Reproductive Rights vs Future Child Rights

[knownothing]

I noticed that there was already a topic on eugenics, but it seemed to focus on the negative effect that unregulated birthing has on the human species. This topic will focus on the negative effect that unregulated birthing has on the individual.

 

Let us assume that a couple is considering having a child. There is a considerable chance that the child will inherit a disease that will cause him or her significant pain over the course of his or her life. Let us say that one of the parents has the disease. Despite great suffering, the parent is glad to be alive and feels that life is worth living.

 

Is it ethical to take this chance? It is realistic to say that there is a chance that the child will regret being born. Discounting this chance is indicative of optimism bias. The same can be said anytime a child is born, but let's just stick with this one example for now.

 

If the parents give birth to the child anyway, it will show that they ultimately care more about having a child than they do about the child itself. The child does not exist, so it cannot be said that it will suffer from not being born.

 

This is my position: The reproduction rights of a woman and a man (if it can be said that a man is given any) should never be in violation of the rights of the prospective human. If there is a chance of a low quality of life, it is wrong to assume that the child would be consenting. In our legal system, infants cannot sign contracts, and if they could it is doubtful that they would understand what all those words meant. I admit that the point at which a life becomes worth having is arbitrary, so I will simply say that it is not right to assume that a child will be satisfied with a sub-par quality of life. For the moment let us assume that the average life is generally good to have. Base opportunity is the objective thing here.

 

As long as a child is in its mother's womb, it has no rights because it has no wants or desires. The only rights that a fetus has are the result of personification. I believe that some liberals go too far with these reproductive rights and assume that it gives a woman a license to inflict misery on another human being by giving it a heritable disease. A new baby can feel pain and it can feel wants and desires. When before it was nothing, now it lives in a world where it knows what it wants but cannot have it. It lives in a world where it prefers not to feel pain (as opposed to having no preferance) but cannot always avoid it.

 

This form of eugenics does not denote contempt for certain biological traits but sympathy for future humans. What do you guys think?

Edited May 28, 2013 by knownothing

[Ringer]

There are a few ways to go about this, which have been discussed many times before. I'll sum up the more novel arguments I remember for women's reproductive rights:

An embryo is basically a parasitic organism, the host should have the choice to remain the host or not

The possible to women from birth and pregnancy is enough, if done by another person, that it would be acceptable to use lethal force

And all the definition of life arguments that we've heard before.

 

The arguments against, that I have heard, can all be summed up as some ethical teachings say it's wrong so it's wrong.

[knownothing]

I think you might be confused. This is not about abortion. It is about choosing to conceive and then not abort a child that will likely be afflicted with a serious condition.

 

I am not talking about the woman's right to have an abortion. I am talking about the woman's right to give birth. I am saying that there is a point at which the woman's rights interfere with the future human's rights. The point at which it stops being ethical is when you are causing serious pain without getting the consent of the person. Since a fetus cannot experience loss, deprivation or pain then it is not unethical to kill a fetus. My belief is that she is not depriving them of their rights by aborting them, but by allowing them to be born with a serious condition.

 

I think you will understand if you read closely again. I do not think that a fetus has any rights, only a future human (which is only an idea at the time of being a fetus). The parasitic nature of a fetus does not mean that the mother is justified in bringing it to life with a serious disease. Since the mother willingly takes on the pregnancy and all of its downsides, and since the fetus non-willingly is brought to life, you should give more of your thought to the future humans best interest and less to the mother's. To kill the fetus is a neutral action toward the future person because he does not yet exist, but to allow him to be born could be very wreckless.

Edited May 29, 2013 by knownothing

[jp255]

Thanks for this topic. It got me thinking about things I havn't considered before.

 

Similar to the other discussion that we had about ending the universe. I will make arguments from the view point of society and draw comparisons to try and argue that the infliction of a genetic disease should be considered negligence in certain circumstances by Society.

 

Briefly, it seems that society bases it's laws/ethics on what is ethical/acceptable enough, and not what is truly ethical/acceptable. For example, society finds the use of cars acceptable, despite the known risk and knowledge that accidents will happen and lives will be lost. Whilst this isn't truly ethical/acceptable, it is acceptable enough to Society provided a certain level of caution and safety is implemented/enforced. A driver that decides to text whilst driving is considered to be negligent and will be punished if caught because the increased risk he/she is subjecting to other civilians and himself is not acceptable to Society. This is considered reasonable, and I agree with that.

