I got sterilized because I have a painful, degenerative, genetic condition (with no cure), that I feel is too cruel to pass on. I won’t risk letting a child be born with this syndrome, so I made the choice so I never have to deal with getting pregnant. If I ever want a kid, I’ll adopt. (Doubtful. I can barely take care of myself like this)
Every day hurts, there’s LOTS of days I wish I was aborted but I look at my rescue dog (who had been my service dog for 9 years now) and everything is OK. He was thrown away twice before I came along and his first owner kicked his teeth in. If I wasn’t here, who knows what could have happened to him.
Pet Tax. You can see where his face was kicked, but nothing stops him from smiling
That dog is adorable, I don’t know what would possess someone to inflict that kind of torture on him… Also, I love the fact that he’s got a Master Sword strapped to him
I would urge people to be careful how much we think disabled people (might) suffer. My mom is colorblind (she sees the whole world in shades of white or black), and her vision strength is 5% or lower. She is definitely disabled and receives a pension for not being able to work. Still, she managed to build up some form of existence: she managed to start an education and became a masseuse, and she gave birth to me and my brother. If my grandma would’ve known that my mom will not be able to live on her own, she maybe wouldn’t have proceeded with the pregnancy. Then I wouldn’t be here either.
My conclusion: what do you define by disability? If it is a chronic disease which means your child will be in pain their whole life, it is very different than having a child who isn’t able to “function” normally, but isn’t inherently in pain. Over my mom I met a lot of other disabled people, and most of them have built up an existence and lead a life. My mom wouldn’t agree that she is forced to suffer her whole life.
No one is forced to bear out a child. You are not morally responsible to bear out a child, in my opinion. But we shouldn’t assume we know how this person will grow and develop during their lives.
If it’s a disability you can diagnose prior to birth, no.
You are showing empathy and that is a good thing. Not wrong.
Let’s be real. The disabled child doesn’t always ‘suffer’; it’s well known and directly observable that Downs children and adults are the happiest people on the planet bar none, for example.
This is about whether you can cope with a disabled child but you’re too weak to write that; you put it on the child. The child’s problem.
That fact that you’re writing that shows you shouldn’t have a child at all. A child doesn’t need weak parents, parents that will not go to bat for them and is likely to blame the child for whatever fate befalls their parent.
I know exactly what weak pathetic parents are like. I wish you had been direct: as if you had a backbone.
I dislike the use of the term “wrong” in this case immensely.
Everyone ought to be able to decide what to do with their own body, free from judgement. That includes whether to grow a fetus, and the decision making process is completely irrelevant.
It’s wrong to opine what’s right and wrong regarding someone else’s bodily autonomy.
If the question was, “if you were pregnant and you were told your child was going to be severely disabled, would you seek an abortion” the answer is “most likely”.
I personally know a person with a child who was born with profound physical and mental disabilities. She’s a dear sweet caring person, and she shared an emotionally devastating story about how she had her first “conversation” with her daughter when said daughter was in her early twenties, which took the form of the daughter being able to indicate, through extraordinary effort, that she preferred to be read one story instead of another.
For her, this was a deeply rewarding moment, the ability to have any kind of deliberate interaction with her daughter, after nearly two decades of struggle and effort. She clearly loves her daughter. I would never try to take anything away from her in that regard.
However. When my wife got pregnant we had very serious conversations about the potential for birth defects and how we were prepared for her to have an abortion if serious defects were found. We talked about the quality of life of a human being we were bringing into existence, and how no one should ever have to feel trapped by their own body, and what our experience of being parents was going to be like.
Our daughter was born without any issues at all. In fact she’s bright and friendly and less destructive than we might have expected… and still being a parent is easily the most intense and difficult project of my entire life, mentally, physically, and emotionally. Nobody should ever have any reservations about being a parent for any reason at all, and if there are factors that you can control to make that decision easier one way or the other, then you should absolutely take control of them.
All of which is to say, no there is absolutely no moral issue with choosing not to deliberately create a person with genetic birth defects. The choice to become a parent is the most important and consequential choice anyone can make. Make it in exactly the way that you would want to make it, and in no other way whatsoever.
I don’t know why I’d want to set up a person to live like that.
Yeah simply put - if I was the kid and I was able to comprehend being born at a permanent disadvantage, and I knew you had a choice in the matter… Hell yeah I’d be mad! Life is hard as it is
No. I would argue your morally obliged to not have a disabled child (if possible). But then people would say thats just eugenics with extra steps.
