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 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.
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.
That is a hell of a moral question that I don’t think I or anybody else can answer for another individual.
To be honest I think having children when you have a family history of disability is the most selfish thing a human can do.
Exactly this, you know the child will likely inherit and suffer but the parents want a kid so all that suffering the kid will be forced to endure and be trapped in a living hell… well that’s just fine!
To a lesser extent I see having kids in a world like this as similarly selfish.
This view differs from simple eugenics? I don’t yet see how.
Oh come on, not this crap again.
Imagine a situation both parents are carriers of the mutated CFTR gene that can cause cystic fibrosis. There’s a 1 in 4 chance any offspring they produce would inherit both recessive genes from the parents thereby strickening the child with this lifelong disease.
The complications for an individual with CF include: Chronic lung infections (e.g., pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus), bronchiectasis (airway widening and scarring), persistent cough and mucus production, progressive lung damage and respiratory failure, pasal polyps and sinus infections, Digestive System Complications, pancreatic insufficiency (poor digestion and malabsorption), malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies (A, D, E, K), meconium ileus (intestinal blockage in newborns), intestinal obstruction in older individuals, CF-related diabetes (CFRD), liver disease (blocked bile ducts, cirrhosis), male infertility (absence/blockage of the vas deferens), female reduced fertility (thick cervical mucus), excessive salt loss through sweat (risk of dehydration and electrolyte imbalances), low bone density, delayed growth and poor weight gain in children, anxiety and depression related to chronic illness, Increased risk of heat exhaustion, pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the lungs), cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure due to lung issues) and the eventual need for lung transplantation in severe cases.
Now imagine a genetic counselor telling the couple that is about to reproduce that they should not worry about the risks associated as it would be far worse to give into the “Nazi-praxis that is eugenics”. Wouldn’t you categorize this as insanity?
The life expectancy for someone with CF is about 40 years, but that doesn’t take into consideration all the treatments they’ll need to get there. The point is that touting simple prophylaxis and common sense as “eugenics” is incredibly naive and ignorant to the realities of the real world. There’s no reason to enable the suffering of children who could’ve otherwise been spared the hassle because you want to avoid eugenics. This type of extreme thinking must be shunned.
Okay, asked and answered. I wasn’t asking with intent to sealion here, and in fairness perhaps I should have posed this question to the top comment. There’s a lot of nuance missing from them simply calling disabled people selfish for breeding. I wouldn’t have even bothered probably, but this other fellow was conflating your view with the idea that it’s the same kind of selfishness to have kids at all given the state of the world, which begins to sound deeply nihilistic. In my defense I was at pains to ask in the least accusatory way I could think of, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for taking the time to make sense on their behalf.
No problem. I probably should have been less presumptive and snarky in my reply. I’m just tired of seeing it branded as eugenics when the situation is simply prophylaxis. Adoption is always an option for these couples, so i think it would be selfish for them to breed knowing there are risks.
On the other hand, the person you replied to is probably an antinatalist. They believe it’s morally wrong to reproduce. A radical philosophy that has its flaws, but i see the appeal.
Family history of disability is not a necessary prerequisite of having a disabled child, though.
And you tell your child when they’re suffering from a life long birth defect/disability that you knew there was decent a chance they would end up trapped like that.
I’m sure that will help them feel better and the rest of their life coping will be so much easier!
Did I miss OP saying they have a disability in family?
It’s not necessary but personally if I knew my family had a history of any disabilities I’d never have kids. I know there’s a base level of chance to begin with but being okay with a higher chance, especially if the disability is prevalent enough to be known about, is incredibly selfish.
I don’t think it’s possible to know what you’d do in this situation until you’re in it. Perhaps you’re not keen on having kids period so this was an easy decision for you though?
They’re probably referring to having a child when it is genetically predisposed to abnormalities due to whatever genetics the parents have.
Depends on the disability.
Not having a child based only on the child being deaf (who shouldn’t really suffer, but could if never given support) is very different than not having a child because they have something that will cause them immense pain and a death within days or weeks of being born. Then there is a massive spectrum between the two.
It depends, but some a child can also suffer for their entire life if they are born healthy but abused and neglected there will always be reasons for having or not having a child. Having the choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is the important thing, and being denied that choice is wrong.
A species producing babies (when that species overpopulation has lead to mass extinction of other species) is immoral.
Ultimately it’s your choice to have a baby or not and it’s absolutely moral to choose to not have a child if you don’t want one.
Completely agree, but my guess is they want one, but struggle with the information about the health status. Without knowing what the issue is, it’s hard to say what my decision would be. But “your body, your choice” is always true and nobody should be allowed to condemn you for your choice.
I’m in Canada and we have some extremely high rates of FASD(Fetal Alchohol Syndrome Disorder) within our indigenous population and its absolutely heartbreaking.
The mothers selfishness to drink during pregnancy has absolutely devastated these kids future, and the outcome of nearly all of them is not good and it is incredibly sad to watch.
These days life is super hard without disabilities, and with the disability it becomes nearly impossible unless you have strong family support, which in these cases nearly none of the have. We have government support for FASD cases, but the mother needs to admit to drinking during pregnancy, which surprise, surprise, most refuse to admit to it, which hurts their children even more as they don’t get the funding and support.
Canadian researchers estimate that 4% of Canadians have FASD
I agree that it is horrible to drink while pregnant and planning to have the baby, but you should also remember that alcoholism is a disease. These people don’t exactly have a lot of social and medical support to help them overcome addiction.
I think the other way around is wrong and immoral. Forcing a child to suffer their whole life is pure evil in my book. If you have the opportunity to prevent this, it is your duty to do so.
No.
You are not morally obligated to reproduce under any circumstances.
This isn’t a question with a binary answer. This is the kind of question you talk about with your doctors, your partner, and people whose moral compass you trust. There’s a lot of factors. For example are we talking about a disability that’s largely survivable or a disability that means they will die as an infant? Do you have the financial and mental means to provide the extra care? Do you already have children? Is the pregnancy expected to be more dangerous than normal? How far along is the fetus?
You can end up on either side of this question and be a good person. This is one of those things that nobody gets to judge you for.
