desire to have never lived.

      Delete
    2. People are mean especially the first 20 years of life and adults can be as well. I have a seizure disorder and other issues. I don't blame my parents however if I had a choice I would prefer not to have been born. Mainly because I wouldn't have existed and known how good life could or couldn't be anyway.

      It's not like agreeing with suicide. I am just tired of watching people suffer and die every day. And those are just the ones born healthy.

      Why bring a child into the world only so it can suffer? It really isn't fair. Just to satisfy your own desires you will put suffering on a baby?

      Delete
  5. It isn't selfish, since if they adopted, that child wouldn't exist, and wouldn't be happy nor sad. They're deprived of existence. So we can't make someone's life better for not existing, nor can we make someone's life worse for existing.

    If they abused the child, the child could complain. But the child isn't any more or less harmed, than if the parents had allergies, or were a members of a racially discriminated group.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...her daughter who willingly went on television and told her mother that she hated her and would never forgive her.

    Heck, you can get that from 90% of the teenage girls in the world at one point or another. That's the nature of things. I don't consider someone's rant in anger an indication the world would have been better off without them even existing.

    The quadriplegic Joni Eareckson Tada is one of my heros, and I think she can tell us all a thing about disabilities (of course, hers was not genetic, so maybe not specifically germane to this conversation)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure as a teen I told my mom I hated her for not letting me go to "the big party" one friday night...

      Delete
  7. "It isn't selfish, since if they adopted, that child wouldn't exist, and wouldn't be happy nor sad. They're deprived of existence. So we can't make someone's life better for not existing, nor can we make someone's life worse for existing."

    You can't deprive something that doesn't exist. I don't think it is wise to feel an obligation to "nothing," which at this point includes a child that hasn't even been conceived.

    I think I agree with anon: we should probably be discouraging the urge to succumb to the "passing of genes" instinct rather than encouraging it. Pregnancy is a beautiful thing, and it sucks that not everyone is going to experience it, but we have a serious population problem. You can thank your idiot forefathers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is old but my opinion is life is hard even without disabilities. People get made fun of for having different hair or a big nose. Why purposefully bring a disabled child into the world just so he can physically suffer AND put up with torment? It really isn't fair.

      Delete
  8. If she wants to bear a child herself, there's nothing wrong with considering a sperm doner. But then again, you can't tell people how they should feel. They have to wok it out themselves. I know a family who has five children, three of them with cystic fibrosis. If they'd stopped having children when the first was diagnosed, they'd have three children now, two of them healthy. Instead, they are doomed to watch two more sons die (the oldest is already gone).

    Anonymous, there is hope for people who cannot conceive -like me. It took a while, but I got over the genetic thing. I have seven children and two grandchildren now, and have never been pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wayne, you make it sound like not getting pregnant is akin to killing a cognitive human being. In your world, is every woman meant to procreate and if so, is there a specific number to birth before they are absolved of the guilt that 'robbing a child of existance' might cause?

    Why is it against the law to endanger a child with malnurishment, physical pain, drug use, etc. and yet passing these traits to someone via the womb is somehow okay, even if the child will never leave the hospital (eat through a tube, living in pain, consuming prescription drugs, etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I might sounds stupid for saying this but why doesn't he just get cheek implants or something? If he can afford all those tattoos he can get plastic surgery. BTW I agree with the first poster re: adoption

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a question of where you'd draw the line. I have health problems that make my life difficult, but none of them are drastic on their own. I also have clinical depression. Should I be allowed to have children? I might wind up with a child who has ADHD, depression, hypothyroidism, GERD, scoliosis, allergies, sinus problems, bad teeth, etc, just like I do. I might also carry the genes for red/green colorblindness, Alzheimers, diabetes, and numerous other diseases that run in my family. My current guy is schizophrenic. Should he be allowed to father children? If he and I are together long enough, we might consider having children. It's something we've already talked about. We know we could wind up with a kid with his perfect physical health and my better mental health...or the worst of both. Should we be forbidden to ever even try? What if it happens accidentally? You can't legislate reproduction. Eugenics is very ugly.

