-Finalie - About 50+ people tried to ruin it. You're the type of people who go to a movie you've already seen and talk aloud about what's going to happen. Three grunt + tried to ruin it too. I demoted them =] One idiot submitted the spoiler 4 times even after I mailed him + created a new account to try to sneak it in...

The punchline to this example is that you just killed Beethoven!!!! This is a story my pastor told in church. One person submitted a link to how this is urban legend but the site didn't really look legit + had 8 kids instead of 3-4 whatever. It doesn't matter if it's legit or not. The point is that you never know what the babies will turn out to be and this is really an anti-abortion message...

-Original Post There's a family. The father has syphilis, the mother has tuberculosis. They have had four children, one of which has died. The three remaining children have terminal diseases. The mother is pregnant again...

COMMENTS	ADD COMMENTS | SEND TO A FRIEND | BOOKMARK | SORT LAST TO FIRST
Petit Prince Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 4:12PM Registered: 2003-07-30 Location: Posts: 53	How long pregnant?
Surelog Kali Compton February 21st, 2004 @ 4:14PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Kentucky Posts: 244	It`s God`s choice, not ours on who lives or dies. besides any child dead goes to Heaven so leaving this life early isn`t that bad.
Nebuchadnezzar The King February 21st, 2004 @ 4:16PM Registered: 2003-03-20 Location: Irvine, CA Posts: 3627	How long pregnant? Let's assume it's early enough...
Clark CAF Dingy Gunner February 21st, 2004 @ 4:17PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 382	I really don`t care if people have abortions, but I do think the baby should get a shot at life.
csullivan Muted February 21st, 2004 @ 4:21PM Registered: 2004-02-19 Location: Posts: 4	What a noble way to oppose abortion. Come up with a more original argument.
01d55 Muted February 21st, 2004 @ 4:39PM Registered: 2003-08-18 Location: Posts: 229	Abortion is almost a moot point here. The current vote is 10/4 in favor of abortion - I`m surprised to see that here, of all places. We`ll see if that ratio holds up for long...
mparker United Kingdom February 21st, 2004 @ 4:42PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Posts: 382	Um...antibiotics can treat syphilis during any stage. Same goes for TB. So now the parents are in good health... What terminal diseases would the children have? Cancer? Seems extremely unlikely. Even with a family predisposed to a certain genetic disorder, the odds that all three children so far would have it are pretty slim. Both parents would also need to have this unnamed disease for those kind of odds to possibly occur, in which case they would have died before being able to have children (given that what you are talking about occurs in childhood).
DaveUF Hippy February 21st, 2004 @ 4:44PM Registered: 2003-05-17 Location: Virginia Posts: 1012	Abortion shouldn`t be a tool to get irresponsible adult couples out of a jam. The child still has a shot at living. I`d be inclined to file criminal charges against the parents, though, for grossly negligent behavior.
MacSpoofing Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 4:46PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Posts: 220	simple: IF the pregnancy threatens mother`s life, up to the mother if she wants to risk it IF it doesn`t, then .. well, I`d say a short life is better than no life. Keep the child.
Tim_Horton Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 4:49PM Registered: 2003-12-28 Location: Canada Posts: 2	Abort the baby, and force the husband to get a vasectomy and the wife to get her tubes tied so they can`t have any more children.
MikeD Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 4:52PM Registered: 2004-02-01 Location: Canada Posts: 93	Well, if I were in their shoes I wouldn`t have kept making kids if I knew of the risk and possibility of diseases, complications etc. But in that situation I would keep the child. We might not always agree with God`s decisions, but we have to accept them. Thats my opinion.
BloodSpirit Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 4:54PM Registered: 2003-12-17 Location: USA Posts: 142	Actually any child not confirmed goes to hell surelog. That is due to the fact that they are born with sin ... Giving the baby no chance at life is wrong especially since you do not know if it is diseased... The bigger question here is what the hell are these parents doing? Why are they having babies when they know any child they have is in danger? There’s medical practices that you can have that stop pregnancy permanently… There should be some kind of test that states wither a couple can have a baby or not … to many parents in America these days are just to unfit for the job.
