No.
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.
It’s never wrong to avoid having children for any reason.
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.
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.
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.
A species producing babies (when that species overpopulation has lead to mass extinction of other species) is immoral.
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.
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.)
I don’t think it’s immoral, and I also don’t think it’s immoral to have the child. It’s more complicated than “disability” or “ability”, if you can handle the job and give that kid the best life they could have had, short or long, love them and see it through, that is not immoral. If you know you cannot, and it would wreck your life or be very detrimental to your already born kids, it’s certainly not immoral to abort the fetus and focus on what you can do.
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
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 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? 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 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). 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.
That is a hell of a moral question that I don’t think I or anybody else can answer for another individual.
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
