Scroll to see replies
No, I don’t believe it is.
I'll be bold and ask an broader, existential question: is it ever morally acceptable to have a child?
Life can be full of suffering and pain even without severe genetic disease. There's no guarantee that someone's life won't involve severe suffering simply because heritable, genetic disease isn't likely.
Life can be full of suffering and pain even without severe genetic disease. There's no guarantee that someone's life won't involve severe suffering simply because heritable, genetic disease isn't likely.
Original post by SHallowvale
I'll be bold and ask an broader, existential question: is it ever morally acceptable to have a child?
Life can be full of suffering and pain even without severe genetic disease. There's no guarantee that someone's life won't involve severe suffering simply because heritable, genetic disease isn't likely.
Life can be full of suffering and pain even without severe genetic disease. There's no guarantee that someone's life won't involve severe suffering simply because heritable, genetic disease isn't likely.
I think that's a good question to ask. What makes having a child who may inherit your disease any more immoral than having a child who may experience pain/disease later in life? You know that both are possibilities, so is it just a case of magically determining the percentage chance someone will suffer in life? I don't think that's feasible at all. It leads to questions like if it's more moral to have children in a western country as opposed to a poor country like Somalia?
I don't think the concept of antinatalism is helpful at all, since it ends with the literal end of our species.
Original post by SHallowvale
I'll be bold and ask an broader, existential question: is it ever morally acceptable to have a child?
Life can be full of suffering and pain even without severe genetic disease. There's no guarantee that someone's life won't involve severe suffering simply because heritable, genetic disease isn't likely.
Life can be full of suffering and pain even without severe genetic disease. There's no guarantee that someone's life won't involve severe suffering simply because heritable, genetic disease isn't likely.
Absolutely, antinatalism is a view some people hold.
An argument could be made that the type of people thoughtful and patient enough to care about well being the environment, to the point they will abstain from having a child, are exactly the people we need having children. Children who will grow up to care for the right things and make the world a better place.
Original post by imlikeahermit
No, I don’t believe it is.
Sure,
Does your view extend to mild genetic problems such as a kiwi allergy or is it just for more severe problems that negatively impact the individuals day to day life?
I don't think it is acceptable that's why my spouse and I are currently in the process of spending $35,000 to try and ensure our child does not have one of the inheritable diseases we have.
Original post by Sabertooth
I don't think it is acceptable that's why my spouse and I are currently in the process of spending $35,000 to try and ensure our child does not have one of the inheritable diseases we have.
I hope it goes well and your child is healthy!
Original post by Anholm
I hope it goes well and your child is healthy!
Thanks man. Apparently we have a 65% chance of it working first time which is pretty low odds but we both think it's worth it over what the child may live with if we conceived via sex.
Original post by Sabertooth
Thanks man. Apparently we have a 65% chance of it working first time which is pretty low odds but we both think it's worth it over what the child may live with if we conceived via sex.
There is also the question of which chromosome the disease is on.
Due to males only having one X chromosome, they are more likely to suffer from a recessive genetic disease as there is no second X to carry a correct, dominant gene. (Dominant Genes are always expressed if present) Women are less likely to suffer from a recessive genetic disease but much more likely to pass it on.
The odds are in your favour, slightly! It's a shame the NHS doesn't offer the service you need. Do you think they should?
Original post by Sabertooth
Thanks man. Apparently we have a 65% chance of it working first time which is pretty low odds but we both think it's worth it over what the child may live with if we conceived via sex.
Good Luck to you and your wife, I would rep you if I could but PRSOM
I think it is moral, even if the child gets the disease.
Even though living with a disease or disability (or any problem for that matter) might make your life in some way more difficult than someone else’s, I don’t think this means that your life isn’t worth living, and you’re better off not getting one at all - or at least, it’s not our call to make. Plenty of people live with diseases and disabilities already and, unless they all start to routinely commit suicide or seek euthanasia, it seems quite reasonable to assume that they would rather be alive than not.
To say that it is immoral would be equivalent to saying to all those people who are already living with the disease that “I think you shouldn’t exist”, which is not okay in my view. It’s essentially eugenics under the guise or illusion of compassion.
Even though living with a disease or disability (or any problem for that matter) might make your life in some way more difficult than someone else’s, I don’t think this means that your life isn’t worth living, and you’re better off not getting one at all - or at least, it’s not our call to make. Plenty of people live with diseases and disabilities already and, unless they all start to routinely commit suicide or seek euthanasia, it seems quite reasonable to assume that they would rather be alive than not.
