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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 would urge people to be careful how much we think disabled people (might) suffer. My mom is colorblind (she sees the whole world in shades of white or black), and her vision strength is 5% or lower. She is definitely disabled and receives a pension for not being able to work. Still, she managed to build up some form of existence: she managed to start an education and became a masseuse, and she gave birth to me and my brother. If my grandma would've known that my mom will not be able to live on her own, she maybe wouldn't have proceeded with the pregnancy. Then I wouldn't be here either.
My conclusion: what do you define by disability? If it is a chronic disease which means your child will be in pain their whole life, it is very different than having a child who isn't able to "function" normally, but isn't inherently in pain. Over my mom I met a lot of other disabled people, and most of them have built up an existence and lead a life. My mom wouldn't agree that she is forced to suffer her whole life.
No one is forced to bear out a child. You are not morally responsible to bear out a child, in my opinion. But we shouldn't assume we know how this person will grow and develop during their lives.
I dislike the use of the term "wrong" in this case immensely.
Everyone ought to be able to decide what to do with their own body, free from judgement. That includes whether to grow a fetus, and the decision making process is completely irrelevant.
It's wrong to opine what's right and wrong regarding someone else's bodily autonomy.
If the question was, "if you were pregnant and you were told your child was going to be severely disabled, would you seek an abortion" the answer is "most likely".
This is a deeply personal question only you can answer.
The other piece is impact on other children.
I was privy to one situation in which the mother told the father she would divorce him if he did not agree to place their heavy needs child in a home. Why? Their two other children didn’t know their father and the entire household revolved around 1 person instead of the family unit except on private outings between the two non-special needs kids and the mom, who scrambled to give them normal kid experiences. Caring for this needs child became all the father did when at home. Sometimes caring was sitting in the room with the heavy needs child, a child content in a bed, unable to walk or communicate (congenital) to the exclusion of the other children.
We have all probably read those Reddit threads from kids who were screaming into a thread about hating their special needs sibling as well.
Consideration needs to be made for every member of the family unit. And healthcare being what it is lately, outside the home care options may not be as available today.
Nothing about this is easy and there is no one right answer.
I got sterilized because I have a painful, degenerative, genetic condition (with no cure), that I feel is too cruel to pass on. I won't risk letting a child be born with this syndrome, so I made the choice so I never have to deal with getting pregnant. If I ever want a kid, I'll adopt. (Doubtful. I can barely take care of myself like this)
Every day hurts, there's LOTS of days I wish I was aborted but I look at my rescue dog (who had been my service dog for 9 years now) and everything is OK. He was thrown away twice before I came along and his first owner kicked his teeth in. If I wasn't here, who knows what could have happened to him.
That dog is adorable, I don't know what would possess someone to inflict that kind of torture on him... Also, I love the fact that he's got a Master Sword strapped to him
Some people have no regards for lives other than their own... and often get violent if a living being won't obey them. I'm a domestic abuse survivor, so there was no way I was gonna leave without him.
And thank you! He's dressed as Wolf Link. 😁 I am a cosplayer, and since he's my medical alert dog, he goes with me to comic cons.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
Not necessarily. Someone dying isn't the same as someone not existing at all.* It does imply that the world would be better off if it stopped existing, and under some assumptions implies it'd be moral to, say, instantly end all of humanity. I'm not sure that these conclusions are necessarily "contrary to our instincts".
*one reason why this has to be true, is that if we didn't distinguish between those, then if an average life had positive value, it'd be immoral not to have as many children as possible, until the marginal value of an extra life fell to zero once again (kind of like how Malthus thought societies worked, except as a supposedly moral thing to do). That conclusion is something I do consider very contrary to my instincts.
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.
I too am an utilitarianist, sure. I'm not sure I can possibly buy "maximum suffering and no happiness" being the zero point. I very strongly feel that there are plenty of lives that would be way worse than dying (and than never having existed, too). It's a coherent position I think, just a very alien one to me.
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.
That is a hell of a moral question that I don't think I or anybody else can answer for another individual.