 

I will modify your scenario slightly, but the theme will be the same. A couple, who already have a child with Cystic Fibrosis, decide they want another child. They are affluent, and they decide to have a natural pregnancy (no interventions). She gets pregnant.

 

I argue that this couple should be tried for negligence in a similar manner to the driver deciding to text. CF can be prevented by using PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis), i searched google and found a clinic in the uk that does PGD for CF (don't think I am allowed to post link lol). So the risk of a couple both carrying faulty CF alleles having a child with CF can be reduced to ~0%, if you have the means to pay isn't it reasonable to use PGD to prevent the harm caused by CF?

 

Currently, a driver caught texting is fined regardless of whether anyone is directly harmed or not in that instance. The fine is for the increased risk of an accident that the driver has decided to impose on himself and other civilians. If the driver had an accident and was seen texting before the accident then the charges might be very bad. As far as I am aware, it is acceptable for a couple to knowingly subject their furture child to the risk of CF despite the existence of preventative measures (PGD) and it is not punishable by law.

 

Imo, the two scenarios are very similar, with the major difference being the harm occurs much later in the CF pregnancy scenario. I think there isn't really a good reason why society considers the driver texting scenario as unacceptable, but the couple deciding to have another child knowing they both carry CF as acceptable. Harm caused to a future human being future is still harm caused to a human, its just later.

 

In both instances, the driver and couple are aware that they can cause harm by their actions, neither the driver or couple want to intentionally cause harm, and the driver and couple are deciding to subject other individuals to an increased risk of harm.

 

I don't want to get into the rights of a human being before it exists, but the risk of certain genetic disease transmission is no longer out of our control, we have the technology and knowledge to prevent the causation of genetic disease related harm. I think it is reasonable to give human beings before they exist the imposed right of having a genetic disease free genetic make-up (for diseases which can be prevented) because I believe that most people would want to be born genetic disease free if they had the choice.

 

I want to see the law changed with respect to furutre child wellbeing rights, especially as PGD becomes more accessible to lower income couples and advances to prevent other gentic diseases. My secular ethics disagrees with what society views as acceptable in situations like these, and I don't like it.

 

Thoughts?

Edited May 30, 2013 by jp255

[EdEarl]

I believe it is not right to bring children into this world who are guaranteed to suffer.

 

I believe in individual rights, and people have the right to procreate.

 

I believe evolution created a need in people to procreate that can make people do crazy things.

 

Thus, this discussion will have little or no affect on the way people exercise their right to procreate.

 

A law to put people in prison for having such a child would be insane, because the parents would escape the responsibility of rearing that child and the government would be responsible.

 

Evolution works as beings do things that are both good and bad for themselves. In other words, even if we try to save the weak, stupidity is sometimes fatal, and the strong tend to survive.

[jp255]

I didn't think this discussion would be effective, and trigger the adoption of laws against what I described.

 

I'm not sure what the punishment should be for the two different severities (scnario of couple having normal child, scenario of affected child). Though I think it is reasonable that in such a scenario the parents should bear the full cost of treating/managing the condition they caused. This actually mkes me wonder if it is cost effective to use PGD to prevent the disease rather than treat/manage it, maybe the government should consider paying for PGD?

 

I somewhat disagree with you about the right to procreate (in some circumstances). I acknowledge that many people want to have children, but I think their desires should be compared to the future human being's life and wellbeing. In the scenario of the couple, they already have a CF child and therefore know they are carriers. I consider it unethical for them to carry on trying to procreate naturally because they would be subjecting a future human being to the unneccessary risk of CF, why is their desire for a child worth more than that child's wellbeing? I suppose I'd want to restrict the right to procreate.

[EdEarl]

I didn't think this discussion would be effective, and trigger the adoption of laws against what I described.

 

I'm not sure what the punishment should be for the two different severities (scnario of couple having normal child, scenario of affected child). Though I think it is reasonable that in such a scenario the parents should bear the full cost of treating/managing the condition they caused. This actually mkes me wonder if it is cost effective to use PGD to prevent the disease rather than treat/manage it, maybe the government should consider paying for PGD?

