A Question of Morality

[TallanKhan]

I am very interested to hear your thoughts on the following scenario:

So, you're having a routine check-up at your doctor's office and as part of the process your doctor takes a blood sample. A week or two later you get a letter asking you to revisit your doctor following the results of your blood test.
Now your doctor sits you down and explains that you have a rare genetic disorder that will in no way impact your health, but could have serious implications should you have children. Your doctor explains that there is a high (80%+) chance that if you have children, the genetic disorder will cause the child to be born severely mentally impaired, and with a developmental disorder that will cause said child physical heath problems as well as limiting it's life expectancy (say to 40 years old). Initially the child would need 24hour care, and even as an adult would need to be cared for in sheltered / assisted accommodation. Currently there would be no treatment for this condition, and no way to screen for it prior to the child's birth.

Now, with the information you have been given, and assuming you desired to have children, would it be morally acceptable to do so?

Discuss!

 

[DefunctTheory]

This is a question, I asked numerous co-workers about before.

Oddly enough, most people I asked said it was, in fact, not immoral to have children when you know that there is a large probability said kid is going to be born all sorts of messed up. One coworker told me about a family he knew back home that had 5 children. Every single one was born with severe muscle dystrophy.

All. 5. Of. Them.

One lived to graduate high school. My coworker wasn't sure, but he thought the one who graduated didn't make it far.

The question was bounced back to me as such - Can it be immoral to created a flawed life, when the only alternative is to not have lived at all?

When you put it that way, it's tougher to answer. My answer remains the same, but I'm slightly less sure.

Yes, I do think its immoral. But it's a tough call.

 

[Keoul]

Why wouldn't it be "morally" acceptable? This doesn't seem like a morale question at all.
Every kid has a chance to be born mentally handicapped, just cause your potential kid has a 80% chance doesn't mean it's immoral to have a kid, there's still a 20% chance they'll be fine! and when you've played games like X-com you KNOW chance is utter bullshit, it happens or it doesn't. Now if you had said your kid has been conceived but is only say 6 months in when you found out they were mentally handicapped and had all those issues, asking whether people would abort the child, now that would be a morality question.

Personally I'd just go into foster care or adoption, there's already enough kids out there that needs looking after, the whole "they're not related by blood so they aint your real family" doesn't phase me at all.

 

[LetalisK]

I'm in the camp that it's amoral. Personally, I would probably decide not to, but I'm also not that keen on having kids anyway and if I suddenly wanted some I would adopt as I don't see a blood attachment as something uniquely special.

 

[Link_to_Future]

I couldn't do it.

Granted, I'm not sure if I want children in the first place. If I found the proper partner and found a scenario where bringing another into the world would work out for the best of all parties, then maybe. It would take a lot of prep on my part and a lot of discussion on my part.

But bringing a child in who will be severely disabled is hard. Bringing one in when you know that the odds favor the disability is irresponsible. I can understand the drive that some may have to continue their legacy. But personally, I would rather end my line right here rather than knowingly put another being through the hardship of a handicap simply because I needed my last name to go on for another generation.

I don't dislike the idea of having kids. I just don't want to risk having them suffer unduly.

 

[Esotera]

It'd be a weird genetic disorder that had an 80% chance of occurring, not impossible though. I wouldn't risk conventional pregnancy at all if there was that high a risk of something that bad happening. However, if I wanted a kid very badly (which is unlikely) I would pay for IVF and sequence the genomes of all the embryos. It's massive overkill and would be very expensive but it's the one way to be sure whether the disease will manifest in them.

Also, would everyone be ok with passing the genetic disorder on so that the offspring is a carrier and could pass this on to their kids?

 

[Arcanite Ripper]

This sounds like cycstic fibrosis, with a spoonful of down's syndrome.

I don't want children. They're nutrient-consuming plaguebags. But is it immoral to have an impaired child, even if you know thats its predetermined fate? Obviously not.

 

[JoJo]

Children are irritating,stupid and fucking annoying I would never in my wildest dreams have children much less a retard for a child.

And adults are boring, stupid and fucking arrogant, but what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

OT: Tough question, I don't know if a decision could be called wrong or right but if I was in that situation, I would definitely head towards fostering or adoption, which while a lot tougher than many people on this site seem to think would still be preferable to having a child that is almost certainly disabled. Still, I think it's down to the individual in question to decide for themselves.

 

[SinisterGehe]

It comes all down to will you be able to care for the child - nothing more nothing else.
You are not ruining the child's life by "making" him, it was born as he was supposed to by your genetic material. You didn't take any medication that would have caused this (some medications affect the quality and genetic material of sperm or the pregnant fetus dangerously).

There is no moral dilemma here: The only question is - will you be able to care and love the child for rest of it's life?

And no philosopher in their right mind goes and questions the love of the parent's, it exist if it does and there is nothing wrong if it doesn't.

That is a most objective view by the way.
If we bring different cultures in to this, then we have other mess entirely.

 

[runic knight]

I would think it sort of is.

