No. It would be harsh, cruel and sick to put any human being through that. There's not much more to say; I would not put any person, child or adult, through 40 or so years of extreme care and mental disability.
A Question of Morality
- Thread starter TallanKhan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Knowing a tiny bit more than basic genetics I can't help but thinking that 80% chance of something being transmitted from the father might end up as a disease in the kid sounds unlikely. Firstly because if it has no effect on the person with the original gene then it sounds like a case of maternal imprinting mixed with meiotic drift. Both these are rare on their own... however that's not the thing we're discussing...
On topic now. Would it be amoral? I honestly don't know. Genetics is a tricky field and some of the things are mysterious. There's variation in how much a single gene will influence things. Even if we knew all the genes in someone's body, we knew the effects of all of them, knew the transcription factors of all of them there are still things we would be unable to predict. When we get these numbers it's usually a lot behind them that we don't understand. Should we base our decisions on something we don't understand? Should we condemn someone for making decisions based on a topic they don't know enough about to make a weighted decision?
I know my decision, because I have already made it. I have plenty of genes that I don't want to pass on to my children, but I can't really say I would condemn someone for being selfish enough to bet on things working out despite the odds. It's not a choice I would support, but it's their choice to make. Not ours.
On topic now. Would it be amoral? I honestly don't know. Genetics is a tricky field and some of the things are mysterious. There's variation in how much a single gene will influence things. Even if we knew all the genes in someone's body, we knew the effects of all of them, knew the transcription factors of all of them there are still things we would be unable to predict. When we get these numbers it's usually a lot behind them that we don't understand. Should we base our decisions on something we don't understand? Should we condemn someone for making decisions based on a topic they don't know enough about to make a weighted decision?
I know my decision, because I have already made it. I have plenty of genes that I don't want to pass on to my children, but I can't really say I would condemn someone for being selfish enough to bet on things working out despite the odds. It's not a choice I would support, but it's their choice to make. Not ours.
80% chance of crippling retardation is something I would most certainly not risk. My unwillingness to provide 24/7 care for such a child aside, taking such a risk would be incredibly unfair towards that child. Willingly inflicting severe retardation like OP describes is in essence an extremely cruel form of punishment, which a newly born child doesn't at that point deserve.
Not sure.
Now, I'd certainly not do it, and I've got minor things I'd not want to pass along (though, it's not uncommon to not want kids until you're older anyway), but to say it is wrong for anyone to do so...that's a big claim to make.
Now, I'd certainly not do it, and I've got minor things I'd not want to pass along (though, it's not uncommon to not want kids until you're older anyway), but to say it is wrong for anyone to do so...that's a big claim to make.
While i certainly think if someone had this scenario there should really think deep if they want the responsibility rather thinking about morality. To me I feel it's not very immoral because your still giving these people a chance at life, no matter how short it is.
I see a lot of people here bringing up stuff like: As long as you can care for it and love it. It's not immoral.
Seems to me these people are missing the point.
The point is that this child would SUFFER. As in, every waking moment would be in agony. Combined with further mental trauma due to the fact that this child cannot interact with other humans in a meaningful way, and (if the mental impairment isn't severe enough) will realize it will never have a girlfriend/boyfriend or play with other children, ON TOP of the despair in knowing that it will continue suffering like this until it dies a premature death.
I'm sorry, this is just immoral. You're bringing a life that's in constant agony into this world. That you "love the child" or can "care for the child" is completely irrelevant. In fact, it's an extremely small comfort to the horror that this child's everyday life will be. That's why it's immoral. Because of all the pain. Better not have a child at all if the risk is so high. It would be incredibly irresponsible, and even cruel to bring such a life to the world.
Instead, go adopt a child. There are thousands of orphans out there who're already in great discomfort who'd die for a loving family.
Seems to me these people are missing the point.
The point is that this child would SUFFER. As in, every waking moment would be in agony. Combined with further mental trauma due to the fact that this child cannot interact with other humans in a meaningful way, and (if the mental impairment isn't severe enough) will realize it will never have a girlfriend/boyfriend or play with other children, ON TOP of the despair in knowing that it will continue suffering like this until it dies a premature death.
I'm sorry, this is just immoral. You're bringing a life that's in constant agony into this world. That you "love the child" or can "care for the child" is completely irrelevant. In fact, it's an extremely small comfort to the horror that this child's everyday life will be. That's why it's immoral. Because of all the pain. Better not have a child at all if the risk is so high. It would be incredibly irresponsible, and even cruel to bring such a life to the world.
Instead, go adopt a child. There are thousands of orphans out there who're already in great discomfort who'd die for a loving family.