    Personally, were I him, I'd probably have a vasectomy and adopt. Having seen much worse cases of Treacher-Collins, I wouldn't want to risk it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @anon my position doesn't say its wrong not to have children. I'm responding to the idea that having this child harms that child.

    If it does, then not having it would benefit the child. But the child doesn't exist. So how could I benefit non-existent things? So by extension, I must not be harming that child when I'm bringing it into existence, genetically flawed or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with blitherypoop. Once society or lawmakers or doctors even begin deciding and defining what is normal and abnormal, what is an acceptable genetic make-up and what is not, you begin really talking about eugenics. My husband has an autosomal dominant disorder that our children would have a 50/50 chance of inheriting. The symptoms associated can range from mild to severe and even with pre-implantation testing there is no way to predict the actual prognosis of the child. My husband's case is severe while his sister's is mild, so even in the same family with the exact same mutation in the exact same gene there can be variation in quality and quantity of life.

    I empathize with this couple and the difficulty of the their decision. I empathize with this woman's desire to bear her husband's children. I know what I would do for myself in this situation, but I believe in their right to make this decision for themselves. And more importantly I trust this man, who has lived an entire life with this problem, to know better than me whether this is the right thing for his future child and for his family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That guy has one of the least damaging cases of T-C I have ever seen, the vast majority are much much worse, and a great deal of them yield a horribly suffering child that will never leave intensive care. They acknowledge this, and yet seem horribly insensitive to it in making the same mistake that many young girls make when they feel a biological imperative, see the cute sweetness of children, feel an emptiness in their lives then make a choice that could damn the entire life of another person, seeking only to fill that hole in their own life, either not understanding or not considering what effect such a selfish action would have on a child that depends utterly on someone who is unable to care for it. This couple's sin is even greater than a 13 year old girl who gets pregnant because she likes children, as their child stands a huge chance of never even being able to care for ITSELF.

      The earth wont be able to handle a constant influx of new people forever, in 50-70 years your classic anti-eugenics argument of "who defines normal?" while not without value, will become something we no longer have to luxury to consider. Governments will have to stem the tide somehow and limiting all genetically strong couples to one child to allow genetically weak couples like this one a chance at reproduction will not only weaken the larger human gene pool at a time strength is at a premium, it will place an additional burned on a healthcare system which is outrageously broken and overburdened NOW, not to mention with an additional 2 billion people on the planet.

      Delete
    2. You make your point well, but be careful about assuming that we are facing "a constant influx of new people forever," because the most recent projections suggest that the "population bomb" has been somewhat defused and that the world population could start to decline -

      http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-worlds-population-could-decline.html

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If she wants to carry a child and adoption is a very possible option, why don't they just get a sperm donor? It removes the possibility of t-c syndrome but it still give her the opportunity to carry a baby. That is the least demanding option.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have treacher collins sydrome and whilst I am too young to be thinking about kids it is still something that I think about from time to time. I don't think people have a right to preach whether or not we should be allowed to have children, even Julia Whitmore whilst having to endure an awful lot more than I have, is still a happy little girl. It is a 50% chance of passing it on, some people may want to take that risk but they will deal with the consequences NOT YOU.

    As to the person who stupidly asked why he doesn't get cheek implants, if you did your research you would read that he doesn't want anymore surgery as he is happy that way.

    In terms of overpopulation, one more child won't change anything, go preach to the poor people who have more than 2 children who will repeat this cycle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "some people may want to take that risk but they will deal with the consequences NOT YOU" Considering we live in a society (well at least in Australia we do) where the sick are supported by the tax-payers I will indeed deal with consequences of someone having a child that needs extensive medical treatment. Furthermore, this money could have gone towards other patients and helping them out instead of creating more children with problems.

