- #36
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,337
I guess another question would be, why would people want to pass these diseases onto their children?
WhoWee said:I agree with you Evo, but other than requiring counseling, what can be done?
Again, overlay your template on top of the OctoMom information. She had 6 children, at least 1 autistic and 2 (?) on disability (I can't recall if she is on disability as well)...then she underwent a fertility procedure to have 6 (?) more babies...the potential for birth defects must be astronomical...can someone please compute?
Evo said:Throwing in a twist.
If people know they have a very great chance of passing a debilitating and incurable disease onto their children, one that would make them incapable of of earning a living and requiring constant expensive medical care, costs that are quite likely to be footed by the public, should they have children?
BobG said:What are you agreeing with? That's she's throwing in a twist? She asked a question.
Will you mary me Bob?BobG said:On the other hand, agreeing with someone as beautiful as Evo is always a good answer to anything she asks.
I was watching a program recently and these parents were all about themselves (we are willing to make the sacrifice to have a terminally ill child that will suffer painfully until they die). What? It made me think of some perverse form of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, these people seemed to want to be applauded and looked up to for causing suffering.I think it depends on what's meant by a very great chance. I think somewhere around 10%, or maybe even lower, it would be wiser to start looking at adoption.
Another excellent subject. Perhaps I should split my off topic post into a new thread. What shall we call it?At what age should Medicaid/Medicare decide an expensive medical procedure isn't worth the money even if it's the only procedure that would save an older person's life? Is there some formula where you divide the cost by the person's expected remaining life time, so that a procedure for a 40 year old is approved, but the same procedure for a 50 year old is disapproved? Or a procedure for a 50 year old is approved, but not for a 60 year old? And by time a person is 75, the only approved procedure is "take two aspirin and call me in two weeks"?
Only if you learn to spill.Evo said:Will you mary me Bob?
BobG said:Only if you learn to spill.
:rofl: I'm choking.BobG said:Only if you learn to spill.
Integral said:The real question being asked here is what factors should be considered when having childern. Is economic status really a meaningful selector for who should or should not have babies? Then the real question is who makes the decision? Is this a decision our goverenment can make? Should they make it?
Maybe we should REQUIRE wealthy, educated people to have children. I know several (eg Ivan,Tsu) couples who have plenty of disposable income, good educations and a comfortable life style who choose NOT to have children. If the only the poor and ignorant are having kids what is the future going to look like?
Evo said:I was watching a program recently and these parents were all about themselves (we are willing to make the sacrifice to have a terminally ill child that will suffer painfully until they die). What? It made me think of some perverse form of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, these people seemed to want to be applauded and looked up to for causing suffering.
Another excellent subject. Perhaps I should split my off topic post into a new thread. What shall we call it?
Integral said:Maybe we should REQUIRE wealthy, educated people to have children. I know several (eg Ivan,Tsu) couples who have plenty of disposable income, good educations and a comfortable life style who choose NOT to have children. If the only the poor and ignorant are having kids what is the future going to look like?
Number of children in the world
2.2 billion
Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)
Shelter, safe water and health
For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:
* 640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
* 400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
* 270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
Children out of education worldwide
121 million
Survival for children
Worldwide,
* 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
* 1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
Health of children
Worldwide,
* 2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
* 15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)
Well then, that looks to be self regulating, not without a great deal of suffering though I should be quick to note.rootx said:With few exceptions, poor countries population growth rate is higher than rich countries.
Office_Shredder said:I'm not sure if you're suggesting they eat the kids here? The line of logic seems less than ideal
Huckleberry said:Mr. Jonathan Swift might disagree with you. Eating children is the ideal solution to promote economic growth.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html"