If your decision to abort is because the fetus will be a redhead, that’s “planned breeding”, not “eugenics”.
The sine qua non of eugenics is a state mandate.
Semantics. Also sounds like eugenics with exrra steps, the state cant mandate but it can provide incentives. Ie is china paying certain races for having children and not other races “planned breeding” or “subtle eugenics”?
The state is not involved in your decision to not have ginger kids. Your decision not to have ginger kids is not eugenics.
The state providing incentives for behavior is a mandate. The state providing incentives for not having ginger kids is eugenics. Not “subtle eugenics”. Not “planned breeding”. Eugenics.
One could argue the American healthcare system is an incentive for the poor not to have disabled children. Is that eugenics?
It is a person choice… “People” can get fuxked unless you are going to provide generous social safety net for a person to have ability to take care of such a child.
Most working pedons can barely afford to wipe their own ass under this clown regime.
Forcing yourself into poverty to satisfy some idiots feels is a fool’s arrand.
this is kind of ridiculous. do you realize how broad a term “disability” is? my parents have poor eyesight and need glasses. are they bad people for having kids when they knew we would inherit that?
It depends. Is it wrong to abort a child with mild autism? (Assuming we could test for that)
I’d say very much so. (assuming the child was otherwise wanted)
But if it’s a disability where they (or people around them) were to live a life full of (mental) pain it would be a different story.
So there is a line somewhere. But drawing a line between “desirables” and “undesirables” is frowned upon.
That’s an incredibly complicated question with no single answer. If you’re looking to delve into this area then I’d say your interest will take you to reading phiosophy and medical ethics. If you are interested, then this is one of the best podcasts for medical ethics that I’ve found.
As for your question, it’s probably best broken down to at least 2 initial questions:
- Who decides what is “disability”?
Very poor eyesight or cataracts used to be debilitating. Now anyone with access to basic healthcare would not even consider mentioning those as health problems. Downs syndrome used to be a teerrible diagnosis, now people with Downs syndrome mostly have a good quality of life. Many deaf people would not consider themselves disabled at all. Does it matter if someone is in a wheelchair, and is happy, fulfilled and contributing to society? Is losing a part of a finger a disability? How about losing a whole finger, or 3 fingers?
- Who decides what is “suffering”?
Plenty of fully able people are suffering. Plenty of medically limited people are perfectly happy and fulfilled. A person who has the maximum intellectual intellectual capacity of a 2 year old and no ability to communicate, but who smiles and laughs and claps could be said to be happy and not suffering. If a pregnancy scan shows a baby is going to be born without a foot, can the parents or doctors decide that’s a life not worth living? Even if someone is suffering, how much suffering is too much? If a person is in endless pain, severely limited function and unable to survive off a ventilator; then can parents or doctors decide that’s not enough suffering to end their life?
There are loads more questions that will come up. How do you even find out your child is going to be disabled? Is it reasonable for everyone to ask for genetic tests before the baby is born, and abort if they don’t like the answer? Just because we have an ability to test or treat a condition, doesn’t mean we should use those tools without considering why. Your question also is particularly about having a child, and you need to seperate the suffering of the child from the inconvenience, resources and suffering of the parents/family.
This is a very deep rabbit hole to go down and it ends up in all sorts of places (eugenics, euthenasia, abortion, resource allocation, the value of a life, etc).
This is a great comment. I’ll add that anyone thinking about disability ethics should read Two Arms and a Head, lest they start taking too seriously the idea that disabilities have no effect on quality of life.
Alternatively, it’s an incredibly simple question, with an incredibly simple answer:
It’s your business, not mine. Do what you want for the reasons you want.
Of course not.
This is a little bit of a stupid question.
I’ve said this many, many times: If abortion is a viable option, it is the only option worthy of consideration.
In the context of DNA screening of embryo - I think its ethical to give your children the best chance at a successful and enjoyable life. If there was a major burden identified it would be reasonable to not implant that embryo.
We do things to maximize the changes and outcomes of children, we don’t smoke during pregnancy, we avoid drugs, we avoid alcohol, all of these actions are in the same thrust of improving the child’s life.
That is just my personal take, there are other religions and philosophies so this is a area of rich debate.
I don’t think so. I have 2 disabled kiddos and they aren’t suffering, but they don’t have it as easy as their peers - which can be heartbreaking to watch.