Edit: I have no idea one direction or the other but I assume you asked this as it's something that's come up. If so I feel for you, genuinely, I cannot comprehend the pain such a situation would mount on an individual and the weight such a decision would have.
Please be more specific about the actions that are to decide, when you say generally "to not have a disabled child". IMHO 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.
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.
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".
You write so well, hope you can find your way to a better time, and NOBODY is obligated to have children, full stop. No matter why they don't want them. Not even the person who might birth the person who saves the world. Nobody. You don't need an "acceptable" reason or to explain yourself to anyone. It's your life.
People are all okay with it until the disabled child grows up and they have to spend two or three times the amount to tend to that child. And have to pay more. And have to go through so many obstacles just to support and keep that child going.
Every disabled child I've ever seen in my life, whether it's from down syndrome types to ones stuck in a chair for the rest of their life with abnormalities. I can't help but feel absolute pity and wonder exactly what they'd be thinking if their brains were normal enough to have them speak. I don't think they'd be wishing to continue living. They'd either want to die or have a different life where they're normal like everyone else.
And I think it's absolutely cruel for parents to keep them living like that.
As the father in a family where this decision had to be made once; It is not wrong to decide not to have a child. The reason why is the business of the mother and maybe the father, and nobody else.
People already question if putting a child into this world of suffering and misery is right. If more people asked themselves the question and seriously tried to find an answer to it, the world would look quite different.
Everyone has their own opinion about it but I don't think that there is any eternal consequence to it.
It's just a really shitty thing that people have to go through sometimes, either shitty that they prevent the child from being born and then have to live with their own guilt about it, or shitty that they let the child be born regardless of their feelings and then have to deal with the consequences.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Which in your opinion are?
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well op didnt define it but i would assume everyone draws the line at a different place for the purposes of this thought experiment.
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.
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
If it's a disability you can diagnose prior to birth, no.
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.
No, its the moral thing to do.
I would urge people to be careful how much we think disabled people (might) suffer. My mom is colorblind (she sees the whole world in shades of white or black), and her vision strength is 5% or lower. She is definitely disabled and receives a pension for not being able to work. Still, she managed to build up some form of existence: she managed to start an education and became a masseuse, and she gave birth to me and my brother. If my grandma would've known that my mom will not be able to live on her own, she maybe wouldn't have proceeded with the pregnancy. Then I wouldn't be here either.
My conclusion: what do you define by disability? If it is a chronic disease which means your child will be in pain their whole life, it is very different than having a child who isn't able to "function" normally, but isn't inherently in pain. Over my mom I met a lot of other disabled people, and most of them have built up an existence and lead a life. My mom wouldn't agree that she is forced to suffer her whole life.
No one is forced to bear out a child. You are not morally responsible to bear out a child, in my opinion. But we shouldn't assume we know how this person will grow and develop during their lives.
Of course not.
This is a little bit of a stupid question.
Well, where it posted 😄
I dislike the use of the term "wrong" in this case immensely.
Everyone ought to be able to decide what to do with their own body, free from judgement. That includes whether to grow a fetus, and the decision making process is completely irrelevant.
It's wrong to opine what's right and wrong regarding someone else's bodily autonomy.
If the question was, "if you were pregnant and you were told your child was going to be severely disabled, would you seek an abortion" the answer is "most likely".
This is a deeply personal question only you can answer.
The other piece is impact on other children.
I was privy to one situation in which the mother told the father she would divorce him if he did not agree to place their heavy needs child in a home. Why? Their two other children didn’t know their father and the entire household revolved around 1 person instead of the family unit except on private outings between the two non-special needs kids and the mom, who scrambled to give them normal kid experiences. Caring for this needs child became all the father did when at home. Sometimes caring was sitting in the room with the heavy needs child, a child content in a bed, unable to walk or communicate (congenital) to the exclusion of the other children.
We have all probably read those Reddit threads from kids who were screaming into a thread about hating their special needs sibling as well.
Consideration needs to be made for every member of the family unit. And healthcare being what it is lately, outside the home care options may not be as available today.
Nothing about this is easy and there is no one right answer.
You are showing empathy and that is a good thing. Not wrong.
