Poll: Should/would you check a potential mate's genes against your own?

Recommended Videos

PurplePlatypus

Duel shield wielder
Jul 8, 2010
592
0
0
If a family has a history of a seriously medical illness that has a fair chance of being passed on to the offspring and it popping up somewhere along the line I don?t think that person should be having their own biological children. Not to say that persons shouldn?t be a parent, just saying maybe making your own isn?t the be all and end all. You can raise children, hell even go through a pregnancy without your genetic makeup getting involved.

artanis_neravar said:
The increase in genetic deformation in incestious couples children is only something around 0.0001%
How many generations of it re-occurring would it actually take before it became an issue?
 

Crazy_Dude

New member
Nov 3, 2010
1,004
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
Custard_Angel said:
If you're afraid that your child might have a disease you're clearly not mature enough to accept that whatever happens will happen.
What?

This line of reasoning is extremely stupid. The "shit just happens" line of reasoning doesn't work if what happened was neither unexpected, and could actually have been prevented.
Just curious but how could it be prevented?
 

Marowit

New member
Nov 7, 2006
1,271
0
0
I know I ask about my partners familial past with respect to diseases - a la breast cancer, cervical/uterine, etc...

As for checking genetic compatibility, nah, I don't think I'd do that unless we were uncannily similar.
 

Pandaman1911

Fuzzy Cuddle Beast
Jan 3, 2011
601
0
0
I think it should be absolutely necessary to cross-check genes. Not only does it help in cases of potential incest, but many genetic diseases, such as Tay?Sachs disease, a horrifying and debilitating disease that kills off the child in a most gruesome manner before it reaches 5, usually. If both potential parents check, and see that they are at risk, well then... tragedy averted! There's still many other options for children, such as adoption, surrogacy, et cetera. Not the best of choices, but, better than watching your little baby born with some horrible disease.
Also, yes, I would get checked out, and if my wife/girlfriend and I had a higher than normal chance of a genetic malformation, then no, we would not reproduce. Or at least, I wouldn't consent to it.
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
Tsaba said:
Why? Genes have nothing to do that makes that person, they could have the worst genes in the world, but, have the best personality.
I ... I ...

Is science education this bad? I honestly intend no offence, for it isn't your fault you've been miseducated and education is in no way related to intelligence (i.e. I'm not calling you stupid).

Here's a (very) brief run down on genes for people who haven't had the best science teacher:

TL;DR: You missed a free science class here! Genes make everything in you and everything in you includes your brain and thus your thoughts etc.

[HEADING=3]How genes work[/HEADING]

Genes are sequences of chemicals called nucleotides that combine in a specific relationship to create an order of nitrogenous substances called 'bases'. There are four bases in DNA and each directly corresponds to another, which allows genes to be copied through templates. These little strands of template genes (called Messenger Ribonucleic Acid, or mRNA) bind to an organelle (specialised little part of your cells) called a ribosome where Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules bring the building blocks of proteins (amino acids) to the mRNA.

These tRNA molecules are each bound to specific amino acids and each have bases that correspond to those 4 bases on the mRNA molecule we mentioned earlier. As we said earlier, these bases correspond to one another in 'base pairs' which means they can only match up in a single specific way. This means that these tRNA molecules bring their specific amino acid to the mRNA to create a specific chain of amino acids that all bond together in a line of peptide bonds into a protein.

Now, because these amino acids are pretty vibrant molecules with very specific structures, they interact with one another within the protein to give each protein a unique and intended shape and therefore make it specialised for a function. Muscle proteins need to be very strong, so their structure of amino acids is densely packed with three different strands, each of which form many little hydrogen bonds with one another. Enzyme (the little proteinous molecules in your body that control every reaction) proteins need to be a specific shape to catalyse specific reactions.

Because your enzymes control every reaction at every stage in your body and because everything in your body, from your toenails to your brain, is created by a reaction (or chain of reactions) your enzymes essentially make you who you are. Your enzymes are in turn made who they are by mRNA which is made what it is by the genes it uses as templates. Because your brain is you and its specific regions control specific functions (and it's been shown for a long time that irregularities in brain functions, even as diverse as Schizophrenia, are attributable to irregularities in shape), if you've got genes that code for the production of undesirable mRNA which in turn code for the production of undesirable proteins which have the wrong specific shape for their intended function then you're very likely screwed for life with no way of having the issue ever sorted out, relying on palliative (non-curative) care forever, like neuroleptic drugs.

Genes make or break you. Literally.