Excalibur_Z Kali Compton February 21st, 2004 @ 4:59PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 138	Just because the other children had terminal diseases doesn't necessarily mean the next one will. Keep it.
Surelog Kali Compton February 21st, 2004 @ 5:18PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Kentucky Posts: 244	There are a lot of sick who won`t to abort the child. Those peolple shoulda been aborted so we wouldn`t have them around.
psudo Marine February 21st, 2004 @ 5:18PM Registered: 2003-03-28 Location: Reddest of the Red States Posts: 2235	In any culture where death is common, the usual survival tactic is to crank out tons of kids and hope a few of them survive. That`s how humanity survived the Black Plague. Should keep it. Maybe not name it until it`s a couple years old, but definantly give it the chance to carry on the family name.
LD7208 Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 5:24PM Registered: 2003-07-10 Location: Houston, Tx Posts: 4	Abort the parents.
Nevyan Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 5:28PM Registered: 2003-07-13 Location: San Diego Posts: 6	Solution: Vasectomy for the man, tubes tied for the woman. No more wories about whether a man/woman with syphillis or any other dibilitating or harmful disease should be able to bring healthy or near dead children into the world. Situation resolved. For an encore the following question should be posed: Should a woman with no job, a crack addiction and AIDS be allowed to keep her children instead of remanding them to her childrens fathers custody? Suprisingly California thinks it`s int he interest of the chidlren to allow the children to stay withthe mother through a string of abusive boyfriends and johns. What a world.
BadExample Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 5:31PM Registered: 2004-02-15 Location: In front of my computer screen Posts: 102	That sucks..... chances are the kid will get terminal disease, stillborn, or parents will die before it gets the chance to be loved. Abort, that way, you wont have to put a face on the pain that YOU caused... Abortion isnt a tough decision, its just thinking about it that is tough, because you see the possable, but unlikely life the kid may expeirience, in a case like this, the baby is screwed nomatter what, so abort
forest_queen Dame February 21st, 2004 @ 5:35PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: WA Posts: 1243	Tim_Horton & Nevyan, a vasectomy for a man is enough to keep the couple from having more kids and it doesn't have the risks that women would have from getting her tubes tied. Tying a womans tubes forces her into early menopause, its also irreversable and takes 6 weeks to recover the surgery. A man goes in, has a vasectomy and walks out with a 3 day recovery (if even that). Just a little education on the difference.
psudo Marine February 21st, 2004 @ 5:49PM Registered: 2003-03-28 Location: Reddest of the Red States Posts: 2235	We`ve given our opinions. What does Nebu think?
Archaeotherium Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 6:15PM Registered: 2003-03-25 Location: Tucson, AZ, USA Posts: 10	let the baby be born, then keep it or put up for adoption
ArmchairAthlete Marine February 21st, 2004 @ 6:16PM Registered: 2003-04-23 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 494	Abort if it`ll be dying soon from a terminal disease anyhow. Less pain and suffering... Sounds like the parents would have a very hard time supporting it too (especially if one or both die, they may not be able to get antibiotics). The parents should have used some birth control in the first place. Look at all the suffering they`ve caused by having the other kids.
rawfish Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 6:29PM Registered: 2003-10-15 Location: Northern California Posts: 701	this is a crappy ethics question :) A better one : A 25 year old man wants to get a vasectomy. He can only afford to be given one by a doctor at a local university hospital, so no other person except this doctor can provide what this 25 year old man wants. The doctor feels the man should not receive the vasectomy because of his young age. He has asked and recommended the young man to think it over, but the young man`s ideas and interests have remained the same. Should the doctor be forced to provide the vasectomy? Should the doctor`s beliefs and rights come before the patient? Or vice versa? Note: Although a vasectomy can be reversed, it is not a gaurentee.
Disastrous Fate General February 21st, 2004 @ 7:35PM Registered: 2004-02-09 Location: Posts: 1012	I`m pro-choice but anti-abortion. Whats that mean? In my personal life, I`d fight against abortion around me as a personal issue. However, I genuinely do not want the government coming in and telling people that they cannot have an abortion here or there. So, although they should have the personal ability to have the abortion, I really think the child should be given a shot at life.