Having a child of any kind is immoral and selfish. Your genes aren't special. If they were really capable of creating someone special, you would be special. But you aren't. Breeding doesn't alleviate your failures. Instead of trying to pass on the responsibility of contributing something to the world to your child, maybe you should get off your rear and actually accomplish something worthwhile yourself if you're believe your genes are so incredible.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
The above statement isn't entirely directed at OP, but at anyone considering having kids. Quit treating your reproductive organs like your at a slot machine in vegas. We have over 7 billion people on this planet already. Most of them contribute little beyond their own requirements if even that. Your crotch isn't likely to actually pay out this next time to make up for the billions we have already invested in human life on this earth. Quit trying to cover up ego and selfishness with thinly veiled attempts at "moral" arguments. There's nothing moral about our species breeding to death and taking most of the life on this planet with us to satisfy our own vanity.
I wouldn't have children, personally.
Hats off to those who do find the strength to deal with severely disabled children but I couldn't do it. I even struggle with my autistic nephew.
I wouldn't say it's immoral because I've chosen not to have children as I couldn't give them the best life possible, rather than aborting a child I already made on discovering it would be disabled.
You may argue I could put them up for adoption but how will I know they are happy? They could just be living as an empty shell.
I'd rather have a hysterectomy and adopt a child, at least I'm giving another child a chance of happiness.
Hats off to those who do find the strength to deal with severely disabled children but I couldn't do it. I even struggle with my autistic nephew.
I wouldn't say it's immoral because I've chosen not to have children as I couldn't give them the best life possible, rather than aborting a child I already made on discovering it would be disabled.
You may argue I could put them up for adoption but how will I know they are happy? They could just be living as an empty shell.
I'd rather have a hysterectomy and adopt a child, at least I'm giving another child a chance of happiness.
The fundamental difference between your hypothetical and the OP's is that, in yours, you are crippling a life that is already in full health. Which is undeniably immoral.runic knight said:
One thing that I think is being neglected is, "Would the child, if handicapped, be happy?" This factors in the adult's monetary and emotional capacity to care for a child.
Individuals with handicaps are still quite capable of being happy with their lives.
Adoption certainly is an option. But just because there is a alternative option available doesn't inherently make a certain option immoral. Just like stabbing someone is still bad, even if you didn't shoot them.
As a result, I'd be inclined to argue that, if sufficient resources were available to care for the child, the action is not immoral.
Wow, no way would I do that, vasectomy ho!
Firstly, it would be annoying.
Second, I think it is immoral. I'm thinking it is kinda like having sex with aids and not telling the other person. You are passing something on to the recipient who is unable to do anything about it. Kind of a different situation, but it just feels wrong to me and that is the best I could think of. You are crippling someone purposefully.
Firstly, it would be annoying.
Second, I think it is immoral. I'm thinking it is kinda like having sex with aids and not telling the other person. You are passing something on to the recipient who is unable to do anything about it. Kind of a different situation, but it just feels wrong to me and that is the best I could think of. You are crippling someone purposefully.
I have no desire for children (so my lesbianism works out well for me). Even if I did, I'd adopt. I have no particular fondness for "my genetic lineage" or whatever. And my brother just had his first child, so that's pretty covered from a family perspective anyway. Better to give a home to a child who already needs one than to bring one into the world knowing it will suffer.
Really?Aramis Night said:
I'm just going to take a poke at this, since anything more will likely devolve into a douchebag contest (Which I'm sure I wont win).
First, social responsibility ('fair share of the load') is a slippery slop. Especially when you start slinging it this close to genetics. So I'm not going to say much on it, beyond the fact that it's not really as important as you seem to think it is. Economic and social factors are far more important then genetics (Short of horrendous genetic flaws, as discussed in this thread).
Second, perhaps you shouldn't be assuming everyone here is a pathetic waste of DNA. I mean, I am (My medical history is a catastrophe), but assuming by default that everyone here is a waste of space and resources is a bit mean spiriterd an misplaced.
As for 'breeding to death,' I think its safe to say that most people on this forums are in a country that's either already in, or close, to negative birth rate. The US and most European countries (And Australia, I believe) populations continue to grow primarily due immigration from other countries. So, really, your message is completely misplaced. We've gotten our breeding problem primarily under control. Hell, the US alone can probably stand to double it's population without to much continued strain to its agricultural or housing capacity (Hell, it could probably help the domestic economy), though we may have some power and transport issues (Which would not be good at all).
The population problem is real, but here's the thing: It's not a problem any of us can fix by cutting our genitalia off. There's exactly one way to fix it - Increase standard of living. There's a strong correlation to technological advancement and increased stand of living, versus population growth.
So, really, if your so concerned about the issue you feel the need to spew bile on everyone here, than maybe YOU should get up and accomplish something by going to a third world country and bringing them up to speed. It's certainly more helpful than taking a piss on a theoretical, essentially impossible morality question.