      Delete
  17. To be honest there is nothing wrong with being different and different is good. Our society does not accept people who are different from themselves well guess what...you have to suck it up and deal with it!
    We are all here for a reason with a purpose in life. People who are different can teach us a lesson to help us become better human beings. What is wrong with being different eh?
    Having a child is a gift and being able to carry it is a privledge. I think everyone should have an opportunity to experience it unless if you are a dick head that is. However I would not have a child knowing it will also have the same syndrome as I do because as a mother it is your job to love your child, to protect it, cherish it, and give the best life to your child. I don't think I would want to go back there again nor would I want to watch my child go through what I went through. Thankfully there are gentic counselors who can help you with that...take out the bad eggs/sperm and put back in the good egg/sperm which is very popular now a days but pricey!
    I think Jono kicks ass and good for him for feeling comfortable about himself but it shows. Confidence is key and more about how your put yourself out there.
    I am have Treachers not as severe but I am living in NYC and pursuing my career as a designer. :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Everyone who believes they should not be able to re-produce is completely sick. This is their decision, Jono has had a tough life, but does he for one second wish he was never born? dumb question! People saying he should not reproduce is a watered down version of the holocaust. If any one of us were faced between death or an opportunity to live, we would pick life. Why would we then go to work everyday? We go in hopes that we can make something of ourselves. Is there a chance that we can fail? Of course there is! Why did i go to college and then on to graduate school to receive my doctorate degree? In hopes of not only helping others but also to help myself! Are there chances that I will fail? obviously there are, and the chances become more and more slim everyday, I could graduate from Harvard Medical unable to pass the boards and wind up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with no way to pay it off. So what most people here are telling me is that I should just give up anyways? Who cares of the potential I could have to save hundreds possibly upon thousands of lives. There is a chance that I will fail so why try at all? shame on you people who for one second judge jono and his beloved wife for wanting to have a child of their own. Having a child with TCS is not failure. I know dozens of people who have not just physically denatured children but mentally challenged children who are not capable of living on their own. But I have never met one who wishes for a second that their precious child were never in their life. I can only imagine someone completely selfish and lazy wishing they did not have such "burdens" in their life, someone who I think does not deserve a chance at life nearly as much as someone mentally ill. "burdens" they are not. I have personally been affected positively by many wonderful people that so many of you have categorized as "a waste of a chance at life." You people need a lesson, one of my greatest examples once wrote a public speech entitled, "the blessings of my cancer." From the age of 13 he was in and out of hospitals struggling for his life until he died shortly before he turned 30. I wish I could talk to most of you face to face. Makes me ashamed of so many people. Jono and his wife have every right to pro-create. I pity the children of the sad pessimistic parents who do not feel this way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. they have the same hair!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Those posts at the beginning about 'it's so selfish to want to procreate when there are so many kids to adopt that you will love the same" and "just get a sperm donor" - unbelievable. She doesn't want to just be pregnant - to get stretch marks and an episiotomy and weight gain and all kinds of pain just for the experience of it. Part of wanting your OWN kid is because you are creating a human - half you and half the one you love! And the joy is in seeing how the child is like you in some aspects, and how he/she is like your partner in other ways. And obviously, I think adoption is great. But that doesn't satiate my desire for my own flesh and blood. I will probably have my own kids AND adopt.
    I think if all the fancy genetic stuff is something you are willing to do financially and emotionally, then that would be worth a shot to give your child the best chance at a normal life. I'm sure Laura wouldn't choose to go through all that, but she has chosen you. But, even if your child is one of the ones who is born unable to breathe, our medical technology is so advanced that I'm sure he/she would still have a great chance......especially because they would be able to anticipate the need for surgery before birth. And with a father who's been there, and who has come out of the horrible high school years with his head held high, I think this child would do just fine either way.

    -Whitney

    ReplyDelete
  21. There are many WAAAAAAYYYY more incapacitating disabilities that people knowingly and unknowingly pass on to children every day. How is it that passing on one that we can see more criminal? Sure, overpopulation is a problem, but doesn't it make far more sense to attack people who refuse to use any form of birth control when they don't want children, than to attack someone in a loving relationship and actually desiring them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The discussion here is about passing disabilities knowingly. It is criminal. Passing disabilities unknowingly is just a bad luck.

      Delete
    2. Would you include diabetes as a disability?

