A disabled man beginning a family

I also think the orginal parents should not have kept him. Just based on the fact that they did not really want him. Who knows, they could have been great parents and loved him... but the opposite could have happened. My mother had me at a very young age and I know that I always felt like a mistake. She loved me and raised me in a good environment, but I always knew I caused her struggles in life. That's not a nice feeling. I can't imagine being a totally unwanted-child. I'm on the fence about screening in pregnancy. I think sometimes it can be good. However, I know someone who was supposed to have Down Syndrome and his parents were told to abort. They didn't and he was born a completely healthy and normal little boy. I know a few other people who have terminated the pregnancy when they heard things during screening... makes me wonder how many healthy babies were aborted. I also work with kids with disabilities, so I know I will love my children no matter what. As for the best option, I have no idea. I don't exactly know what this man has and how much genetics is in the disorder. In the end, if they are happy with their decision, than it was the best one.

In my opinion, if the baby is delivered to suffer after he comes into the world, it is best he did not come into the world. It may be painful to terminate the pregnancy but I feel it is more painful to the parents if the child is unable to cope or develop further complexities. Maybe the child may even blame the parents for his suffering.

It is hard to say which option is best for them as there are so many personl things to consider but, I think I know which guy you mean as I saw the programme with him on a while back and then saw an advert for the show talking about the disability he has and whether he would want to pass that onto his child!

It was best for the baby, in my opinion, that the biological parents gave the baby in adoption. They were not capable of handling a situation like that one and still give the baby the love he needed. As for the couple, I woulfd not knowingly give birth to a child with malformations if it can be helped. If the father has genetic problems and the lady wants to have the experience of pregnancy, I would use a semen bank. I am sure that the real parents are the ones who care fora child, not the owner of the sperm. So this man can father lovinly a baby that is not biologically his. And he can also put his hand over his loved one ´s tummy to feel the baby (his baby) growing inside her.

Well as for the adoption if the parents couldn't fully love a child with this malformation it was most likely better for him to be given up. I could not have done it, giving away my baby but they obviously could. We don't know either. They may not have been able to care for a disabled child both emotionally or financially and then again it was probably better for him as you stated much had been done for him. I do not agree with testing embryos and discarding the "bad" ones as I do believe these are babies and it is paramount to murder. That said I wouldn't be against a genetic work up. Not all mutations are genetic and can be passed along. Some happen at the splitting of cells and just happen. Finding out the chances of it happening would make a difference in what my decision would be. As for her not wanting to adopt at least once I understand that too. I loved being pregnant (the emotional) most of the time and although I am open to adopting I am glad I had that experience. Adopting is a great thing to do to.

I know it's sad that the original parents gave up the boy, but sometimes it is really for the best for both parent and baby boy if it is put up for adoption. Particularly for a baby who has this disability, it is better for him to be with a set of parents who are willing to spend money and time to care and nurture him, to get him through all the obstacles of this disability and also have the support to give him the best chance of a good quality of life, rather than be with the original parents who would be very unwilling to give any of these things, and in the end how with this baby turn out to be? I am very supportive of the idea of screening, they think is the parents chose not to give the screening, then I would take it that the parents would love the baby no matter what. But if the parents requests the screening, then there is a possibility that if the baby had something wrong with it then the parent might reject it. So it may be better to find out if something is wrong with the baby and for the parents to make a choice and is make early preparation if there is a need for it, such as adoption etc. rather than abandon it at the last minute after it was born.

I don't know that I would want to screen a pregnancy. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby, just an unwanted pregnancy--that is something my pastor had said when I was in high school. I agree with that really. Although I have never been pregnant, I do know that many women don't want a child when it would be inconvenient for them and many people don't want to deal with a baby with disabilities. But there are no lack of couples looking to adopt if any baby is available, at least in America. I would never force a parent to keep a child, but I also wouldn't deprive a couple who can't have their own children the chance to adopt a baby even if it were deformed in some way. Personally I wouldn't have testing done for the purpose of ending a pregnancy unless the testing proved that the fetus wasn't viable anyway.

Well.. some people just aren't made to handle certain things. Sometimes it really IS the most courageous and beneficial thing for a parent or parents who KNOW they cannot provide the life they want to for a baby to give a baby up for adoption. I would never do that myself but... I am an adoptee so I can vouch for the fact that sometimes you have opportunities and a wonderful life you NEVER would have had otherwise. As far as worrying about passing on a genetic abnormality or disability, probably going the test tube route would be the wisest decision. I understand the desire to have their own baby and pregnancy, that is a big deal to women who have always wanted to be mommies. It can be an even bigger deal for a mommy-to-be who doesn't know any other real 'biological' family... just to have that baby who is a combination of herself and her other half, and the only biological relative they know. I believe screening for a reason like this is perfectly fine. I do frown on it for other reasons, such as for parents to try ruling out other traits or for 'gender choosing', and I also dislike the fact that many doctors try to force you to screen for EVERYTHING when it really doesn't matter what the results are, know what I mean? When I was pregnant I definitely was on board with my ultrasounds and I wanted to make sure I wasn't anemic but I had no reason to do all the screenings for everything else, I was pregnant and having a baby, pregnancy is NOT an illness, there was nothing wrong with me, and no matter what, I would never abort my baby or give her away, so there was no need to 'find out' anything ahead of time - except whether she was a he or a she. I think people get way too caught up in the medical aspects and forget that having a baby is a natural process and we really don't NEED all that extra stuff they have come up with now. I think the original parents perhaps made the best choice... because the baby was wanted and loved, which is all anybody would wish for ANY baby. There is such a lack of that today... sadly. So many people having kids when they weren't ready and didn't want them, can't afford them, aren't emotionally or mentally prepared, and then who suffers - the baby.... or the other people the parents rely or depend on and burden because THEY can't deal with their own responsibility.

Screening the pregnancy is a good idea. But what if they had the test tube baby and something was wrong with it? Would they have it killed? Of coarse the baby boys birth parents should have kept the baby. But i bet the adoptive parents were greatful that they didnt. Was one of his birth parents having this condition?

I cannot say what decision someone else should make. The bible indicates that life begins at conception. If I did not believe that I could love and care for a child that was malformed, I would choose adoption. I think that the natural parents did night to put their son up for adoption, because they propbably would not have treated him right.

I think they should have the chance to be parents.

If original parents gave him other couple because they could to take care of this disable child than nothing wrong in it. It is the helplessness of the original parents not a cruility. In my country it is general thing if one couple have a girl baby than they throw it any where because they want boy baby. It is reason here too much imbalance between male and female baby. If the couple want natural baby than nothing is wrong in it, disables also have emotions, but they must be get check of both, and if 1% chance of have a disable baby then they should not try to have a natural baby.

My, that's a hard one. But if I were in their situation, I would have to be very careful and choose an option that would prevent them from having a baby with the same disability. It is selfishness on their part if they do not think of their baby's future.

Hello maximax8, About your question,in my opinion I think the parents should ask themselves about this having a child things

That is so sad that just because of the way a baby looked the parents didnt want their child and gave it up for adoption. I dont think I would care what my baby looked like. It is mine and I would love it. Thats sad as well that it is something genetic that could be passed on to his child so he wont ever have his own biological baby.