Do you think it is morally right to have a disabled child?

Medusa22

Let me elaborate here. I'm talking about people who are aware that they carry a particular gene that causes disability or illness and they consider the risks and still decide to have children, or they already have one ill/disabled child and choose to risk having another?

I was thinking about this because of the cousins thread, and also because I have Cystic Fibrosis which is a genetic disease that is the most common genetically inherited disease in the world, and Ireland has the highest incidence of it in the world. One in 20 people in Ireland carry the gene for CF and if they reproduce with another person who carries the gene then there is a 1 in 4 chance of their child having CF, so every time a couple who is aware that they carry the gene has a child, that child has a 25% chance of CF.

So, if you knew that you carried a gene for an illness or a disease would you still choose to have a child, would you risk it? Would it depend on the disease and the severity or the percentage of risk? I mean you could say that when my parents had me, I had a 75% chance of not having CF, and I have an older sister who doesn't have it but carries the gene (you need 2 genes to actually have CF because it's recessive, but just one to carry it).

I think I'm conflicted on this one myself, I mean I hear about people who already have one child with CF and deciding to 'risk' it and have another, and part of me feels that it is their choice and if I had to choose I'd rather be alive with CF than not exist at all, but then again, they are knowingly taking a risk of inflicting a debilitating illness on their child and I don't know if I could do that either. I'm talking about genetic diseases in general though, not just CF, but that's just my own area of expertise so to speak.

corner of hells

Medusa22 wrote: »

Let me elaborate here. I'm talking about people who are aware that they carry a particular gene that causes disability or illness and they consider the risks and still decide to have children, or they already have one ill/disabled child and choose to risk having another?

I was thinking about this because of the cousins thread, and also because I have Cystic Fibrosis which is a genetic disease that is the most common genetically inherited disease in the world, and Ireland has the highest incidence of it in the world. One in 20 people in Ireland carry the gene for CF and if they reproduce with another person who carries the gene then there is a 1 in 4 chance of their child having CF, so every time a couple who is aware that they carry the gene has a child, that child has a 25% chance of CF.

So, if you knew that you carried a gene for an illness or a disease would you still choose to have a child, would you risk it? Would it depend on the disease and the severity or the percentage of risk? I mean you could say that when my parents had me, I had a 75% chance of not having CF, and I have an older sister who doesn't have it but carries the gene (you need 2 genes to actually have CF because it's recessive, but just one to carry it).

I think I'm conflicted on this one myself, I mean I hear about people who already have one child with CF and deciding to 'risk' it and have another, and part of me feels that it is their choice and if I had to choose I'd rather be alive with CF than not exist at all, but then again, they are knowingly taking a risk of inflicting a debilitating illness on their child and I don't know if I could do that either. I'm talking about genetic diseases in general though, not just CF, but that's just my own area of expertise so to speak.

I dunno, but let me tell you about a real love story. Huntington disease runs in my family , Google it if you never heard of it.

You have a 50% chance getting it if one of your parents has it , I think your mother has to be the parent.

Anyhow an aunt of mine died of it years ago after having a couple of kids , our family knew nothing about it because both my grandparents came from an orphanage.

One the kids my cousin met this lad who after time asked her to get get married , she had to explain our family history and the risk of her developing the disease.

She told him to think about his choices , he did for all of thirty seconds and told her he loved her despite the risks of her dying of a disease and the risks of any children developing the disease too.

They're married and live their lives day to day not worrying about what they can't control.

I probably didn't answer your questions very well , but life is for living and not dwelling on what may happen.

sullivlo

I think it's a tough one tbh. It brings up many moral and ethical questions. Possibly religious questions for others.

I don't think anyone would know what to do unless they were in that situation.

There's a strong genetic link for cancer in my family. Every generation has had BRCA1/2 positive cancer. I may get tested in the near future, however I'm not sure that it would stop me procreating should I be positive.

I think it would depend on the illness and the risk. And where do you draw the line at genetic screening? And are we looking at designer babies? And if we are, will we screen for embryos that are likely to have more positive characteristics? (That's a bit far fetched, but what level of "disability" would we screen for?)

Like I said, moral and ethical questions raised.

sullivlo

corner of hells wrote: »

I dunno, but let me tell you about a real love story. Huntington disease runs in my family , Google it if you never heard of it.

You have a 50% chance getting it if one of your parents has it , I think your mother has to be the parent.

Anyhow an aunt of mine died of it years ago after having a couple of kids , our family knew nothing about it because both my grandparents came from an orphanage.

One the kids my cousin met this lad who after time asked her to get get married , she had to explain our family history and the risk of her developing the disease.

She told him to think about his choices , he did for all of thirty seconds and told her he loved her despite the risks of her dying of a disease and the risks of any children developing the disease too.