TL;DR: Seriously? You're seriously going to tl;dr a topic about sex? Fine. Genes are mixed around in your sex cells (e.g. sperm) and then combined with completely fresh takes on the same gene (called alleles) in your mate's sex cells during sex.

[HEADING=3]How sex works[/HEADING]

In a normal human non-sex cell there's 46 chromosomes. Chromosomes are coiled up strings of DNA. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, more commonly known as DNA, is basically a long strand of genes. It's like an unimaginably long line of bases, facing their opposite pairs. Two of those chromosomes are sex chromosomes, controlling the gender of the child. The others all control the myriad functions that make us people.

As I previously mentioned, there are two sex chromosomes. There's actually two copies of every chromosome, we only really have 23 'unique' chromosomes coding for specific functions, but we have two sets of each chromosome with one being from each parent (called 'homologous pairs'). This allows for alleles of genes. An allele is a variation on a given gene, a change in its bases which results in a different end protein. The reason some people have green eyes and others blue is because there are different versions (alleles) of the gene for iris fibrovascular pigment. Some alleles will always be expressed (used as a template for mRNA) if present and we call these dominant, some will only be expressed if they're the only ones from which the mRNA can be copied (i.e. if neither parent gives the dominant gene) and we call these recessive. To show how this dominance/recessiveness stuff works we can examine the sex chromosomes, Y and X.

Human females are always XX without exception and human males XY. So what decides if you have a boy or a girl? Sperm! When a sperm is created it goes through a process called 'random assortment' where its full 46 chromosomes are halved and each one of the homologous pair (the two different copies of each of the chromosomes we get from our parents) is 'randomly' (it's not really random, but it gets very complex) assigned to the sperm to make only 23 chromosomes. Since there's both an X and Y chromosome present in the male, but only X and X present in the female, the male's sex cells always 'choose' the gender of the child. If the sperm was given a Y then it combines with the mother's X to produce a boy, if it was given an X then it combines with the mother's X to produce a girl.

Where eugenics, and this debate, gets concerned is this recessive/dominant stuff. Let's take a very simplified and unrealistic example (so I don't have to think too hard!) and claim Schizophrenia is caused by just a single gene. One of the theories of Schizophrenia is that the lateral ventricles (fluid filled cavities in the brain that keep everything in place and act like shock absorbing coolant packs) become massively enlarged so that the actual volume of 'brain tissue' massively decreases. This has been successfully shown on x-ray and autopsy, but it's not been accepted as fully working theory yet. But let's keep this simple and say that enlarged lateral ventricles are the cause of schizophrenia and they're coded for by just one gene: Hypothetical 1.

Hyp1 comes in two forms, HYP - a dominant gene that makes normally functioning lateral ventricles and hyP - a recessive gene that makes enlarged ventricles. If Adam meets a lovely lady, Eve, and both have received only HYP genes from both of their parents then everything is balmy because their child will necessarily be HYP, HYP. If only Adam or Eve has received a bum hyP gene from a parent (to have hyP, HYP) then everything's still cool because the worst that could happen would be that the child could become hyP, HYP and the good HYP gene would always be expressed because it's dominant. But if both Adam and Eve had received hyP, HYP then things aren't looking so great for their kid. Neither Adam nor Eve would have schizophrenia because both of them have a dominant HYP allele blocking out that recessive troublesome hyP. However, their child could end up HYP, HYP or HYP, hyP or the dreaded hyP, hyP. If it ends up hyP, hyP then its mRNA would have no choice but to express the defective gene and leave their kid with schizophrenia.

[HEADING=3]Conclusion[/HEADING]

This is why eugenics isn't something to be feared, it's something to be admired. We can completely obviate genetic disease through careful selection of partners. Love a person, but the genes are incompatible? No worries, use donor sperm or have your sperm genetically modified (first you'll need to stop the religious from blocking all our attempts to study this route)!

I hope I've been helpful and haven't offended anyone because that's not what I set out to do. It also took an hour to write.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
Kortney said:
I may sound like a horrible person, but if I found out my partner had family history with incredibly serious inheritable illnesses I'd kind of not want to have kids with him anymore.
That's understandable.
OP: Yes, they should. Think of all of the life-threatening childhood conditions. Sometimes, the probability of a child getting something like that is 50% or higher. If that happens, don't have kids. Rights be damned. Adopt.
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
BGH122 said:
That's good and all, but we haven't mapped out our genes to exactly predict what a persons personality will be like yet, now have we?

OT: Yeah, not worth it. Not likely to have kids either way.
 

