If it’s a disability you can diagnose prior to birth, no.
Please be more specific about the actions that are to decide, when you say generally “to not have a disabled child”. IMMHO the whole ethical discussion, or any ethical answers are not possible without being completely clear on these specifics.
I have a higher chance of birthing a developmentally disabled child if I actually do get pregnant. Is it wrong to be 100% against birthing my own child solely because of this.? I was misdiagnosed and was in an aba institution for 10 years, and dehumanized and alienated by family the whole time. When I got to a real high school, I was treated like an infant or a wild bear, nothing in between. I wholeheartedly believe that regardless of whatever I accomplish in my life, I would have been much better off never born, euthanized, or murdered.
I don’t want to force this experience on anyone else if I can prevent it from happening. It’s not just the abuse in the aba institutions but treatment literally everywhere. In high school everyone had brand name clothes, apple technology, brand headphones, etc. No one cared. I had off brand clothes, cheap headphones, a Microsoft Surface and a Galaxy phone, and was treated like a rich scumbag, like I was Brian Thompson’s privileged daughter who had everything because her dad made everyone suffer. Literally not having brand name clothes was status against everyone else. I couldn’t afford them even if I did want to wear clothes advertising the store it came from. I never understood the appeal of that. But everyone saw somebody below them with some nice things, and even worse, preferences.
Being a joke to the people who “love” you, having all your “friends” be people school staff begged to talk to you so you don’t kill someone, and having the same disorder that made you less of a human be the reason why you accomplished something mundane like passing a class with a 60 grade is just not a life worth living. Watching everyone else get to be real humans with real happiness, real hobbies and interests, and real personalities while you need to hide everything about yourself is not a life worth living. There’s just no reason to live on the wrong side of society. I wish my mother had just aborted me when there were signs I wasn’t going to make it. I’m not making the same mistake.
You have every right to not have kids. This reason is as valid as any.
I’m sorry for your experience. I hope you’re doing better now
Your stance sounds like “too many people are assholes, this world is not worth living in” - arguably true, on the other hand, that gives the assholes all the power.
Upvoted, also torn. Because even if this person or any individual wants to “stand against” assholes so “they don’t give them all the power”, effects will probably be minimal but the effort expended won’t be.
I had some people giving me shit when I was in my young to mid-twenties. My dad’s advice: “Prove them wrong! Do x, do y, do z…” So…do all these things & live your life…to gain the approval of assholes, people who don’t really matter, people you don’t like? Nah. I’m going to do what I want.
I know my personal experience doesn’t map perfectly on your conversation & points, but idk I think it’s similar. I think they have the power because they’re assholes, because they seek out power over others. Perhaps the best course of action is to ignore the assholes & not give them any more of your time, consideration than is absolutely necessary. Live your life the way you want to live it.
Back to the main convo, idk. Personally, I find myself becoming more anti-natal. Have strong prevention game. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
It’s an issue when the assholes are authority who literally raise you to be a failure. Obeying them makes you grow into a failure, and actually trying to grow is rebellion. And doing anything out of line, like using a gift card app to buy body wash when your parents refused to buy it for you, and showering, can get you put in a home for the rest of your life. Obviously I wouldn’t treat my child that way but they’ll need to choose between listening to their parents or listening to their teachers, the latter deliberately trying to make my child a failure so they can “know their place”.
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.
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?
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?
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
Of course not.
This is a little bit of a stupid question.
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.
Their wording is fine, you have some internal biases to iron out.
Which in your opinion are?
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.
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?
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.
Source would probably be the aftertaste of nazism
If you are not one of the bilionairs in the world your child will suffer, the difference is just if more or less. Why have children at all? So they can work like slaves until they are too old? Don’t do that to your kid
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’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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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, its the moral thing to do.