They're married and live their lives day to day not worrying about what they can't control.

I probably didn't answer your questions very well , but life is for living and not dwelling on what may happen.

I studied Huntingtons. It's a real doozy.

topper75

If the child is not absolutely perfect, forget about it.

And when you are done, don't forget to click your boot heels when you are paying the good Dr. Mengele his fee.

Azalea

topper75 wrote: »

If the child is not absolutely perfect, forget about it.

And when you are done, don't forget to click your boot heels when you are paying the good Dr. Mengele his fee.

Big difference between being severely disabled and not being perfect (nobody's perfect anyway).

Medusa22

topper75 wrote: »

If the child is not absolutely perfect, forget about it.

And when you are done, don't forget to click your boot heels when you are paying the good Dr. Mengele his fee.

I am not talking about from a eugenics perspective or that a child with an illness is ''weaker'' or somehow unworthy, sure I have a genetic disease myself. I am thinking of the suffering of any potential children who are born with an illness that the parents were aware of in advance.

Zillah

corner of hells wrote: »

I dunno, but let me tell you about a real love story. Huntington disease runs in my family , Google it if you never heard of it.

You have a 50% chance getting it if one of your parents has it , I think your mother has to be the parent.

Anyhow an aunt of mine died of it years ago after having a couple of kids , our family knew nothing about it because both my grandparents came from an orphanage.

One the kids my cousin met this lad who after time asked her to get get married , she had to explain our family history and the risk of her developing the disease.

She told him to think about his choices , he did for all of thirty seconds and told her he loved her despite the risks of her dying of a disease and the risks of any children developing the disease too.

They're married and live their lives day to day not worrying about what they can't control.

I probably didn't answer your questions very well , but life is for living and not dwelling on what may happen.

There is a very simple genetic test for Huntingtons and I think it was an act of extraordinary stupidity and ignorance to barrel ahead without having it done, and an act of monumental evil to choose to have children if you know you have it.

Huntingtons guarantees an utterly nightmarish death and for someone to flip a coin to see if they condemn another person to it is pure reckless evil in my book. Your cousin is an irresponsible moron. You should tell her to get the test before she has children, she has absolutely no right to make that decision for anyone else.

Stranger Danger

Zillah wrote: »

Your cousin is an irresponsible moron. You should tell her to get the test before she has children, she has absolutely no right to make that decision for anyone else.

Except he never mentioned anything about her choosing to have children.



Great outrage though.

TheNobleKipper

topper75 wrote: »

If the child is not absolutely perfect, forget about it.

And when you are done, don't forget to click your boot heels when you are paying the good Dr. Mengele his fee.

Ok everyone, can we please close the thread as the discussion has just been ended by Godwin's law. Didn't take very long

Zillah

Stranger Danger wrote: »

Except he never mentioned anything about her choosing to have children.

Eh...

She told him to think about his choices , he did for all of thirty seconds and told her he loved her despite the risks of her dying of a disease and the risks of any children developing the disease too.

If she has it, their children have a 50/50 chance of getting it. And my outrage is justified. People with Huntingtons lose control of their body like ALS, but they also go completely insane over a period of years, with massive personality changes, coupled with rage and abusive behaviours towards their own loved ones - it destroys body, mind, and dignity.

It's basically one of the worst thing you can die of, and to waltz into giving it to your children when there is a simple test to see if you have it is evil.

Stranger Danger

Zillah wrote: »

Eh...



If she has it, their children have a 50/50 chance of getting it. And my outrage is justified. People with Huntingtons lose control of their body like ALS, but they also go completely insane over a period of years, with massive personality changes, coupled with rage and abusive behaviours towards their own loved ones.

It's basically one of the worst thing you can die of, and to waltz into giving to your children when there is a simple test to see if you have it is evil.

And it says she is planning to have children..............where?

Badly Drunk Boy

corner of hells wrote: »

I dunno, but let me tell you about a real love story. Huntington disease runs in my family , Google it if you never heard of it.

You have a 50% chance getting it if one of your parents has it , I think your mother has to be the parent.

The first time I heard of Huntington's chorea was in Kurt Vonnegut's book Galapagos. You should give it a read (but obviously not as a reference, since it's fiction). There was a very different, yet related, ethical dilemma regarding it.

shamrock55

Personally i think its very selfish to knowingly bring a disabled or a child with genetic problems into the world, i for one wouldnt do it

Zillah

Stranger Danger wrote: »

And it says she is planning to have children..............where?

In that line I quoted?

Duggy747

Personally, if there was a high chance that I would pass on a disability but I still wanted to have a kid then I'd probably just look into adoption instead.

I wouldn't gamble with another person's life like that.

