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 chances 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.
Depends on the level of disability we are talking about. Slightly hard of hearing, have the kids.
Blind, dead, mute, and numb to most sense of being touched. That’s just cruel.
But I guess are we talking aborting the fetus, or do you mean something else?
You are showing empathy and that is a good thing. Not wrong.
You’ll have to think through a few other philosophical questions first.
What about ailments that either cannot be detected prior to birth or which take onset after birth? By going forward with these uncertainties, you take a nonzero chance of subjecting the hypothetical potential progeny to the same fate.
Even without any chronic ailments inseparable from a person’s body or psyche, there are still external hazards. Is it not ok to force someone to suffer a stubbed toe, yet ok to force an offspring to be born to suffer the eventual certainty of stubbing their toe? I think it would be impossible to find a sentient life that did not experience even a modicum of suffering. What percentage of an offspring’s life do you consider acceptable to force them to suffer through and to what magnitude of suffering? Can you guarantee that these criteria are met throughout their life?
Who do you intend to benefit from making a child? Yourself, your partner, your parents, your religious leaders, your nation’s work force? I don’t expect people to answer “The child”, yet the child is the one who is most involved and the one who must live that life through. The child would not notice any detriment relative to birth if they were not born, and suffering can only be noticed by those who are born (which I would say is certain to happen), so in what way does it benefit any child to be born and shift from zero suffering to some suffering? To what extent does the boon for others that would be exploited from the child’s birth justify the non-zero suffering that the child would experience?
One could make the argument that suffering is more or less the opposite of happiness, and so that if you give the kid a good enough life, that cancels out the suffering and then some, but a lot depends on how exactly you define those things I guess.
That’s literally true, but the simple counterargument is that the happiness/suffering conversion coefficient is a matter of one’s values and not particularly up for debate - so there’s nothing incoherent about, say, the position that your child living a happy fullfilling life for a thousand years but stubbing their toe once is enough suffering to make their life net negative.
Indeed, it’s not incoherent, at some level though I’d argue that morality is at it’s core simply a tool for deciding what actions one should take, and a system that both follows a utilitarian model and makes it extremely easy for someone’s life to be negative carries the implication that the world would be happier were you to just kill off the huge segment of the population who end up on the negative side. As this is completely contrary to our instincts about what we want morality to be, and completely impractical to act on, it is no longer a very useful tool if one assumes that.
I do tend towards a variant of utilitarianism myself as it has a useful ability to weigh options that are both bad or both good, but for the reason above I tend to define “zero” as a complete lack of happiness/maximum of suffering, and being unhappy as having low happiness rather than negative (making a negative value impossible), though that carries it’s own implications that I know not everyone would agree with.
carries the implication that the world would be happier were you to just kill off the huge segment of the population who end up on the negative side.
Not necessarily. Someone dying isn’t the same as someone not existing at all.* It does imply that the world would be better off if it stopped existing, and under some assumptions implies it’d be moral to, say, instantly end all of humanity. I’m not sure that these conclusions are necessarily “contrary to our instincts”.
*one reason why this has to be true, is that if we didn’t distinguish between those, then if an average life had positive value, it’d be immoral not to have as many children as possible, until the marginal value of an extra life fell to zero once again (kind of like how Malthus thought societies worked, except as a supposedly moral thing to do). That conclusion is something I do consider very contrary to my instincts.
I do tend towards a variant of utilitarianism myself as it has a useful ability to weigh options that are both bad or both good, but for the reason above I tend to define “zero” as a complete lack of happiness/maximum of suffering, and being unhappy as having low happiness rather than negative (making a negative value impossible), though that carries it’s own implications that I know not everyone would agree with.
I too am an utilitarianist, sure. I’m not sure I can possibly buy “maximum suffering and no happiness” being the zero point. I very strongly feel that there are plenty of lives that would be way worse than dying (and than never having existed, too). It’s a coherent position I think, just a very alien one to me.
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.
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.
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.
Of course not.
This is a little bit of a stupid question.
Well, where it posted 😄
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 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
Some people have no regards for lives other than their own… and often get violent if a living being won’t obey them. I’m a domestic abuse survivor, so there was no way I was gonna leave without him.
And thank you! He’s dressed as Wolf Link. 😁 I am a cosplayer, and since he’s my medical alert dog, he goes with me to comic cons.
A species producing babies (when that species overpopulation has lead to mass extinction of other species) is immoral.
You are not morally obligated to reproduce under any circumstances.
No, its the moral thing to do.
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”.