I got sterilized because I have a painful, degenerative, genetic condition (with no cure), that I feel is too cruel to pass on. I won't risk letting a child be born with this syndrome, so I made the choice so I never have to deal with getting pregnant. If I ever want a kid, I'll adopt. (Doubtful. I can barely take care of myself like this)
Every day hurts, there's LOTS of days I wish I was aborted but I look at my rescue dog (who had been my service dog for 9 years now) and everything is OK. He was thrown away twice before I came along and his first owner kicked his teeth in. If I wasn't here, who knows what could have happened to him.
Pet Tax. You can see where his face was kicked, but nothing stops him from smiling
That dog is adorable, I don't know what would possess someone to inflict that kind of torture on him... Also, I love the fact that he's got a Master Sword strapped to him
Some people have no regards for lives other than their own... and often get violent if a living being won't obey them. I'm a domestic abuse survivor, so there was no way I was gonna leave without him.
And thank you! He's dressed as Wolf Link. 😁 I am a cosplayer, and since he's my medical alert dog, he goes with me to comic cons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
Not necessarily. Someone dying isn't the same as someone not existing at all.* It does imply that the world would be better off if it stopped existing, and under some assumptions implies it'd be moral to, say, instantly end all of humanity. I'm not sure that these conclusions are necessarily "contrary to our instincts".
*one reason why this has to be true, is that if we didn't distinguish between those, then if an average life had positive value, it'd be immoral not to have as many children as possible, until the marginal value of an extra life fell to zero once again (kind of like how Malthus thought societies worked, except as a supposedly moral thing to do). That conclusion is something I do consider very contrary to my instincts.
I too am an utilitarianist, sure. I'm not sure I can possibly buy "maximum suffering and no happiness" being the zero point. I very strongly feel that there are plenty of lives that would be way worse than dying (and than never having existed, too). It's a coherent position I think, just a very alien one to me.
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?
No.
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.
That is a hell of a moral question that I don't think I or anybody else can answer for another individual.
Edit: I have no idea one direction or the other but I assume you asked this as it's something that's come up. If so I feel for you, genuinely, I cannot comprehend the pain such a situation would mount on an individual and the weight such a decision would have.
Please be more specific about the actions that are to decide, when you say generally "to not have a disabled child". IMHO 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.
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. It actually seems very plausible.
In addition, I would recommend to seek a therapy because such heavy trauma do not easily heal by themselves.
You write so well, hope you can find your way to a better time, and NOBODY is obligated to have children, full stop. No matter why they don't want them. Not even the person who might birth the person who saves the world. Nobody. You don't need an "acceptable" reason or to explain yourself to anyone. It's your life.
No.
People are all okay with it until the disabled child grows up and they have to spend two or three times the amount to tend to that child. And have to pay more. And have to go through so many obstacles just to support and keep that child going.
Every disabled child I've ever seen in my life, whether it's from down syndrome types to ones stuck in a chair for the rest of their life with abnormalities. I can't help but feel absolute pity and wonder exactly what they'd be thinking if their brains were normal enough to have them speak. I don't think they'd be wishing to continue living. They'd either want to die or have a different life where they're normal like everyone else.
And I think it's absolutely cruel for parents to keep them living like that.
As the father in a family where this decision had to be made once; It is not wrong to decide not to have a child. The reason why is the business of the mother and maybe the father, and nobody else.
People already question if putting a child into this world of suffering and misery is right. If more people asked themselves the question and seriously tried to find an answer to it, the world would look quite different.
No.
Everyone has their own opinion about it but I don't think that there is any eternal consequence to it.
It's just a really shitty thing that people have to go through sometimes, either shitty that they prevent the child from being born and then have to live with their own guilt about it, or shitty that they let the child be born regardless of their feelings and then have to deal with the consequences.
It's a bad roll of the die anyway you look at it
I've said this many, many times: If abortion is a viable option, it is the only option worthy of consideration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/11/a-professor-who-argues-for-infanticide/cce7dc81-3775-4ef6-bfea-74cd795fc43f/
A species producing babies (when that species overpopulation has lead to mass extinction of other species) is immoral.