Would you? Could you? Should you?

bump bump bump

My oldest son has 18Q- syndrome mosaic. He wasn't diagnosed until I was already pregnant with my second son. Both my husband and I were tested at that time and we do not have that chromosomal abnormality. Basically, it was just some freak thing that happened in the first hours of pregnancy when the cells are splitting. It's extremely rare. If I had thought another child would have been born with this problem would I still have had them. Honestly at that time, I probably would have but now that my son is getting older and I am seeing more and more social problems, probably not.

It depends...in this family's situation (and, frankly, in my own) I would probably try to lower the odds (sorry, but vasectomies and tubals aren't 100%) substantially. But if I had the money to support the children with their needs, I wouldn't think twice about it.

I believe we live in a society that devalues life, and that devaalues children. Heck, we abort a good number of them, and we sneer down our noses at people with large families, treating them like third or fourth class citizens because of their large families. I think it's a shame, honestly.

In the cases of some of these disabilities, the children often can and do lead productive lives. I didn't watch the show, so I don't know much about these kids or this family, but I do know how I feel about our current attitude towards children.

The truth is, EVERY child is a potential "liability". Even a perfectly normal child can have brain injuries that lower their level of functioning. We simply don't know when we create them what they will turn out to be.

How old were these children when the autism was detected? Autism isn't something you can test for at birth. In the cases of autism that I have experienced, the parents didn't know until age 4-6 that their children even HAD autism. They probably had a couple of kids in the interim.

Even Doug Flutie didn't discover that his son was autistic until he was 4 or 5. And I'm sure Flutie's family had some pretty great medical care.

That being said, if I DID have 5 autistic children, I wouldn't be writing teary letters to network producers asking them to build me a house.

Would you decide to to stop because you couldnt' afford to care for any more?

This would be the biggest issue for me (at least, now that I'm older). But I think it should factor in [I[regardless of whether you think there is a possibility of a birth defect. When I was younger, I probably would have stopped if my first child had been handicapped, physcially or mentally, and I would've just let it add to my general state of depression.

My ex-brother-in-law, whom I respect very much, has three children. His first is an awesome young boy... who happens to be autistic. He and his wife have an immense love for family, so they had two others, both daughters and both "normal." They might have kept going except the doctor's warnings of danger to his wife if she became pregnant again.

I think his love for his kids is amazing.

I suddenly wonder what sort of care these children need when they grow up, though...

They have 6 children and are barely making ends meet,

One thing I always wonder when watching that show (and, shame on me, I do watch it occasionally)... they essentially build these people mansions. When the cameras are off and the crews are long gone, how do these destitute families pay the -- undoubtably greatly increased -- property taxes on these things? How can they pay for the upkeep and added gardening, heating, cooling expenses on these monster houses when they couldn't afford the shacks they were already subsisting in?

The other thing I wonder about is where I can rent four or five kids to make my application look better.

I don't watch regularly but I know on the Alaska house hundreds of people from the town they lived in nominated them for Extreme Makeover. I had the impression that they didn't apply themselves.



They must be getting some additional assistance to pay the bigger utility bills, taxes etc. I don't know how they couldn't, like you said if they couldn't afford the previous home how could they afford the new improved home.

Honestly at that time, I probably would have but now that my son is getting older and I am seeing more and more social problems, probably not.

Thank you for the honesty. It's not an easy thing to say because the chance of having our decisions attacked is very likely. It's a hard choice to make....

There are 2 points of view in the world....children are priceless and then

I believe we live in a society that devalues life, and that devaalues children. Heck, we abort a good number of them, and we sneer down our noses at people with large families, treating them like third or fourth class citizens because of their large families.

The truth is, EVERY child is a potential "liability". Even a perfectly normal child can have brain injuries that lower their level of functioning. We simply don't know when we create them what they will turn out to be.

And therein lies the rub. I can understand having kids and finding out after the 3rd one arrives that there is a medical condition in the first 1....and then find out it's going to affect the others....but at what point do you stop and say, the odds are too great. I dont' want to risk it?

That being said, if I DID have 5 autistic children, I wouldn't be writing teary letters to network producers asking them to build me a house.