 

I somewhat disagree with you about the right to procreate (in some circumstances). I acknowledge that many people want to have children, but I think their desires should be compared to the future human being's life and wellbeing. In the scenario of the couple, they already have a CF child and therefore know they are carriers. I consider it unethical for them to carry on trying to procreate naturally because they would be subjecting a future human being to the unneccessary risk of CF, why is their desire for a child worth more than that child's wellbeing? I suppose I'd want to restrict the right to procreate.

Alcoholism runs in my family, and I did not have children because of the possibility of them being alcoholic. I sympathize with you, except that I believe legally denying human rights is a dangerous president that may lead to worse things, for example the Holocaust.

[iNow]

I believe legally denying human rights is a dangerous president that may lead to worse things

 

It's not exactly a great precedent, either.

[knownothing]

Alcoholism runs in my family, and I did not have children because of the possibility of them being alcoholic. I sympathize with you, except that I believe legally denying human rights is a dangerous president that may lead to worse things, for example the Holocaust.

 

I think that it is one of those scenarios where the rights of one person are incompatible with the rights of another. All of us are only free to the extent that it does not significantly infringe on someone else. I am restricted when it comes to running naked through the streets, and let's not use a euphemism. I am being legally denied a right to run naked.

 

This is the problem with "rights." We all have the right to do anything before we take other people into consideration. I think that procreation should not be considered a "right" because it involves making a very important decision for some one else. It is nice to call life a gift, but we can all honestly agree that it is an imposition. I think that the mother should be extra careful to know that her child will not be suffering excessively (I think that life by itself is rarely worth living but I'm seeing how much I could get you all to agree with me in a less severe case).

 

As far as passing laws, I think that it should be something that the liberals make part of their agenda. In their fervor to normalize abortion, they have (correctly, I think) concluded that there is no real loss for a fetus when it dies. What they have failed to consider is what the child might experience if a woman chooses not to abort it. I think that the idea of a future human should have many rights that a fetus does not have.

 

Of course, I'm not going to go out and become an activist. I'm more an armchair complainer kind of guy.

Edited May 30, 2013 by knownothing

[EdEarl]

That kind of thing would probably get a lot of people calling you unpleasant names, and IMO politicians would run away from the issue.

[knownothing]

I know that it is vaguely Nazi-ish. I think that people have a gut reaction when you talk about certain traits that are undesirable. I would like for people to come to think of a future human as having rights by themselves, though. I am against any kind of action that would completely take the choice away (although it is likely that it would become very regulated once society at large came to hold the belief).

 

I think that any kind of eugenics falls right around non-terminal suicide rights in terms of making politicians run away.

Edited May 30, 2013 by knownothing

[jp255]

Alcoholism runs in my family, and I did not have children because of the possibility of them being alcoholic. I sympathize with you, except that I believe legally denying human rights is a dangerous president that may lead to worse things, for example the Holocaust.

So does it also disturb you that very unpleasant diseases like Huntington's disease still exist today? HD prevalence could almost be reduced to de Novo mutations only, if people placed more value in their child's wellbeing. I wonder if the families segregating those traits feel guilt for deciding to initiate the high risk biological coin flip that determines their childs wellbeing.

 

I believe legally denying human rights is a dangerous president that may lead to worse things

Whilst I myself agree with the adoption of laws on this topic that would deny certain people the choice to procreate, I have suggested the adoption of laws that wouldn't. I do think it is reasonable (and I think even society should agree) to describe the couple in my scenario as negligent, and I think it is reasonable to seek justice for that negligence. The justice could at the very least be paying for all of the medical bills (from birth the death) associated with the condition the couple have inflicted upon their child. That would at least offer the child some form of compensation for the entirety of his/her life.

 

I know that it is vaguely Nazi-ish

Depends what you are calling Nazi-ish. If you think my intervention is Nazi-ish, then surely you should think it is Nazi-ish to punish the negligent texting driver?

 

Why shouldn't the acceptable level of genetic disease risk be brought down to what is possible nowadays? Why not make more use of the scientific technology and knowledge we have today? Seems like we are still living in the past, back when one couldn't easily manipulate inheritance patterns.

