You have no moral obligation to have children at all, even if they’ll predictably have a happy life. So if their life will instead be predictably horrible (or if they will predictably ruin the lives of the people around them - plenty of severe mental disabilities seem much less horrible for the people themselves than for their caretakers), it’s very reasonable to avoid it.
While I’d also support my partner in terminating a pregnancy with a disabled child, please reconsider your wording.
A disabled person’s life isn’t necessarily horrible, and neither will they necessarily ruin someone else’s life by being born.
I agree that there’s a lot of space between “considered disabled” and “horrible life”, but OP said “suffer their whole life” which I associated with the latter.
And what is suffering?
Some people consider Down-Syndrome a horrible condition. Yet, people suffering from it can lead happy and fulfilling lives. It is a slippery slope that, if not navigated carefully, has historically leaded to atrocities.
Yet, people suffering from it can lead happy and fulfilling lives.
Sure, it’s possible for a person with a severe disability to grow up happy. But when one is making a decision in real life (like having a child), one should consider an average case, not a exceptional one. And the average case for an example like Down’s Syndrome is pretty bad. It is a bit unclear how to quantify the suffering in this particular disease’s case because the main harm to the child is lifelong mental impairment and assorted physical disabilities - but it is at least going to inflict suffering on the child’s family, since caring for a child with a severe disability for their entire life isn’t exactly fun.
It is a slippery slope that, if not navigated carefully, has historically leaded to atrocities.
I don’t see the relation. You’ll notice that I’m not proposing killing off disabled people for the “improvement of society” or whatever it was that nazis called it. I am not doing this because nonconsensually killing a person is a harm to them. But deciding not to have a child isn’t the same thing as murdering a person - it’s not harming anyone who exists, and hence may well be morally better than having a child.
(Oh, I suppose you might mean that I’m arguing that there are circumstances in which it’s morally bad for a person to have a child, which is similar to nazi eugenics in that I’m deciding whether or not people should have children? In that case, my answer is that the difference is that I’m a person, not an authoritarian government, and I don’t have power (nor, indeed, the desire) to force people to obey my personal moral judgements.)
And the average case for an example like Down’s Syndrome is pretty bad.
with my experience as care-taker i cannot agree. is there scientific knowledge that you can cite that’d explain me how divergent my experiences are from the averaged realities.
Do you think happy Down’s syndrome people are an exception? I have a different experience.
Their wording is fine, you have some internal biases to iron out.
Which in your opinion are?
plenty of severe mental disabilities seem much less horrible for the people themselves than for their caretakers
in germany we consider this as an original national-socialist thought and expressing such would disqualify you in public discourse.
Source? Or is it just your impression?
Source would probably be the aftertaste of nazism
In the way it is phrased I would second this. The problem is, that it faults the disabled person for the life problem of those around them (THEY are ruining other peoples life). The discourse never ever blames the disabled person here. Doing so will land you in a bad discussive corner - together with the common argumentation of nazis. Though the question of abortion (as stated by OP) is not as clear cut.
No it is not wrong. Abortion, even of a healthy fetus, is not wrong and you shouldn’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
In states with heavy abortion restrictions, there is a surge of dumpster babies.
Instead of bringing a clump of cell to term only to abandon it, might as well just get rid of it altogether.
And let’s not forget that the lives of the immediate family are also impacted negatively.
Taking care of a child is a lot of work. Taking care of a child that has a disability is much more work.
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.
It’s never wrong to avoid having children for any reason.
If “not have” means abort, I don’t think it’s ever wrong not to have a baby. People should only have kids if they want them and can commit to being good parents for the long haul. “Maybe it will save our marriage” and “God says so” are equally shitty examples of reasons to have kids.
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.
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 philosophy 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, I’ll try to get you started in a direction to explore. The question is 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 terrible 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? Physical suffering can also coexist with emotional happiness.
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 separate 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, euthanasia, abortion, resource allocation, the value of a life, etc). Many things in medicine aren’t even this black and white… A lot of decisions need to be made on possible likelihoods and estimated probabilities.
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.
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 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 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.
Some percentage of people will think it is, but as I recall it, that percentage drops dramatically when people are actually faced with the decision themselves, so make your own decision if you’re unlucky enough to have to
There are already natural miscarriages for many unviable fetuses, so in a sense diagnosis and abortion is just a way to help that be more accurate
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.
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?
this is kind of ridiculous. do you realize how broad a term “disability” is?
Well op didnt define it but i would assume everyone draws the line at a different place for the purposes of this thought experiment.
are they bad people for having kids when they knew we would inherit that?
Thats something between ur parents and god (and by god i dont literaly mean i god i mean whatever morality or personal philosophy they hold themselves to).
If u want/can go ask them what they think about the idea i recon it would be interesting to hear.
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?
The American healthcare system kills people all day long. But, it’s not a public function; it’s not a component of the state. It is a private industry. Yes, it practices voluntary manslaughter for profit, but no, it’s not eugenics.
To be honest I think having children when you have a family history of disability is the most selfish thing a human can do.
Family history of disability is not a necessary prerequisite of having a disabled child, though.
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?
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?
They’re probably referring to having a child when it is genetically predisposed to abnormalities due to whatever genetics the parents have.
Why do you think so? It is possible, but there are other possibilities as well. Many healthy parents find out they’re expecting a disabled child during an early screening. Or they could be asking just theoretically.
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.
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