      Delete
    3. "Passing disabilities knowingly is criminal?????????"......First of all, the range of disabilities is broad. It ranges from minor to severe....YET, what right does someone have to say that a person with a disabiltiy doesn't have a right to live? That they are "less" than everyone else in society? That if known, they shouldn't be born? How dare you to think like that! I think narrow minded, selfish people are the one's with the "problems".

      I have a child with "disabilities" and she is everything to me. She is also a wonderful addition to society. She has a lot to share and DESERVES to be here!! If known she would have the problems she does, would I have had her?....ABSOLUTELY!

      Delete
    4. "I have a child with "disabilities" and she is everything to me. She is also a wonderful addition to society. She has a lot to share and DESERVES to be here!! If known she would have the problems she does, would I have had her?....ABSOLUTELY!"

      I reckon you are probably feeling miserable for giving birth to a child that is less capable of taking care of himself and is and will be probably in a lot of suffering, thus you're feeling the psychological need to protect yourself from those thoughts and feelings. i try to believe that you're not truthful to yourself, because the other alternative would be to really be wanting to make the same decision knowing its outcome... which would make you a terrible person. and yes, call me however you want, I'm unsympathetic of selfish people.

      Delete
  22. So who is going to pay for that child's massive facial reconstructive surgery? He fails to consider how expensive his own healthcare bills were and also fails to consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars he will need to fix his potential child's structural deformities. In the end he will put his child through years of hospital stays and pull money out of the healthcare system. Many of these children are born with no lower jaw so it's not even a matter of looks, the deformities must be fixed so the child can survive. Irresponsible, cruel and selfish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you! it's unbelievable selfish. i have a genetic trait that caused me chronic neuropatic pain, and i wouldn't choose to have children if there is a chance they would have to go through what i have been going through. sure, it's a beautiful thing to have your own child, it's something that makes your life fuller, but to what cost???? it's not only your life, but the life of someone else whom you can't ask if they want it or not. making your life fuller and "more", can make someone else miserably unhappy. what do you choose?
      would i have chosen not being born and not having to endure every day all this pain? yes. am i afraid to die? yes. being afraid to die isn't the same as being willing to live. we sometimes go forth and forth, because that is all we have left to do

      Delete
  23. It is just selfishness. When people want to have babies- they are thinking only about how the babies will improve THEIR OWN lives. They do not think about how the baby will deal with same illness (children often have even worse form of the hereditary disease manifestation then their parents have had).
    It is just cruel to create a new person knowing that there is 50% chance that his life will be a HELL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What gives you the right to classify people with disabilities as living a life of "hell"?! Not just that, this condition is mostly physical with some other minor challenges. You saying someone with physical deformities is going to live in "hell"? Sure, there may be some immature kids that will tease, but there will also be the compassionate one's that will inspire them....That is still no reason to say it's "cruel" for them to be alive. Let me guess, you are the type of person that is to say a burn victim shouldn't have survived because they now have to live an "embarassing" life?....Think again...a life is a life and a BLESSING to have!

      Delete
    2. "they are thinking only about how the babies will improve THEIR OWN lives"- how well said...

      Delete
    3. Okay, this guy has this disease. He's obviously intellegent, he seems to be doing well for himself, not to mention his girlfriend is an absolute FOX! His life obviously isn't hell. He may be relatively lucky compared to some other people with this disorder, but even having a kid who's perfectly healthy, there's no guarantee that they'll have a good life, we can't ever guarantee our kids will grow up safe and happy, if you don't want to take the risk that your kids will suffer, then don't have them at all, any time any of us have a kid we risk something bad happening to them, life isn't always about playing it safe. And let's be honest here, everyone who intentionally has a kid does so for selfish reasons at first, we do it because we're programed too, because we all want a part of us to live on, or most of us do anyway. The love, the selflessness, the parental devotion, only comes when we actually have the child, when it's just a desire of course it's for us! You don't have any reason to believe that this guy won't be a good father, he seems like a sweetheart, you're being judgmental. If they want children let them have them. I hope their kids grow up well whether they have the disease or not and I hope they all wind up happy.