Gamelore Marine February 21st, 2004 @ 7:57PM Registered: 2003-04-04 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 522	I don`t get this question. There is even MORE reason to NOT have an abortion if the other children have terminal diseases. Ever heard of natural selection? They want their genes passed down. Only a total loser who deserves to die would give up. Assuming I was one of the parents, I can see why they would have an abortion if their other children were HEALTHY and they had too many (not that I would agree with it here). But since they are going to die, having another baby is their only hope of passing down their genes. And if that one dies or is terminally ill, then they need to keep having more babies until they get a lucky roll. I can`t believe so many people here are for abortion. 60% of you are losers. Geez. Anyway, it`s natural selection on their part too: If they are that stupid to have an abortion, good riddance. If they are smart enough to try to have a healthy child, then some impact of their intellect passes down with them. It is their decision and as an independent viewer, it makes no difference to me. That`s why I assumed earlier that this question assumes that you are one of the parents.
keepersmith Marine February 21st, 2004 @ 8:00PM Registered: 2003-10-01 Location: Posts: 75	Tough call. Is a short life of pain and suffering better than no life at all? The abortion issue comes down to where you define the beginning of a new life. If you believe in the sanctity of life (for religious, legal, or other moral reasons), then you have to have an opinion one way or another. If you think a tiny 1-day old embryo or a more developed fetus should have the same legal rights as a fully-born child or even an adult human, then you ought to oppose abortion. You are not infringing on a woman`s rights any more than taking a baby away from abusive parents for their own safety. If you think that during pregnancy that an embryo or fetus is not an independent human-being, but merely an extension of the mother (an appendage - even though the term might be callous), then you have to be for the woman`s right to choose. Or, if you think that this independent life starts at some point during pregnancy (say, at the start of the third trimester), then that`s where you draw the line.
Blah Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 8:02PM Registered: 2003-04-19 Location: Posts: 20	> Abort the parents. I love that :) I`m personally pro-abortion (which is different from pro-choice), because I believe if a couple doesn`t want a child, it`s better to kill the fetus before the fetus becomes a person. It`s true that the fetus is human, but the fetus is not a _person_. That`s a subjective distinction, but in the early stages of pregnancy, it`s pretty easy to make that distinction. On the other hand, I can definiately see the other side of things. Of all the social issues conseratives adopt (anti-gay marriage, criminalization of drug-use, etc.), the anti-abortion stance is probably the most understandable.
Bone-Dragon Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 8:16PM Registered: 2003-04-28 Location: Posts: 181	It is not my choice whether they abort or not. This question your giving has a lot of problems. If I answer no, then I am deciding whats best for other people by taking their rights away; if I answer yes, I am still forcing my beliefs on the group as well as being viewed as evil by some groups. These types of questions are really stupid. You can phrase a situation so that if you answer one way your a bastard of society or a normal person. Its like asking "if someone is dying very slowly and painfully, would YOU shoot him in the head?". These types of questions make the voter feel guilty and the target of criticism when they say they just want the people to have the right to do it. I believe in Freedom. I can`t answer this poll because its someone else`s kid, not mine. Also the way its phrased would make my own personal stance contradict my political stance based on what its trying to collect. What you should ask is "Would you be willing to abort your own unborn child on any normal or abnormal cicumstances? (i.e. Birth Defects, Economy, etc.)" along with "Do you Believe that abortion should be legal as a choice?"
forest_queen Dame February 21st, 2004 @ 9:45PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: WA Posts: 1243	If you don't want your child, there are many people who cant have children and would love to adopt him/her. I say give the child a chance at life no matter what and let nature (or God for the Christians here) decide on life or death. Even a life of pain is a life and every spirit deserves a chance to experience a body.
