74
Is it wrong to not have a disabled child solely to avoid forcing the child to suffer their whole life?
(self.nostupidquestions)
No.
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
74 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36316 readers
847 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
It's never wrong to avoid having children for any reason.
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.
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.
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.
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, its the moral thing to do.
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.
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.
Their wording is fine, you have some internal biases to iron out.
Which in your opinion are?
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.
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.)
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.
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
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 teerrible 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 seperate 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, euthenasia, 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.
That is a hell of a moral question that I don't think I or anybody else can answer for another individual.
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
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.
Of course not.
This is a little bit of a stupid question.
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.
It is a person choice.... "People" can get fuxked unless you are going to provide generous social safety net for a person to have ability to take care of such a child.
Most working pedons can barely afford to wipe their own ass under this clown regime.
Forcing yourself into poverty to satisfy some idiots feels is a fool's arrand.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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 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