<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

At 12:17 PM 11/24/99 -0500, David wrote:

>I definately would have had my son if I knew he would have celiac.  With
>all the horrible diseases out there, at least this one is controllable
>without drugs and is not life threatening when on the diet.  I used to take
>care of two boys who had leukemia and died.  Given the choice, I would
>choose celiac.  Clare

I've been trying hard to stay out of this. I don't care who has what kids.
I try to avoid issues that hinge on the behavior or lives of others. But
some of the lack of logic in these arguments just tempts me beyond my
compulsive ability to abstain.

Clare, the argument above makes sense only if you should happen to believe
that having celiac would insure your child against any more serious
diseases. But the opposite is true. Having celiac raises the odds that a
child *will have other more serious diseases due to the fact that the
genetic odds for certain diseases go up with celiac, and the likelihood
that the celiac generated malabsorption may cause other serious problems is
high. Not to mention that some celiacs may never be able to control it
reasonably well.

If someone chooses to have children anyway, in the face of the problems
those children may have to face, that's fine with me. I just can't
understand rationalizing such an emotional choice with such simplistic
reasoning and rationalizing. And that's all I have to say on this subject.
I will now happily read any insulting answers anyone wishes to send me --
off list, I hope. But don't expect any answers. -vance