DalamarArgent O Canada February 21st, 2004 @ 10:13PM Registered: 2003-08-09 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 43	Thats a trick poll, there should be another answer that reads - Abort the parents or at least tie someones tubes. Like seriously THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOW TO HAVE SEX, LET ALONE WITHOUT A CONDOM.
kaoschizm Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 10:24PM Registered: 2003-04-01 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 228	I think the parents should be aborted. The sad thing is there are people like this that keep having kids even though they know they`ll turn out crippled or sick. I remember reading one thing about this couple that had had 6 children all born with no arms and yet they still kept popping out kids because they wanted one with arms.
rawfish Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 10:44PM Registered: 2003-10-15 Location: Northern California Posts: 701	theres alot of people here who need to read some basic philosophy... if they can read that is.
SickofLife322000 Peon February 21st, 2004 @ 10:47PM Registered: 2003-05-23 Location: Posts: 387	I`m pro choice as long as it`s before the first trimester. As far as I know, that`s when the real activity begins, and the child really begins to form. If it`s before the first trimester, then okay to abortion; if it`s after, then no, she should have the child.
Disgruntled Ottawa Senators February 21st, 2004 @ 10:58PM Registered: 2003-05-08 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 159	I chose abort the baby, and this is assuming that it is under 2 months.
progjmr Marine February 22nd, 2004 @ 12:07AM Registered: 2003-06-06 Location: Natick, MA Posts: 139	This is a simple question for me. Abortion is murder and there is never any exscuse to do it, not even if the mothers life is in danger. Sacrificing someone elses life to save your own is abhorent to me. If a woman is not willing to assume all risks associated with having a child, she should not get pregnant. Perhaps this is not a popular opinion, perhaps it is not realistic to expect such sacrifice in todays world but it is my belief none the less.
jrottman Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 1:00AM Registered: 2004-02-22 Location: Michigan Posts: 9	Its amazing how much we will lie to ourselves and make up excuses to make us feel better about murdering a human life, about murdering a person.
pyronaut Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 2:12AM Registered: 2004-02-22 Location: Posts: 7	thats one screwed up family...
dogsten Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 10:13AM Registered: 2003-10-26 Location: Japan Posts: 16	Abort the baby, and force the husband to get a vasectomy and the wife to get her tubes tied so they can`t have any more children. And There’s medical practices that you can have that stop pregnancy permanently… There should be some kind of test that states wither a couple can have a baby or not … to many parents in America these days are just to unfit for the job. WTF These are the types of pollicies that Hitler was for. What is with your people`s love of the state for social issues? If they abuse the baby or in some way physically harm it, take it away from them, But you people advocating government forced Birth control scare me. Also I believe The Libertarian(not all libertarians agree with this, but the extreme Murray Rothbard types do) position on abrogation is a fresh one, made up from rational thought(versus left/right emotional) and one that doesn`t get much attention: If someone(let`s say your child for the extreme example) required one of your kidneys to live, should you be forced or would you be forced to give up your kidney? Obviously not (albit I`d be one pissed child if my parents refused to give up a kidney for me and obviously the parents are junk) Same case For abortion: You have no right whatsoever to kill or harm that baby; on the other hand that baby has no right to be a parasite on your body. You should be free to remove the baby from your body, as it’s your body and your space, But YOU are not free to kill it, A.K.A If it can survive on it`s own outside the body(late term Parital-Birth abortions) then yes you may remove it from your body, but if you crush it`s skull(as those abortions are done) you have just committed murder.