 

Maybe it is simply to early to be suggesting such intervention, these things take time? Maybe it took a while for phone usage whilst driving to be forbidden?

 

I believe it is too early for there to be court cases of this kind. However, I predict there will be some in the future (when the children of today are adults).

Edited May 31, 2013 by jp255

[EdEarl]

So does it also disturb you that very unpleasant diseases like Huntington's disease still exist today? HD prevalence could almost be reduced to de Novo mutations only, if people placed more value in their child's wellbeing. I wonder if the families segregating those traits feel guilt for deciding to initiate the high risk biological coin flip that determines their childs wellbeing.

 

Whilst I myself agree with the adoption of laws on this topic that would deny certain people the choice to procreate, I have suggested the adoption of laws that wouldn't. I do think it is reasonable (and I think even society should agree) to describe the couple in my scenario as negligent, and I think it is reasonable to seek justice for that negligence. The justice could at the very least be paying for all of the medical bills (from birth the death) associated with the condition the couple have inflicted upon their child. That would at least offer the child some form of compensation for the entirety of his/her life.

 

Depends what you are calling Nazi-ish. If you think my intervention is Nazi-ish, then surely you should think it is Nazi-ish to punish the negligent texting driver?

 

Why shouldn't the acceptable level of genetic disease risk be brought down to what is possible nowadays? Why not make more use of the scientific technology and knowledge we have today? Seems like we are still living in the past, back when one couldn't easily manipulate inheritance patterns.

 

Maybe it is simply to early to be suggesting such intervention, these things take time? Maybe it took a while for phone usage whilst driving to be forbidden?

 

I believe it is too early for there to be court cases of this kind. However, I predict there will be some in the future (when the children of today are adults).

Of course I am concerned about children born with horrible genetic diseases, but until recently parents did not know they were carriers and could not be held responsible. Thru the miracle of modern science, parents can know they are carriers. This knowledge is powerful and creates a dilemma for society.

 

However, scientists continue research, and my hope is that cures for genetic diseases will be found. If (when) this occurs, the laws you propose would become obsolete. Thus, I believe we should wait for science to help. And, if science comes through, these genetic diseases will be eradicated.

[jp255]

Of course I am concerned about children born with horrible genetic diseases, but until recently parents did not know they were carriers and could not be held responsible. Thru the miracle of modern science, parents can know they are carriers. This knowledge is powerful and creates a dilemma for society.

 

However, scientists continue research, and my hope is that cures for genetic diseases will be found. If (when) this occurs, the laws you propose would become obsolete. Thus, I believe we should wait for science to help. And, if science comes through, these genetic diseases will be eradicated.

You do raise a good point. Science can progress to find a cure in the future, but that doesn't help us now.

 

We have a dilemma now, because we have the ability to reduce the risk of transmission yet it is still considered acceptable to subject future children to these risks. Imo, even if the laws I propose go obsolete it is better to brdge the gap and prevent harm rather than do nothing and leave people to consider these risks as acceptable. It just doesn't make sense to ignore the techology we have today, the law I propose would promote its use somewhat.

 

You say "recently", but genetic counselling has been around for many years.

[EdEarl]

You say "recently", but genetic counselling has been around for many years.

The human race has been here over 100,000 years, genetic counseling is recent. Moreover, genetic diversity has existed for billions of years, and we are the product of the entire history of life on Earth. Genetic counseling is very very recent. You must be very young to make such an urgent plea. IMO science improvements will be faster than any effort people might make to enact laws, because you will find much opposition to your proposal. I would actively oppose you, and have not in 68 years been an activist before. IMO your proposal is exceptionally bad.

 

I know your proposal seems to be good. But, so does a butterfly floating in the air on the coast of Africa. But, a waft of air from a butterfly wing might result in a hurricane that destroys New Orleans, and your proposal might result in worldwide suffering.

 

“PATIENCE YOU MUST HAVE my young padawan”... Yoda

[jp255]

I would like to see the adoption of such laws, and I would support a court case in which an individual seeks to sue his/her parents for the suboptimal lifestyle they caused. I don't expect tlaws such as these to be implemented any time soon, and maybe my prediction won't even come true. Ultimately, this is just my opinion on this subject area, and I believe it is more reasonable than the current laws.

