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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They’re probably referring to having a child when it is genetically predisposed to abnormalities due to whatever genetics the parents have.
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.
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?
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.
It’s never wrong to avoid having children for any reason.
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.
I’m not dumb enough to rationalize my way through life, so just go with what you’re feeling. You don’t need to rationalize it for it to be valid.
That’s kinda sweet… I think
The line and reasoning is borrowed from “Bimbo - a philosophical analysis” : https://youtu.be/FeRIE6JDhCQ , the line “I’m not dumb enough to rationalize my way through life” is a rebuttal of Nietzsche type attitudes.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve said this many, many times: If abortion is a viable option, it is the only option worthy of consideration.
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.
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
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?
No.