Sleel Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 1:30PM Registered: 2003-05-12 Location: Oregon Posts: 52	Killing babies is wrong. Scott Klusendorf is a man who studies and speaks about bioethics. Mr. Klusendorf that there are only 4 differences between a pre-born baby and us: Size A pre-born baby may be smaller than a newborn. But large people are not more human than small people, nor do they deserve more rights. Level of Development If self-awareness and intelligence define us as human beings, that means those who are more intelligent have the right to exploit those of less intelligence. Obviously, this is not the case. Environment or location Changing location does not stop us from being who we are, be it traveling from one city to another, or eight inches down the birth canal. Degree of Dependency Some people believe that a pre-born baby "becomes" a human being when it is capable of surviving outside of the mother`s womb without artificial support. Yet there are people who depend upon insulin, heart pacemakers and diabetes medication, and without them, they will not survive. This does not make them less human than us. ------------------------ I have always known that abortion is wrong but until I heard it discussed in a logical manner, I really couldn`t tell anyone exactly why it was wrong other than the obvious `Thou shall not kill` from the 10 Commandments. For more information check out: http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/a0023700.cfm
Wootah non-leet February 22nd, 2004 @ 3:37PM Registered: 2003-05-16 Location: Utah Posts: 1461	I am glad some people mentioned adoption as an option. Although I dont see how having 3 terminally ill children has any more influence on whether to abort or not. I have quite a few friends who were all adopted. They dont know what their birth mother`s conditions were, but then again they dont care either. They are all happy to be alive. The parents should [b]not[/b] be aborted. They should be educated. This whole abortion thing is looked at a terminal `end` solution which is a very liberal way to treat things. Just like giving money to the poor. why not give them education instead? Give the man the option of a vasectomy. As for the religious realm, Anyone who thinks that a baby is better off killed than born to die in "sin" Should re-evaluate their belief system. Not only is original sin not mentioned in the bible in that context, it is clearly stated in the law that no child shall be responsible for the parents sins. or vice-a-versa. Being saved is about active choice to follow God`s Commandments, not simply some action performed by your parents. If that were the case, since life is not going to be pain free no matter how good things are for you, the best solution would be to "confirm" everyone and then kill them. Thus sending them to heaven. Only a really sick God would punish someone in hell for someone elses actions. God has us here to test us, to see what we will do with what we are given. Aborting someone simply because the test God has chosen to give them may be harder than most isn`t acceptable in God`s Eyes. On the converse side, God does hold parents responsible for what those parents do and teach to their child; but God doesn`t hold people accountable for what they do not know, thus the necessity of educating the parents.
TheNoobGod Muted February 22nd, 2004 @ 4:34PM Registered: 2003-10-02 Location: E? Posts: 40	"The punchline to this example is that you just killed Beethoven!!!!" I don`t care, I don`t like his music anyway. Im pro choice anyway, women have the right to do what they want with there body as far as I care. Call me evil freak if you want, I am a hard core Manson fan so its nothing I havnt heard before anyway.
BadExample Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 4:46PM Registered: 2004-02-15 Location: In front of my computer screen Posts: 102	Beethtoven or not beethoven, That was the past, times change, and views on what is right change, too. You cant use beethoven as an example, because today people have more of a choice on Safer ( for the mom) options
kleptic Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 4:46PM Registered: 2003-05-23 Location: Coral Springs Posts: 63	why must everybody believe the same way. the point isnt who is right and who is wrong about abortions. the point is its obviously controversial enough that people shouldnt be denied the right to choose how they feel about it for themselves. dont force your beliefs on somebody else.
rawfish Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 5:17PM Registered: 2003-10-15 Location: Northern California Posts: 701	planned parenthood`s motto " Let us kill your baby so god won`t have to!"
DonSlice Ready's Voyager February 22nd, 2004 @ 6:07PM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Petoskey, MI Posts: 680	kleptic, that's the most logical thing i've heard on this topic... which is precisely why it'll never happen.
BadExample Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 6:29PM Registered: 2004-02-15 Location: In front of my computer screen Posts: 102	wow, kleptic.... ur my hero.....
dogsten Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 8:51PM Registered: 2003-10-26 Location: Japan Posts: 16	why must everybody believe the same way. the point isnt who is right and who is wrong about abortions. the point is its obviously controversial enough that people shouldnt be denied the right to choose how they feel about it for themselves. dont force your beliefs on somebody else. and kleptic, that`s the most logical thing i`ve heard on this topic... which is precisely why it`ll never happen. Even though As I said in my previous posting Genreally I belive that women have the right to determine what goes in thier body and what can be removed. Your logic is moronic to someone that belives that baby is human life. Think about it thourgh thier eyes what you are saying is basically the same to them as hearing "Hey there`s some terrosits that belive in killing of random innocent people, it`s obviously a controversial subject, so they should be allowed to decied whatever or not to kill, don`t go and hunt them down forcing your non-killing belifes on them."
asinine Peon February 22nd, 2004 @ 11:41PM Registered: 2003-08-16 Location: Redmond, WA Posts: 161	Yay! I tried to ruin it :D oops. Anyway, the moral of the story is to have as many babies as possible no matter how f`ed up your life is, since one of those babies can turn out to be Beethoven. Besides, if they don`t turn out like Beethoven, you can always eat them--Swift says they`re tasty.