 

Much of your post was rubbish because it lacked explanation. My point was that the age of genetic counselling is irrelevant, and so is the 100,000 years of which you speak. Genetic counselling is around today and is used quite frequently. Awareness of genetics is also now at a level to make decision with regards to the laws surrounding this issue, it is irrelevant if it wasn't 200 years ago.

 

You say you are to actively oppose me. Why? is it because you don't think it is worth enacting the laws I propose? or do you disagree with my reasoning?

 

I know your proposal seems to be good. But, so does a butterfly floating in the air on the coast of Africa. But, a waft of air from a butterfly wing might result in a hurricane that destroys New Orleans, and your proposal might result in worldwide suffering.

What is the point of this? Such an argument could equally be applied to any and every action. Perhaps you can elaborate further on your claim that my proposal would result in worldwide suffering.

[EdEarl]

I would like to see the adoption of such laws, and I would support a court case in which an individual seeks to sue his/her parents for the suboptimal lifestyle they caused. I don't expect tlaws such as these to be implemented any time soon, and maybe my prediction won't even come true. Ultimately, this is just my opinion on this subject area, and I believe it is more reasonable than the current laws.

 

Much of your post was rubbish because it lacked explanation. My point was that the age of genetic counselling is irrelevant, and so is the 100,000 years of which you speak. Genetic counselling is around today and is used quite frequently. Awareness of genetics is also now at a level to make decision with regards to the laws surrounding this issue, it is irrelevant if it wasn't 200 years ago.

 

You say you are to actively oppose me. Why? is it because you don't think it is worth enacting the laws I propose? or do you disagree with my reasoning?

 

What is the point of this? Such an argument could equally be applied to any and every action. Perhaps you can elaborate further on your claim that my proposal would result in worldwide suffering.

Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences

and the See also sections of those pages.

 

I think your idea is dangerous, because of unintended consequences. Your reasoning is short sighted because it is impossible to predict consequences.

 

I know the immediate effects of your idea are good. I do not question your motives, you want to be kind and prevent suffering. I believe that such laws will ultimately cause more grief than anyone can imagine.

 

Even some necessary laws, such as abolition of slavery in the US that caused the civil war and 600,000 deaths, can have very bad untended consequences.

Edited May 31, 2013 by EdEarl

[knownothing]

Depends what you are calling Nazi-ish.

 

I am just referring to how myopic people cannot ever get past Hitler. It is a mental block for a lot of people and will forever prevent them from considering the positive aspects of eugenics. I myself do not consider this to be "Nazi-ish" at all. Nazism was about fascism and scapegoating (among other things). The Nazis were also often about animal rights and environmentalism but nobody ever brings out the Godwin stuff when you want to save a rain forest.

 

Of course I am concerned about children born with horrible genetic diseases, but until recently parents did not know they were carriers and could not be held responsible. Thru the miracle of modern science, parents can know they are carriers. This knowledge is powerful and creates a dilemma for society.

However, scientists continue research, and my hope is that cures for genetic diseases will be found. If (when) this occurs, the laws you propose would become obsolete. Thus, I believe we should wait for science to help. And, if science comes through, these genetic diseases will be eradicated.

 

I think that the easiest way to do this is not to have children, but since that is not plausible, I like your idea for a disease-free human race. I am not sure if it is possible to implement such things, though. The whole world is not industrialized yet, and it would likely be expensive to do this for every child. It would be far cheaper and more plausible to just prevent severely unfit parents from having offspring. Unfortunately, that leaves a bad taste in most people's mouths (including mine). Even your suggestion would still set off a lot of "isn't this Gattaca?" alarms in people's heads.

 

I think the main issue is that society has this foolish optimism that says any problem is trivial and can be overcome. They will point to some example of a crippled person leading a fulfilling life, and then conclude that being crippled is actually no big deal. I know that I would not want to be crippled, and I know most people agree with me. It is not an insult to a disabled or diseased perosn to say that children have a right not to be born that way.