AbstractStream

New member
Feb 18, 2011
1,399
0
0
BGH122 said:
Why? I hope I've been helpful and haven't offended anyone because that's not what I set out to do. It also took an hour to write.
I actually quite liked your post. Even though I knew what you were talking about, it was like Genes 101. Quite educational.
Though honestly, I don't think I would check my mate's genes.
 

Jonci

New member
Sep 15, 2009
539
0
0
I definitely would want to know more about the genetic history of any partner I plan to have children with. There are some things easy to ignore, but if someone has a very dangerous genetic trait, I would oped to never have children or choose to adopt. I don't think it is a good idea to potential create a child that will suffer from some genetic timebomb. More so, I think it would be best to cut one line of that bad gene from spreading.

While I don't think this should be something enforced, I think people should consider the dangers of passing on their genes if they know they are bad.
 

ace_of_something

New member
Sep 19, 2008
5,995
0
0
No, because that would be missing the whole point of being a self-aware creature.
The option if you both know you have serious health stuff. Adopt: Than there's only a high chance of the same!
 

BGH122

New member
Jun 11, 2008
1,307
0
0
Ham_authority95 said:
BGH122 said:
That's good and all, but we haven't mapped out our genes to exactly predict what a persons personality will be like yet, now have we?

OT: Yeah, not worth it. Not likely to have kids either way.
Correct, but we've mapped an awful lot of diseases and our ability to map them is growing greater by the week. We should get used to make use of this information.

AbstractStream said:
BGH122 said:
Why? I hope I've been helpful and haven't offended anyone because that's not what I set out to do. It also took an hour to write.
I actually quite liked your post. Even though I knew what you were talking about, it was like Genes 101. Quite educational.
Thank you! That was my intention.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
thaluikhain said:
People should, and I did.

Actually, getting tested for genetic diseases is standard Prenatal care now. If you're pregnant, your gynecologist does the tests.

And it's a damn good thing too. If you and/or your spouse do have a risk factor, then the doctors can check the fetus for problems at ultrasounds or with other procedures like the amnio. Some can be treated - others, it's just better to abort and try again.
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
If she's still alive, not related to me, at least nice enough looking to "mate with" in the first place, and not walking around, banging off the walls I don't really care in terms of genes.
 

Slash Dementia

New member
Apr 6, 2009
2,692
0
0
BGH122 said:
I ... I ...

Is science education this bad? I honestly intend no offence, for it isn't your fault you've been miseducated and education is in no way related to intelligence (i.e. I'm not calling you stupid).

Here's a (very) brief run down on genes for people who haven't had the best science teacher:

TL;DR: You missed a free science class here! Genes make everything in you and everything in you includes your brain and thus your thoughts etc.

[HEADING=3]How genes work[/HEADING]

Genes are sequences of chemicals called nucleotides that combine in a specific relationship to create an order of nitrogenous substances called 'bases'. There are four bases in DNA and each directly corresponds to another, which allows genes to be copied through templates. These little strands of template genes (called Messenger Ribonucleic Acid, or mRNA) bind to an organelle (specialised little part of your cells) called a ribosome where Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules bring the building blocks of proteins (amino acids) to the mRNA.

These tRNA molecules are each bound to specific amino acids and each have bases that correspond to those 4 bases on the mRNA molecule we mentioned earlier. As we said earlier, these bases correspond to one another in 'base pairs' which means they can only match up in a single specific way. This means that these tRNA molecules bring their specific amino acid to the mRNA to create a specific chain of amino acids that all bond together in a line of peptide bonds into a protein.

Now, because these amino acids are pretty vibrant molecules with very specific structures, they interact with one another within the protein to give each protein a unique and intended shape and therefore make it specialised for a function. Muscle proteins need to be very strong, so their structure of amino acids is densely packed with three different strands, each of which form many little hydrogen bonds with one another. Enzyme (the little proteinous molecules in your body that control every reaction) proteins need to be a specific shape to catalyse specific reactions.

Because your enzymes control every reaction at every stage in your body and because everything in your body, from your toenails to your brain, is created by a reaction (or chain of reactions) your enzymes essentially make you who you are. Your enzymes are in turn made who they are by mRNA which is made what it is by the genes it uses as templates. Because your brain is you and its specific regions control specific functions (and it's been shown for a long time that irregularities in brain functions, even as diverse as Schizophrenia, are attributable to irregularities in shape), if you've got genes that code for the production of undesirable mRNA which in turn code for the production of undesirable proteins which have the wrong specific shape for their intended function then you're very likely screwed for life with no way of having the issue ever sorted out, relying on palliative (non-curative) care forever, like neuroleptic drugs.

Genes make or break you. Literally.