Lets run ask another question real quick. Put 4 bullets into a gun with 5 chambers, spin it, and point it at the spine of some child. Not high enough to kill but to mess them up for the rest of their lives. Now, supposing you don't get arrested for failing to grasp this is a thought experiment, you quickly realize that what you are planning to do is pretty horrible, even though it is only an 80% chance. Why though? Well, because there is a massive danger to the other living people to cause harm that can not be undone. The heart of what makes it morally wrong is in how it affects others and what the motivation for it in the first place is.

In the context of your question, it is basically pitting the desire to have kids that are blood related versus a high chance of causing suffering and pain. Not just in the child themselves, and not just for the parents but for the rest of the family. When the choice is something selfish that causes suffering, or has a high chance of causing suffering, it is a pretty hard to defend choice. Even more so in this case where there are alternatives such as adoption or various ways to decrease the odds through treatments. Add to that the fact the world seems too crowded anyways to justify intentionally bringing in what will only amount to a burden to yourself, your family and ultimately the state (and by extension the rest of society).
As an accidental pregnancy, one could argue that the chance of a normal life may be slim but there is still arguments to be had to not abort the pregnancy relating to the sanctity of life or other such arguments. But being fully aware the consequences and still intentionally trying to create what you are fairly sure is going to be a horrid, painful existence solely because you wanted to have your genes continue in a world where that really doesn't matter much? That really does come off as morally wrong.

 

[Lamp Salesman]

" IF you want to have children, you'll love them no matter how they end up."

The parent loving the disabled child is not the issue. The issue is the quality of life the disabled child can expect. Is it wrong to bring into the world a child that could well have serious mental and/or physical deformities? When you consider the range of possible genetic disorders, I frankly would consider it almost a form of abuse for some of the more serious disorders. Obviously some are worse than others; Colour Blindness, for example, isn't such a big deal when compared to Huntington's. I myself have depression, and that alone would make me reluctant to have natural children, not when adoption etc are still options. Ultimately, of course, it's up to you, OP. But I would advise you to think long and hard.

 

[MHR]

Of course it's amoral. What kind of crap is "some life is better than no life" who says you can't make a GOOD kind of life instead of a crappy one? Adopt, ya idjits. It's not a matter of "creating life vs not creating life." A limitless number of healthy lives can be created instead of one terrible one. Your terrible genes don't deserve to be replicated more than anyone elses.

I would say It's also immoral to prevent someone with a serious illness to kill himself. Life is not precious in and of itself.

Some people talk like it's their "duty" to have kids. Why would anyone who isn't some welfare queen want to create a drain upon society like this?

 

[JonnyHG]

Of course it would be immoral. Having a child at that point would just be incredibly selfish. Even if there was a 25% chance of it happening, I would still consider it immoral.

 

[King of Asgaard]

Whether or not it is morally acceptable is a matter of what moral theory you follow, as some will denounce your resistance to procreate based on the information in the OP, with the mindset that '20% is better than nothing', while others will agree with the decision not to, as the chances are too low.

I myself wouldn't take the chance. What's the point of fathering a child who will most likely not survive past infancy, and if it does, will need constant care? He won't be employed because of his cognitive impairment, and he'll 'live' a tormented life, if he lives at all. I'm of the opinion that that kind of 'life' is not life. It would be more wrong, in my mind, to give someone a life like that.

 

[immortalfrieza]

To have a child under the OP's proposed scenario is not only one of the most immoral things to do, it's also one of the most stupid. If you already know in advance that your child is all likelihood going to be endlessly stressful money sink that you're going to have to support their entire lives, not to mention they are going to be unable to contribute to society in any real manner, what else could you be called but an idiot?

Then there's the moral concerns. If someone is willing to have children despite knowing that they most likely are going to suffer not only the ridicule involved with being disabled but the hardship and misery that being disabled creates, it would be VERY abusive of that parent to have a child.

 

[Jay Knowles]

the simple option would be to adopt a child if you're that enthusiastic about children, that way everybody wins.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I don't know if I'd say immoral, but definitely that it's irresponsible as all fuck. You'd likely be dooming yourself and your child to a life filled with hardship and stress. I don't know if a life of hardship and stress is better than no life at all from the perspective of the kid, that all depends on how good they are at coping, and if you accept that in having a kid, you may have to watch them struggle through life and slowly die, then it's really on you to decide if that's worth it. Personally I'd say if you're willing to put up with that to have a child, it would be much easier to put aside the sense of vanity that comes with making a child with your own genetics and just adopt one.

 

[The_Echo]

I think...

I wouldn't make that decision alone. It would be a joint decision between myself and whomever I planned on potentially having a child with.

If it were 100% up to me, I would go childless. I really don't need the burden that a handicapped child brings, and I certainly wouldn't want to effectively condemn my kid to that life.

 

[Hero of Lime]

It's hard to say personally, giving a child an even tougher life is pretty unfair, yet there is the chance that the child will turn out just fine too, albeit a smaller chance than most children. I don't think it's morally wrong, yet if I were in the position, I would definitely adopt a child or two. I do want children, I would prefer to have children that are blood related, but in this scenario, adoption would be the ideal choice.