agree, if u know there is a very high risk, u shouldnt want to put a child through that .

They can adopt!

I think it is difficult to find an answer to that. On first thought it may seem too selfish of them to have children but on the other hand everyone else should put ourselves in their own position. We can't judge anyone's desire to have children. Also, one may say that they don't have the right to do this to their own children, but, on the other hand, it's their right to have their own children and try through them to give something better to the world.

Disposition implies probability, not absolutes.

To chance is to risk.
To risk is to hope over fear.
Where do you draw the line of hope, fear and preordained outcome ?

Deontological absolutes will invariably approve or dismiss it outright.
Change the probabilities to invalidate this, one might do.

very loaded question on a very sensitive issue. Nonetheless, I agree. It may be hard to accept the notion of restricting one of the most fundamental of human urges - to propagate the variant of one's own self to a new young one, to care for it, to nurture it, to shower it with love and affection, to experience the reciprocation of feelings it offers you.

part II: [Contd]: Yet given the question, we must examine the pain and suffering that the offspring would face - sooner or later. When faced with a diseases as deadly as AIDS/Cancer, how would its life be spent normally and happily? Would not the inevitability of its death depress both child and its parent? Wouldn't it be better to shower all your affection on an orphaned child by adopting it?

Developed medical science could help them have healthy children.

Can you give an example? Like with percentages and stuff? This is one of those "where do you draw the line?" things that are very difficult.

There should be no objection for those who are willing to being up handicap children cheerfully. There are some of that kind. Hats off to them.

OMAR

Deadly diseases like life?
I totally agree.