TL;DR: Seriously? You're seriously going to tl;dr a topic about sex? Fine. Genes are mixed around in your sex cells (e.g. sperm) and then combined with completely fresh takes on the same gene (called alleles) in your mate's sex cells during sex.

[HEADING=3]How sex works[/HEADING]

In a normal human non-sex cell there's 46 chromosomes. Chromosomes are coiled up strings of DNA. Deoxyribonucleic Acid, more commonly known as DNA, is basically a long strand of genes. It's like an unimaginably long line of bases, facing their opposite pairs. Two of those chromosomes are sex chromosomes, controlling the gender of the child. The others all control the myriad functions that make us people.

As I previously mentioned, there are two sex chromosomes. There's actually two copies of every chromosome, we only really have 23 'unique' chromosomes coding for specific functions, but we have two sets of each chromosome with one being from each parent (called 'homologous pairs'). This allows for alleles of genes. An allele is a variation on a given gene, a change in its bases which results in a different end protein. The reason some people have green eyes and others blue is because there are different versions (alleles) of the gene for iris fibrovascular pigment. Some alleles will always be expressed (used as a template for mRNA) if present and we call these dominant, some will only be expressed if they're the only ones from which the mRNA can be copied (i.e. if neither parent gives the dominant gene) and we call these recessive. To show how this dominance/recessiveness stuff works we can examine the sex chromosomes, Y and X.

Human females are always XX without exception and human males XY. So what decides if you have a boy or a girl? Sperm! When a sperm is created it goes through a process called 'random assortment' where its full 46 chromosomes are halved and each one of the homologous pair (the two different copies of each of the chromosomes we get from our parents) is 'randomly' (it's not really random, but it gets very complex) assigned to the sperm to make only 23 chromosomes. Since there's both an X and Y chromosome present in the male, but only X and X present in the female, the male's sex cells always 'choose' the gender of the child. If the sperm was given a Y then it combines with the mother's X to produce a boy, if it was given an X then it combines with the mother's X to produce a girl.

Where eugenics, and this debate, gets concerned is this recessive/dominant stuff. Let's take a very simplified and unrealistic example (so I don't have to think too hard!) and claim Schizophrenia is caused by just a single gene. One of the theories of Schizophrenia is that the lateral ventricles (fluid filled cavities in the brain that keep everything in place and act like shock absorbing coolant packs) become massively enlarged so that the actual volume of 'brain tissue' massively decreases. This has been successfully shown on x-ray and autopsy, but it's not been accepted as fully working theory yet. But let's keep this simple and say that enlarged lateral ventricles are the cause of schizophrenia and they're coded for by just one gene: Hypothetical 1.

Hyp1 comes in two forms, HYP - a dominant gene that makes normally functioning lateral ventricles and hyP - a recessive gene that makes enlarged ventricles. If Adam meets a lovely lady, Eve, and both have received only HYP genes from both of their parents then everything is balmy because their child will necessarily be HYP, HYP. If only Adam or Eve has received a bum hyP gene from a parent (to have hyP, HYP) then everything's still cool because the worst that could happen would be that the child could become hyP, HYP and the good HYP gene would always be expressed because it's dominant. But if both Adam and Eve had received hyP, HYP then things aren't looking so great for their kid. Neither Adam nor Eve would have schizophrenia because both of them have a dominant HYP allele blocking out that recessive troublesome hyP. However, their child could end up HYP, HYP or HYP, hyP or the dreaded hyP, hyP. If it ends up hyP, hyP then its mRNA would have no choice but to express the defective gene and leave their kid with schizophrenia.

[HEADING=3]Conclusion[/HEADING]

This is why eugenics isn't something to be feared, it's something to be admired. We can completely obviate genetic disease through careful selection of partners. Love a person, but the genes are incompatible? No worries, use donor sperm or have your sperm genetically modified (first you'll need to stop the religious from blocking all our attempts to study this route)!

I hope I've been helpful and haven't offended anyone because that's not what I set out to do. It also took an hour to write.
Very informative and pretty easy to understand and read. Awesome post.

As for me, I wouldn't check back on my girlfriends genes because it doesn't really matter to me what they are, and whatever might be born of us if we have a child is okay with me. I'm not worried at all about it and I've never thought about it until now. Maybe, maybe if the child has a good risk of a potential life-threatening illness that could occur, I'd consider not having one and adopting (for my partner's and my sake, as well as for the child). But this isn't something I'd think about at all until it came up.
 

tjdavids

New member
Oct 20, 2010
12
0
0
I mean if we were doing this why not just push out inherited disease risk and inherited disease. Not really important that the mating parties are closely related if the disease risk factors can be eliminated.