To say that it is immoral would be equivalent to saying to all those people who are already living with the disease that “I think you shouldn’t exist”, which is not okay in my view. It’s essentially eugenics under the guise or illusion of compassion.
Original post by Anholm
Sure,
Does your view extend to mild genetic problems such as a kiwi allergy or is it just for more severe problems that negatively impact the individuals day to day life?
Does your view extend to mild genetic problems such as a kiwi allergy or is it just for more severe problems that negatively impact the individuals day to day life?
More severe issues.
Original post by tazarooni89
I think it is moral, even if the child gets the disease.
Even though living with a disease or disability (or any problem for that matter) might make your life in some way more difficult than someone else’s, I don’t think this means that your life isn’t worth living, and you’re better off not getting one at all - or at least, it’s not our call to make. Plenty of people live with diseases and disabilities already and, unless they all start to routinely commit suicide or seek euthanasia, it seems quite reasonable to assume that they would rather be alive than not.
To say that it is immoral would be equivalent to saying to all those people who are already living with the disease that “I think you shouldn’t exist”, which is not okay in my view. It’s essentially eugenics under the guise or illusion of compassion.
Even though living with a disease or disability (or any problem for that matter) might make your life in some way more difficult than someone else’s, I don’t think this means that your life isn’t worth living, and you’re better off not getting one at all - or at least, it’s not our call to make. Plenty of people live with diseases and disabilities already and, unless they all start to routinely commit suicide or seek euthanasia, it seems quite reasonable to assume that they would rather be alive than not.
To say that it is immoral would be equivalent to saying to all those people who are already living with the disease that “I think you shouldn’t exist”, which is not okay in my view. It’s essentially eugenics under the guise or illusion of compassion.
Of course most people with genetic problems would rather be alive, that's because in order to have a genetic problem, one first needs to exist. I'm asking if it is moral for individuals with severe genetic defects to bring another person into the world who will inevitably suffer from the disease. I'm not saying people with disabilities should or shouldn't exist, nor an I suggesting their life isn't worth living.
Sperm and eggs are not conscious beings that prefer to be alive. They don't get sad if they don't combine in fertilisation to become a child. So when you say "better of not getting one at all" you are suggesting that our gametes are somehow aware and want to be alive, or that not having a child is somehow depriving something sentient of a chance to become human. Surely then every time someone abstains from sex, they are depriving a child of life?
Eugenics is forced sterilisation or eradication of people with certain genetic characteristics by an external body such as a fascist government. If someone with cystic fibrosis personally chooses not to have a child so as not to perpetuate a chain of suffering, that's not eugenics.
Original post by tazarooni89
I think it is moral, even if the child gets the disease.
Even though living with a disease or disability (or any problem for that matter) might make your life in some way more difficult than someone else’s, I don’t think this means that your life isn’t worth living, and you’re better off not getting one at all - or at least, it’s not our call to make. Plenty of people live with diseases and disabilities already and, unless they all start to routinely commit suicide or seek euthanasia, it seems quite reasonable to assume that they would rather be alive than not.
To say that it is immoral would be equivalent to saying to all those people who are already living with the disease that “I think you shouldn’t exist”, which is not okay in my view. It’s essentially eugenics under the guise or illusion of compassion.
Even though living with a disease or disability (or any problem for that matter) might make your life in some way more difficult than someone else’s, I don’t think this means that your life isn’t worth living, and you’re better off not getting one at all - or at least, it’s not our call to make. Plenty of people live with diseases and disabilities already and, unless they all start to routinely commit suicide or seek euthanasia, it seems quite reasonable to assume that they would rather be alive than not.
To say that it is immoral would be equivalent to saying to all those people who are already living with the disease that “I think you shouldn’t exist”, which is not okay in my view. It’s essentially eugenics under the guise or illusion of compassion.
PRSOM.
Original post by Fenneko
I think that's a good question to ask. What makes having a child who may inherit your disease any more immoral than having a child who may experience pain/disease later in life? You know that both are possibilities, so is it just a case of magically determining the percentage chance someone will suffer in life? I don't think that's feasible at all. It leads to questions like if it's more moral to have children in a western country as opposed to a poor country like Somalia?
I don't think the concept of antinatalism is helpful at all, since it ends with the literal end of our species.
I don't think the concept of antinatalism is helpful at all, since it ends with the literal end of our species.
Exactly. There are so many possible things that could make someone suffer in life and it's far too complicated to boil it down to a single percentage you can use to base a moral judgement on.
That said, I still understand the arguments made by anti-natalists. Not that want to have children anytime soon, let alone ever, but I have often asked myself if I would have a child even if I wanted one. Ignoring selfish reasons, like wanting to have someone care for me in my old age, I can think of more reasons not to have one than reasons to have one.