 

I would like to see the adoption of such laws, and I would support a court case in which an individual seeks to sue his/her parents for the suboptimal lifestyle they caused. I don't expect tlaws such as these to be implemented any time soon, and maybe my prediction won't even come true. Ultimately, this is just my opinion on this subject area, and I believe it is more reasonable than the current laws.

 

I don't think that we can blame parents for this. Our society as a whole does not accept responsibility for the generation that it gives birth to. Perhaps it should in many regards, but is unfair to start expecting people to take responsibility now after birth has been (erroneously, in my opinion) considered a gift for much of human history.

 

Even some necessary laws, such as abolition of slavery in the US that caused the civil war and 600,000 deaths, can have very bad untended consequences.

 

Other than the social discord, what do you suspect would be the negative long term consequences of regulating procreation? Let us say that society comes to regard a future human as having rights and so society willfully submits to regulated procreation. Would these problems still be an issue? As far as I can tell, the only issue would be the unlucky bastards who didn't vote for the politicians who passed the law, but that is the price of living in a representative democracy. Normally, I would be absolutely disgusted at the thought of regulated procreation, but it is not the same once you consider that you are allowing a man and a woman to make a major decision for someone else.

 

As I see it, it is a no-win situation. I believe that regulation is the less negative decision. Having children is not needed to live a happy life, and I suspect that much of our desire to do it in the first place is socially implanted. I say make the adoption process less of an ass pain and let people help someone who is suffering instead of bringing another human into suffering.

Edited May 31, 2013 by knownothing

[EdEarl]

No one can predict what unknown consequences will occur. You can put your hand in a black hole under some rocks in the desert and find nothing, a gold coin, be bitten by a rattlesnake, or something else.

Edited May 31, 2013 by EdEarl

[knownothing]

I think that, as your example shows, we should be more wary of the negative things in life. Our society is biased because it expects people to find the gold coin by default, and it very much downplays the possibility of a snake being in the hole. It is reckless for a person to give birth and expect their child to find the metaphorical gold coin and ignore the possibility of snakes. As I have said before, there is no problem that being born fixes for you. Birth is a gamble; you are taking your child from safe nonexistence and exposing him to the possibility of pain and pleasure (I know that nonexistence isn't a thing, but let's not be sophists about this). I think that it can be observed that pain greatly outweighs pleasure in our human lives, so it is naive to assume that your child will be happy.

 

Would you put your hand in a dark hole in the desert? I would not.

Edited May 31, 2013 by knownothing

[dumbbloke]

There's a saying, It takes all types to make a world. I believe it. We, as a society, need the good and the bad, the weak and the strong to have opportunity to choose good from evil, and be happy. Bethoven, they tell me, was born to a seriously ill mother, and if we followed your prescriptions, he would never have been born. I find your arguements inhumane, because you seek to destroy or prevent defenceless lives. Once concieved, a child has a right to be born, and live, however briefly. Further, that child has a right to be born to a married couple of opposite gender. Willful denial of that right is a serious matter. Not all suffering is bad for you, and it may be necessary to help you become what you were intended to be. Suffering is not pleasant for most of us, but it is bareable, and is a great teacher. Procreation licensing sounds a good idea-good luck with getting the necessary political support, and stopping youth "experimentation" for just one. A child is forever, ppl should know that, and discipline themselves accordingly, but too many prefer to have their cake and abort their "mistake" later. I call such murderers, and wish they would not. Traditional family structures exist to benefit the members of the family, and we undermine them at the peril of our whole society.

[knownothing]

We, as a society, need the good and the bad, the weak and the strong to have opportunity to choose good from evil, and be happy.

You are right to an extent. We do need untalented and unlucky people to exist because our society is a pyramid. Someone has to run the cash register, and there are not enough jobs for everyone to do what they went to college for. I don't see what it has to do with choosing good or evil, though.

 

Bethoven, they tell me, was born to a seriously ill mother, and if we followed your prescriptions, he would never have been born.

There are thousands of examples I could use to show how the world would have been spared a monster if someone had never been born. This is a bad argument.

 

Not all suffering is bad for you, and it may be necessary to help you become what you were intended to be. Suffering is not pleasant for most of us, but it is bareable, and is a great teacher.