Ohhh, ouch. That's harsh. I don't know if I what to say to that. Do you really resent those who ask for and accept help that much? Are you so proud of the fact you don't?

I suddenly wonder what sort of care these children need when they grow up, though...

And there is another issue altogether. When considering to have a child, when they have a life-long illeness or handicap, it changes your involvement. Instead of a coupld decades, you have to consider an entire lifespan

How can they pay for the upkeep and added gardening, heating, cooling expenses on these monster houses when they couldn't afford the shacks they were already subsisting in?

Well, when you subtract the mortgage, you have a good cunk of change to use towards upkeep. I know they put in high effiecency everything. I've wondered that too...I may research that. I know many times they recieve additional money etc

Fascinating topic. It is indeed exceptional to find a family that includes more than one child diagnosed with autism. There is a family with four children on my street, for example, where only the youngest has autism. That is the usual experience. The financial impact of properly treating even one case of minimal autism (Asperger's) with one-on-one behavioural techniques can be devastating. Here in Canada it could cost as much as $40,000US annually.

One wonders with such a high incidence in this family, if one or other or both parents have Asperger's to a minimal degree and whether this had impacted on their ability to objectively decide whether or not to continue having children. Many a social worker or pediatrician will comment that upon interviewing the parents of children with autism, that they find that the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.

People who are successful at dealing with their autism are said to be better able to concentrate on goals than most. There are many geniuses throughout history, including Albert Einstein, Emily Dickinson and Andy Warhol that are thought to have been minimally autistic. Some of you at JoeUser who are capable of high levels of concentration and who have difficulties forming emotional attachments, even with spouses, may also be candidates for this diagnosis. I, for one, can certainly identify.

My point of view is that any child is inately precious and sacred. As is true for any of us, these children can be considered potentially as either great liabilities or great assets. It is only our perspective on the matter that counts.WWW Link

That said, I probably would have stopped at two.

We had lots of professional development on autism last year and one thing that researchers are finding as a cause in the past is (and Gid, if you don't know this already, you may find this interesting) VACCINATIONS. I don't recall the specifics, but it was a preservative in the vaccinations that was used in infants that had a high correllation to autism. It was a staggering correllation. Like there was no way the two couldnt be related.

On extreme makeover i think sometimes they'll pay the mortgage on the old house, but then they've got the property taxes on the new one, and I think they try to make the new one LOTS more energy efficent and such, too...

I do have a problem with beggars, yes. That it was the community that sent in the letters DOES paint this in a different light, I will admit, but I see far too many people who do nothing more than beg for a handout. It's made me a little cynical, sure.

Am I "proud" of the fact I don't? Nope, not in the least. I feel like by providing for my family, I am doing the right thing. Nothing to be proud of in doing what you SHOULD be doing!

You want a good read that applies, lifehappens? Read the book "End of the Spear" by Steve Saint. He makes an interesting point: by making others dependent on us for their survival, sometimes we're doing them far more harm than good.

The truth is, I'm getting disgusted by some of the people who protest how bad they have it. I can't tell you how many people around here complain that they can't get a job, yet when it's pointed out that the local college has three different degree programs where they're virtually guranteed work if they graduate (all are two year programs or less), they suddenly come up with a ton of excuses. The college sits less than 600 feet from the low income apartments in the community, yet is struggling to maintain enrollment. We have a "work study" student who puts in twenty hours a week playing Second Life, while the instructor and I literally struggle to handle the IT workload at this school. At some point people should stop expecting a check and start doing something to make their own lives better. And YES, that's how I feel about it.

I've seen some touching stories on that show. I've also seen a couple that have caused me to roll my eyes. Like I said, I didn't see this one and, I must reiterate that the town submitting their name does put a different sping on it.

Yup, we're well aware of them. It's one of the reasons I can't understand why people are so ready to buy everything the government sells them without thinking for themselves.

Really tough subject, kid. By the time kids become 12-14, even "normal" ones, make you believe they are challenged. ( PC for retard). But food for thought...in a family where 4 or 5 previous children were developmentally challenged in various ways, the last child grew up to be Ludwig von Beethoven. What if his mom had stopped at two?