      Delete
  24. I MET HIM AND HIS GIRLFRIEND<!!!!! THEY ARE SOOOO NICE
    they came to our school

    ReplyDelete
  25. why should someone be deprived of the happiness of having his own child just because he has a facial deformity! He is having a great life and so will his child!

    ReplyDelete
  26. None of your difficulties have been proven to be hereditary or even genetically linked, and schizophrenia has only been tied to genetic influences and not direct causes. Treacher-collins is different, not only do we know for a fact any male child fathered by this guy will develop it, we can't predict how bad the damage will be. Excluding all the fascile arguments made by those under the poisonous and destructive influence of the social cult of childbirth, which constantly denigrates adoption and assumes a person's ultimate acheivement is producing a child, rather than CARING for and RAISING a child, these two are directly responsible for the suffering their child will endure if they reproduce, as it will come from a genetic condition they KNEW they'd be passing on, rather than any choice made by the child itself.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that these two be legally barred from reproducing, as a society we aren't at that level of desperation yet. However the most optimistic estimate from climate and social scientists say we have about 40-60 years before, barring some groundbreaking series of scientific advances, the earth will simply no longer be able to support any more of us. Then another 30 years after that, assuming some new science allows us to feed more people, and we'll just completely run out of space on earth. That's a maximum of 100 years that society will have the luxury of allowing people to reproduce irresponsibly, and after that we will simply have no other choice. No matter how bad it gets there will always be some people who think they have the RIGHT to have a child, no matter how much it will suffer, so at that point, however "ugly' past attempts at eugenics have been, it will be unavoidable. The only alternative is to restrict everyone from having more than one child, and how is it fair to purchase this and other genetically irresponsible couples' ability to have one child, at the price of many possible healthy and happy children that could be had by parents who actually care about their child's ability to live, rather than their own sense of selfish fulfillment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. **However the most optimistic estimate from climate and social scientists say we have about 40-60 years before, barring some groundbreaking series of scientific advances, the earth will simply no longer be able to support any more of us. Then another 30 years after that, assuming some new science allows us to feed more people, and we'll just completely run out of space on earth.**

      Do you have a citation to support these claims?

      Delete
  27. Many people seem to forget that a 50% chance isn't 100%, and that 100 coin flips or 100 babies born may result in 100 heads and 100 males. That's probability at work. Luck or fortune, as it's sometimes called. This couple could sire 10 children and none of them could have TCS. Death isn't the sole terminus of genetic lineage. Sometimes two generations are born without the undesirable allele(s) and they're gone for good. Moreover epigenetic causes can greatly influence the probability of congenital defects. There may be and may yet be ways to give their children more dice. More than a few TCS cases were concomitant with perinatal drug and alcohol abuse, malnutrition, and high-stress environments. The single cause fallacy doesn't work well anywhere--especially not in the sciences.

    Also ask yourselves if you'd want these armchair warrior taxpayers and bean-counters if by no fault of your own, you were in a mangling automobile accident today and woke up someone's "burden" tomorrow. What is the point of this Earth and resources and life to you? It is selfish to want to be alive. It is selfish to pressure cook others to accept your manifesto. It is selfish to take up personal space, to kill a plant or animal to subsist, and to do pretty much anything. So let the selfish police go ahead and come get you. Let the selfish police sirens draw closer, then get further away, because the government is so prudent with tax dollars, they can do everything but build sensible direct efficient routes. While you're doing your jumpsuit prep routine, think about how you're making the world overpopulated and more stressful. Imagine you're drowning. X number of years from now, Japan's decades-long declining birth rate won't be standard as it appears to be foreshadowing in technologically advanced nations; instead, all of the millions and millions and millions of hectares of unoccupied land will be filled up to your neck with people with better attitudes but some dreadful medical problem that makes you sick to think about. Before long, you might remember some people live to control how you live. Others would deny you life itself. The grass is greener on the other side, it's sometimes gleaned. Isn't it zesty to know grass exists? That there's life in you--and out there--to explore? Can you still hear the selfish police?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...