If you knew about all this before having children, you should be on your own financially. No NHS support, no anything. In my view, you should not be able to *choose* to knowingly dump a burden on the wallets of every single taxpayer. You should only be able to choose to dump one on yourself.
You'd also be selfish as hell for not adopting instead. Giving a child who has a chance at a normal life a better start than (up to) 18 years of state orphanages would be far more ethical than "Having a child of my own blood no matter what state it has to live in!"
If you didn't know, then you should get all the standard support from your society. Simple as that.
You'd also be selfish as hell for not adopting instead. Giving a child who has a chance at a normal life a better start than (up to) 18 years of state orphanages would be far more ethical than "Having a child of my own blood no matter what state it has to live in!"
If you didn't know, then you should get all the standard support from your society. Simple as that.
I did not call for anyone's deaths. I did not call for anyone's junk to be removed. I just called for a little rational decision making when the question of breeding comes up. Why do we have to fill the planet to capacity with our race? It's not like we will lose our mastery of earth just because we didn't fill it up with more of us. Sure we could create another 7 billion more of us, but why? Why do we want to push all the earths available resources to the absolute limit? Eventually we will reach a tipping point and this notion of breeding as a right, will have to be addressed since it is obvious that we can't be trusted with it. We just have so little restraint on the matter.AccursedTheory said:
Standards of living have gone up. So has the earths population. We still have people alive and running around from back when we had half as many people on the planet as we do now. We have doubled in number in the span of a single lifetime. That doesn't sound like a slowdown to me. It doesn't strike me as remotely under control.
It would most certainly be immoral. You can argue a thousand ways to Tuesday and back about how it isn't, but until you can ask your child, BEFORE they are conceived, if they want to be born or not, it is entirely immoral to bring them into this world in such a state. One thing many people choose to ignore in situations like this is that there are in fact some people who, with the course of their life laid out before them, would simply choose not to live. Granted that wouldn't be the same as suicide because the person in question wouldn't be alive yet. As I'm sure many have guessed, this is an impossible question to ask given the nature of how life is conceived. That in turn means that there is no possible way knowingly forcing crippling birth defects on some poor individual is moral.
If you're in a situation as outlined by the OP, a moral course of action would be to adopt one of the millions of already homeless and miserable children already available. Raising a child should be about improving this world, not fulfilling some religious or personal imperative to flex your genetic and biological muscle.
If you're in a situation as outlined by the OP, a moral course of action would be to adopt one of the millions of already homeless and miserable children already available. Raising a child should be about improving this world, not fulfilling some religious or personal imperative to flex your genetic and biological muscle.
On the one hand, I want to say it's immoral, and I can't understand why you would have a kid who has death hovering over them the whole time. Just adopt. But what would a child in that situation say? That they wished they'd never existed at all, or that they're glad for the life they got to experience? People talk about wishing they were never born, but that's a monumental statement, far bigger than death. Desiring the total non existence of a human being is a thought I can barely fathom, and I'm not sure I would wish it on even the most evil men. I have a feeling the answer would vary. We're all dying all the time, so I'm not sure saying not existing is better than not living long is entirely true. After all, is a dogs life less valid just because it doesn't live as long as us? I'm not trying to compare an impaired person to an animal, but you get my point.AccursedTheory said:
A few nifty facts that a basic google search has.Aramis Night said:
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 1950s - 36
Birth rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2007 - 20.09
Birth Rate, globally, per 1000 pop., in 2012 - 19.15
Our peak reproduction levels are already way past us, and the effect on economic standards reducing birth rates has been known since at least 1962 (The earliest article I could find on it was written by Robert Weintraub on October 1962. I didn't look further then the first 5 results I got on google).
Granted, these aren't the only factors. Certainly women's liberation and the wide spread acceptance of family planning is also to 'blame.' But these things are also linked, quite closely, to technological and economic gain.
Also, I don't recall insinuating that you wanted to kill people, and the chopping of people's junk wasn't meant to be taken literally.
EDIT: And how, exactly, are you going to moderate people's rights to have children? There's really only two ways to do so - Financially and through social engineering. Neither of those are very popular.
China did financial, and it's affects are, to say the least, contestable. The Chinese claim it helped a ton. Researchers just muse on the gap between male and female births. Numerous countries have tried outright social engineering, and it worked. It worked so well, in fact, that they're now back peddling in an attempt to get people to pop kids out again.
It seems the only programs that have worked without dire consequences are the ones most 'Western' countries have adopted - Contraceptive education and family planning.
Double Post are for Losers:
Yah, that's what makes me wonder. By denying a flawed life from every existing, are you in effect murdering that person on some level?Fox12 said:
Logically speaking, no. But emotionally speaking, its just messy.