Suffering is not inherently attached to anything. Sometimes negative things and positive things come in a package together, but they are not reliant on each other. It is good for us to never endure unnecessary suffering. Our lives should serve primarily to benefit us if we must live them.

 

Procreation licensing sounds a good idea-good luck with getting the necessary political support, and stopping youth "experimentation" for just one. A child is forever, ppl should know that, and discipline themselves accordingly, but too many prefer to have their cake and abort their "mistake" later. I call such murderers, and wish they would not. Traditional family structures exist to benefit the members of the family, and we undermine them at the peril of our whole society.

It might be helpful for you to know that you are not undoing any stereotypes about family values advocates when you can't type a coherent paragraph.

Edited June 3, 2013 by knownothing

[chris logan]

whatever happens to freedom of choice and do you believe suicide is wrong?

here is the connection - the unborn child dosn't have rights, feelings whatever... Your argument is that fetus should not be born because it may have a horrid life and feel pain. (correct me when I go wrong ) Dosn't everyone feel pain at some point in their life and don't we all have days when we feel horrid? True the person may not have a long life and true they may not be 100% happy or healthy, but who is. No one lives forever, no matter how healthy they are. Shouldn't a person have the choice to live their life? if their is a chance of happiness, shouldn't they be allowed to discover it? people with disabilities aren't less human than we are. A fetus can't make choices but a person can, they may end up living a wonderful life and loving themselves or they can curse the day that they were born and hope to end their life (but would THAT be right).

[knownothing]

whatever happens to freedom of choice and do you believe suicide is wrong?

The issue with calling it freedom of choice is that it is exactly the opposite of that. A baby has no choice to be born, so we should make an effort not to bring babies to life with horrible diseases. It is impossible for the baby to have freedom because it is only an idea at the time when the decision is made. Since something is going to be done without the consent of the possible human (that is, bring it into existence) there should be measures to make sure that it is not a decision the baby will come to regret.

 

As for suicide, I don't think it is objectionable; nobody ever signed a contract to live when they were born. I suppose you would have an obligation not to commit suicide if you became a parent, but other than that I believe in your right to self determination.

Dosn't everyone feel pain at some point in their life and don't we all have days when we feel horrid? True the person may not have a long life and true they may not be 100% happy or healthy, but who is. No one lives forever, no matter how healthy they are.

The purpose would be to eliminate unnecessary suffering. Most people will say that they are happy with their lives, but that is because they have settled. Someone who lives in chronic pain might say that he is happy with his life, but wouldn't it have been better if it could have been prevented?

 

Shouldn't a person have the choice to live their life? if their is a chance of happiness, shouldn't they be allowed to discover it?

Sure, a "person" should be able to choose, but I am not talking about people. I am talking about a future human, which is just a concept.

 

Ideas of future humans cannot make choices. The thing about a future human is that it cannot do anything. We do not take its current feelings into account, as it does not exist. It is only what would become of it if is does become conscious that should be relevant. You cannot deprive something that does not have a consciousness, but you can create a consciousness and it be in a world were it is deprived of the things it wants.

 

people with disabilities aren't less human than we are. A fetus can't make choices but a person can, they may end up living a wonderful life and loving themselves or they can curse the day that they were born and hope to end their life (but would THAT be right).

The point is that it is cruel to assume that a fetus will not regret being disabled when it is born. It went from nonexistence (no feelings whatsoever) immediately to a state of deprivation. It would not be "less than human" but it would have less potential and less opportunities.

Edited June 5, 2013 by knownothing

[dumbbloke]

You seem to assume that a foetus has no native intelligence with which to feel anything or think anything. Some people seem to think this state continues until birth, giving them license to destroy the unborn because they aren't yet human.... I would disagree, and I would not dare to say when this comes about, so I assume, as a precaution, that such capacities are present from conception-and I defy any to prove otherwise beyond doubt. I am not totally pro life, as there are occasions where termination is necessary, or perhaps permissable, but not as a default solution to a lack of self dicipline or it's incovenient. Like the death penalty, it should be available should the occasion warrant it. Hopefully, those occasions will be rare. It say nothing good about a society which does not protect the rights of the unborn. If you don't want the child, then don't create them in the first place. Retropectivity doesn't absolve murder.