Original post by Anholm
Is is morally acceptable for someone with a severe and heritable genetic disease to have children who will inevitably get the dizease and suffer because of it?
The situation as presented, suggests that there exist adults with severe and heritable genetic diseases. That being the case this would suggest that there is some level of moral and acceptable value in those lives otherwise wouldn't they have killed themselves already?
If such moral value exists then why should it not similarly exist for any children they choose to have?
So for me this is not a moral question. It's more a personal choice question.
Me personally, no, I would not choose to have children in that situation
Original post by Anholm
Of course most people with genetic problems would rather be alive, that's because in order to have a genetic problem, one first needs to exist. I'm asking if it is moral for individuals with severe genetic defects to bring another person into the world who will inevitably suffer from the disease. I'm not saying people with disabilities should or shouldn't exist, nor an I suggesting their life isn't worth living.
Sperm and eggs are not conscious beings that prefer to be alive. They don't get sad if they don't combine in fertilisation to become a child. So when you say "better of not getting one at all" you are suggesting that our gametes are somehow aware and want to be alive, or that not having a child is somehow depriving something sentient of a chance to become human. Surely then every time someone abstains from sex, they are depriving a child of life?
Eugenics is forced sterilisation or eradication of people with certain genetic characteristics by an external body such as a fascist government. If someone with cystic fibrosis personally chooses not to have a child so as not to perpetuate a chain of suffering, that's not eugenics.
Sperm and eggs are not conscious beings that prefer to be alive. They don't get sad if they don't combine in fertilisation to become a child. So when you say "better of not getting one at all" you are suggesting that our gametes are somehow aware and want to be alive, or that not having a child is somehow depriving something sentient of a chance to become human. Surely then every time someone abstains from sex, they are depriving a child of life?
Eugenics is forced sterilisation or eradication of people with certain genetic characteristics by an external body such as a fascist government. If someone with cystic fibrosis personally chooses not to have a child so as not to perpetuate a chain of suffering, that's not eugenics.
From this post it sounds like you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that it is immoral to choose not to have children, lest they inherit one of your genetic conditions. People can choose not to have children for whatever reason they like; that's up to them. Depending on the disease in question there's a good chance that I would choose not to have children in that situation as well.
What I am saying is that it is not immoral to choose to have children, even if they were to inherit the disease. The idea that it is immoral to do so assumes that the child's non-existence is a preferable scenario to their existence with a disease, and I don't agree that this is a valid assumption. I am also happy to refer to this idea as "eugenics", because we're not talking about a couple choosing not to have children; we're talking about other people besides the couple in question calling them immoral for doing so.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
From this post it sounds like you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that it is immoral to choose not to have children, lest they inherit one of your genetic conditions. People can choose not to have children for whatever reason they like; that's up to them. Depending on the disease in question there's a good chance that I would choose not to have children in that situation as well.
What I am saying is that it is not immoral to choose to have children, even if they were to inherit the disease. The idea that it is immoral to do so assumes that the child's non-existence is a preferable scenario to their existence with a disease, and I don't agree that this is a valid assumption. I am also happy to refer to this idea as "eugenics", because we're not talking about a couple choosing not to have children; we're talking about other people besides the couple in question calling them immoral for doing so.
What I am saying is that it is not immoral to choose to have children, even if they were to inherit the disease. The idea that it is immoral to do so assumes that the child's non-existence is a preferable scenario to their existence with a disease, and I don't agree that this is a valid assumption. I am also happy to refer to this idea as "eugenics", because we're not talking about a couple choosing not to have children; we're talking about other people besides the couple in question calling them immoral for doing so.
Yes, I think I might have misunderstood you.
I asked the question with the opinion that morals are subjective and personal to each individual, I am talking about a couple choosing not to have children with their own morals, not suggesting other peoples morals should be forced into people with disabilities.
I could have phrased the question more along the lines of
'Do you personally believe with your own moral compass that if you were to have a genetic disorder, it would be a fair to have a child who will inherit the disorder and suffer unnecessarily because of it?'
Even phrasing it like that is not entirely how I believe the question should be worded. I asked a vague question to hear a broader range of opinions and I am grateful to all who have answered.
I of course have no right and certainly no desire to go around telling disabled people not to have children.
I understand eugenics to be a practice - a thing that happens rather than an opinion someone holds. Someone could hold the opinion that its imoral for all disabled people to have children while not supporting eugenics.
If you don't mind me asking couldn't one argue that in some cases a child's non existence may be the better, more humane scenario than their existence + unnececary suffering?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
