No Stupid Questions

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.

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.

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.

It's never wrong to avoid having children for any reason.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

If it's a disability you can diagnose prior to birth, no.

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'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.

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

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".

You are showing empathy and that is a good thing. Not wrong.

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.

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.

I don't know why I'd want to set up a person to live like that.

No, its the moral thing to do.

To be honest I think having children when you have a family history of disability is the most selfish thing a human can do.

Of course not.

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.

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 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'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.

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

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?

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?

No.