Cromar Peon February 23rd, 2004 @ 4:54AM Registered: 2003-03-26 Location: Florida Posts: 184	People make this issue way more complicated than it is. Why would you ever think that killing a baby is not murder? The reason why humanity turns to such nonsense is for the sake of rationalization. People during hard times throughout history would pop out as many as they could using the dartboard method; throw enough and one will eventually hit the bullseye. They rationalized the deaths of 75% of their children based on the belief that children weren`t really people until adulthood, that once one officially and ceremoniously becomes a man or a lady his or her life begins to hold meaning. Nowadays it has become extremely convenient to avoid the "hassle" of childbirth and as such people turn to rationalization to make it easier. They just say that killing the baby isn`t murder, it`s the woman`s choice to decide whether or not her child lives or dies. It`s her womb, right? Are you all completely high? This is not and never was at any time since the dawn of civilization an issue about a woman`s right to anything with any part of her body. This is an issue about the life of a third party. This is an issue about whether or not people should be allowed to freely MURDER one another out of convenience. Now if someone wants to bring up the "but a fetus is a magical nonliving yet somehow growing and developing mass" point of view you can direct yourself to the post already made by Sleel. Reading that was very refreshing as he totally covered half of my spiel for me. To summarize: 1.) If you disagree, you are delusional. If you still disagree after reading his post, you are retarded. Why is there a debate? Abortion = murder. Let`s make it illegal to run people over with cars but not SUVs, since it`s a citizen`s right to choose what they do with their SUV. All of you are shaking your head and saying "no, I don`t like that, that is inconvenient to my worldview" please abort yourselves. Thank you.
Diane Peon February 23rd, 2004 @ 10:57AM Registered: 2003-05-22 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 72	why must everybody believe the same way. the point isnt who is right and who is wrong about abortions. the point is its obviously controversial enough that people shouldnt be denied the right to choose how they feel about it for themselves. dont force your beliefs on somebody else. Every law necessarily entails forcing beliefs - or, at least, actions - on someone else. Laws against robbing banks restrict one`s choice of profession. Laws against murder restrict one`s choice of conflict-resolution techniques. The question with laws against abortion is not whether they restrict someone`s choice, nor whether they force one group`s beliefs on another. Of course they do - that`s the whole point. The question is whether the State (or society or whatever you choose to call it) has a compelling interest in restricting those choices. That`s why I favor legal restrictions on abortion, except in cases where the mother`s life is threatened. If the State doesn`t exist to protect the defenseless, then it has no purpose at all.
dogsten Peon February 23rd, 2004 @ 1:43PM Registered: 2003-10-26 Location: Japan Posts: 16	1.) If you disagree, you are delusional. If you still disagree after reading his post, you are retarded. Why is there a debate? Abortion = murder. Let`s make it illegal to run people over with cars but not SUVs, since it`s a citizen`s right to choose what they do with their SUV. All of you are shaking your head and saying "no, I don`t like that, that is inconvenient to my worldview" please abort yourselves. Thank you. Cromar - Okay I still disagree(albit my defination of what abortation is is a bit different then the normal defination. if you are taking a baby and crushing his skull or letting this happen to your baby you are a sick human. But once again you ignored my intial post when making your posting and just went out and attacked the masses who are unreasonable. Please scroll up and read my orginal posting and respond to it(my 1st posting I made on this topic) as to why I still disagree with you on SOME aspects of abortation, I belive my thinking is pretty logical. Do I have the right to disagree now you think?
lego Peon May 7th, 2004 @ 10:18PM Registered: 2003-08-11 Location: Posts: 12	I don`t think syphilis and tuberculosis are genetically inherited diseases. They`re viral/bacteria infections. So - either the parents have other genetic diseases that causes the other childen`s terminal illness, or the child just gets them from a mutation. So - there`s no reason to say why the next child can`t live.

You are unable to add Comments because you are not