Having a large family is tough enough when everyone is healthy. Throw in the challenge of moving every two years and the "tough" goes up alot. But stopping at 2 or 3 would mean I never would have met Mamielady or Boogie. That would have been a more terrible hardship than caring for a disabled child.

Lots of good comments.

I'm glad to see so many comments and sides to this issue. I can't really say how I would respond in this situation, but I'm glad to get so many people who put some thought into the matter.

gid, I will be commenting again on your reply, but I just don't have time right now.

Having a large family is tough enough when everyone is healthy. Throw in the challenge of moving every two years and the "tough" goes up alot. But stopping at 2 or 3 would mean I never would have met Mamielady or Boogie. That would have been a more terrible hardship than caring for a disabled child.

aww, shucks.

during the show they mentioned that the autism in this particular family was not genetic, making their situation extremely rare. i bet that every time they had another baby they were thinking "surely this one won't be autistic" after all the chances would be so slim.

also, i think the presevative in the vaccines is mercury

I went back and watched the show...I love it...and thank God for the DVR!

First, I'd like to point out that this show is all one big tax write-off for everyone involved. It's a tax write-off for the builders, Sears, Lumber Liquidators. And for this episode, I'm pretty sure it was all a tas write-off for Trace Adkins, too. Nice, huh?

Second, every episode I've seen the people that receive the new homes seem genuinely grateful. They're not looking for a hand out, they're looking for a hand up, and some of them are living in absolutely DREADFUL conditions, and I think it's kinda neat, even though it's a tax write-off, that ABC is building up this idea of paying it forward and doing something nice for someone else in need. What a concept.



Exactly.

One of the things the mother said was "Which one would we give back?" How would you choose which ones to give back? The ones with the most severe disabilities because the ones that aren't so disabled are easier to care for?

My grandparents had eight children. My grandmother is 85 and in a long-term care facility, and has buried two of her children and one grandchild, and let me tell you, watching her mourn them has blown goats. But...would it have been better had those three men not have been born at all because they died early? I don't think so. I think the time they had more than outweighed the crappiness of their deaths.

When my cousin Tyler was little they thought he was autistic, but it turns out he's mildly mentally retarded. He's never going to be a lawyer, and he's not going to be a neurosurgeon, and reading's always going to be really hard for him, and "War and Peace" isn't going to be in his league ever, but that doesn't make him any less a wonderful part of our family. I love that kid and I can't imagine him being part of our family.

If it were Ryan and I, and if we KNEW about a potential problem, I guess we'd do some fairly intensive genetic counseling and decide what to from there. I wouldn't want to put a child through unnecessary hardship if I didn't have to, you know? Life is hard enough for people without any disabilities at the beginning.

My point of view is that any child is inately precious and sacred. As is true for any of us, these children can be considered potentially as either great liabilities or great assets. It is only our perspective on the matter that counts. That said, I probably would have stopped at two.

And there is the hard truth. We would (or at least, I would) never dream of regecting a child with disabilities. Their worth is not in thier physical perfection. But I would still be concerned about having more.

i think the presevative in the vaccines is mercury

In May 2003 the AAP stated, "All routinely recommended infant vaccines currently sold in the U.S. are free of thimerosal (mercurey) as a preservative and have been for more than two years." Yet, because the FDA maintained it did not have enough evidence to justify a recall of thimerosal vaccines distributed prior to the introduction of thimerosal-free versions, they were allowed to remain on the market until they became outdated. That means that poisonous vaccines were still administered until November 2002.

Of course a Danish study in 2004 found no higher risk after studying a group of 467,000 children. 1/2 had vaccinations with thimerosal and half did not. They claim the rise in cases is simply better diagnosis.
So pick a side, you have plenty to back you up in either case.

I do have a problem with beggars, yes. That it was the community that sent in the letters DOES paint this in a different light, I will admit, but I see far too many people who do nothing more than beg for a handout. It's made me a little cynical, sure.

I apprciate your comments, gid. I have seen this as well, but I think this topic is best left for another day and another thread. I want to stay on this concept for a little longer...love ya anyway.

But food for thought...in a family where 4 or 5 previous children were developmentally challenged in various ways, the last child grew up to be Ludwig von Beethoven. What if his mom had stopped at two?

This is a great point. I would never tell someone to stop having kids simply becuase the odds were against them. It's not my decision. Although I suppose I should back up and admit that someone who was NOT caring for a child and was popping out more unwanted and uncared for children should be curtailed in some fashion. I empathise with the mother in this case. Someone mentioned that she told them she could not just choose one to give back. It's not easy, but she made a hard choice and she is sticking it out. You have to commend her for that. Our society doens't seem to appreciate the extraordinary effort that parenting sometimes takes.

But stopping at 2 or 3 would mean I never would have met Mamielady or Boogie. That would have been a more terrible hardship than caring for a disabled child.

Glad you didn't!

during the show they mentioned that the autism in this particular family was not genetic, making their situation extremely rare. i bet that every time they had another baby they were thinking "surely this one won't be autistic" after all the chances would be so slim.

And that is where this all started. If I was in their shoes, how would I have reacted? I can't imagine the weight of that decision or the fear as they waited to find out if their baby was going to be "normal".

Second, every episode I've seen the people that receive the new homes seem genuinely grateful

They have a pretty rigourous screening process. They don't want to throw away this grand gesture to someone who won't appreciate it or doesn't really deserve it. Every family has not only had a great need, but they have been extraordinary people....serving others when they had nothing, sacrificing something for others, or struggling against immense odds and helping others along their journey.

If it were Ryan and I, and if we KNEW about a potential problem, I guess we'd do some fairly intensive genetic counseling and decide what to from there. I wouldn't want to put a child through unnecessary hardship if I didn't have to, you know? Life is hard enough for people without any disabilities at the beginning.

And whatever you chose would be a hard desision.

I'll tell you, life, this was a good topic, but it hit a raw nerve. I have to tell you from personal experience, there's a LOT of prejudice against a family with six kids, even if they're all normal and healthy. At four kids, most people are asking you to stop. At five, they're TELLING you.

I would not trade one of my kids for all the money in the world, and I can't imagine that that family would, either. It's just a sore spot with me, personally.

On topic, here's a related story.

A friend of mine had a child who was diagnosed with Cri du Chat syndrome, a rare genetic defect. When they were looking for support groups, they met a lady with a large number of children (10 or 12, if memory serves me correctly) who had a daughter with the genetic defect. This daughter was their second child, and they asked the woman how she had had more knowing the genetic defect was in the family. The lady's response was priceless: just have five or six more and you'll understand.

We actually may wind up seeing one of our family members go through that very decision. Somewhere in either my DNA or my wife's, is the Cystic Fibrosis gene. My four year old daughter carries it. If she grows up and marries a man who also carries it, they will have to face the reality that any children would have a one in four chance of having the disease. If that decision is ever one she has to make, I intend to fully support her no matter what she decides.

I'll tell you, life, this was a good topic, but it hit a raw nerve. I have to tell you from personal experience, there's a LOT of prejudice against a family with six kids, even if they're all normal and healthy

And that is a well made point. I know that people would rather see someone dote on and spoil 1 or 2 than give more love than possessions to 7. I don't think a limit should be made in the size of a family except in extreme cases.....but those have nothing to do with this issue....they deal with abusers having kids.

If that decision is ever one she has to make, I intend to fully support her no matter what she decides.

As any good parent should.

At the Fort Ord Day Care facility a few (say about 30) years ago I was checking in our four little ones for the evening so Mrs Daddy and I could take a well earned evening out. A major (intentional lower case) looked us over and said "Haven't you figured out what causes that? You know you don't have to have one EVERY time." Being a lowly buck sergeant at the time, I played it off as a joke (tone of voice and imperious attitude not with standing) and did not grind his face into the floor. It did put a pall on the rest of the evening. The attitude toward large families hasn't improved over the years. We saw and heard alot of things like that. But...I feel like GidMac...wouldn't take a million bucks for any one of them...or give a nickel for another one like them.