Medusa22

Duggy747 wrote: »

Personally, if there was a high chance that I would pass on a disability but I still wanted to have a kid then I'd probably just look into adoption instead.

I wouldn't gamble with another person's life like that.

I'd tend to agree with you there. There is a process called PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) which is used to screen embryos for genetic defects and then healthy embryos can be implanted using IVF. Some people opt for this but it is expensive and not always successful so others don't. I think if I were going to have children, then I'd do something like this.

seamus

You're kind of asking two questions here:

a. Is it morally right in general?

b. Would you do it?

I guess the key factor in both questions is the likelihood of the child developing a serious disability. That is, one which presents a severely degraded quality of life, or a shortened lifespan (i.e. not living well into adulthood). So deafness or a severe visual impairment isn't really one. Because if the odds are 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 100, then you know, I'd probably take the risk. But if you're looking at 1 in 4 or 1 in 2, I would probably not, and I would judge someone who took the risk. But if it was 1 in 10, I probably wouldn't take the risk, but I wouldn't judge someone who did.

And again, it depends even further on the severity of the disease. If a shortened lifespan is a possible outcome, is it likely to be a lifespan of 12 years or 40 years? Because the latter isn't nearly as bad as the former.

TheNobleKipper

On topic now. I think it's very difficult to assess unless you are are in the position, so I guess most people here would not be able to fully understand. If I knew I had a severe illness that would potentially lower the quality of life for my child I'd rather not risk it. There are so many terrible diseases in the world and I am lucky to have been born healthy. I've met people who are suffering from genetic diseases and I have noticed the constant worry that the parents seem to be carrying on their shoulders. I think everybody wants the best for the child but if there is a big risk to begin with you should probably think twice before you might give someone the gift of a hard and painful life

Turtyturd

Nope, when my OH was pregnant the biggest stress for me was worrying if the child would be healthy. I don't think I have ever felt as much relief as I have when everything was ok. Couldn't imagine purposely bringing a child into the world knowing there is a chance they could have certain conditions, also think the option of abortion should be available to those who unknowingly find themselves in the situation.

mahoganygas

If you decide not to have children then you really need to ensure your contraception plan is solid.

I know a couple who had a child with CF. They then chose not to have any more children.
Fast forward a few years and the mother became pregnant again much to their surprise. They felt really guilty during the pregnancy. It really put a strain on their relationship. I think blame came into it.

Luckily the second baby was not diagnosed with CF.
They then sat down with a doctor to look at more permanent contraception options.

The_Valeyard

Can see this thread going down in flames.

topper75

Azalea wrote: »

Big difference between being severely disabled and not being perfect (nobody's perfect anyway).

Nobody's perfect. But some get to play God?!

Medusa22 wrote: »

I am not talking about from a eugenics perspective or that a child with an illness is ''weaker'' or somehow unworthy, sure I have a genetic disease myself. I am thinking of the suffering of any potential children who are born with an illness that the parents were aware of in advance.

We all are born to suffer. That is at the essence of life for all of us. I can't answer how some have greater burdens than others. But I know it's not our call. To believe that it is crosses a crazy ethical rubicon.

beks101

IME if someone badly wants kids then the risks associated such as passing on a genetic disease will be overruled.

Like another poster a relative-in-law of mine has huntington's and all of her sons - my cousins - have a 50/50 chance of carrying the gene and developing the disease themselves/passing it along to their children. Two are married with children. None have taken that genetic test - opted not to deal with the death sentence that it may present. The probability is high that at least one of them is a carrier.

I feel when you've not been in that very scenario, it's impossible to call. As a non-married, non-mother with no immediate major life plans along those lines and no genetic disorders in my family history, it's very easy of me to say - no way. Wouldn't even entertain the notion. But there's ideas and theories and judgements and notions about life, and then there's actual life and the realities that it presents.

Medusa22

topper75 wrote: »

Nobody's perfect. But some get to play God?!



We all are born to suffer. That is at the essence of life for all of us. I can't answer how some have greater burdens than others. But I know it's not our call. To believe that it is crosses a crazy ethical rubicon.

If there are any ways or means at my disposal to limit or prevent someone else's suffering, then I'll use them, regardless of whether someone else thinks I am playing ''God'' or not.

No, adoption is a much better option all round when a significant risk is there.. I'd hate to take that risk and give a child a condition that didn't let him do what I've done.

Medusa22

seamus wrote: »

You're kind of asking two questions here:

a. Is it morally right in general?

b. Would you do it?

I guess the key factor in both questions is the likelihood of the child developing a serious disability. That is, one which presents a severely degraded quality of life, or a shortened lifespan (i.e. not living well into adulthood). So deafness or a severe visual impairment isn't really one. Because if the odds are 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 100, then you know, I'd probably take the risk. But if you're looking at 1 in 4 or 1 in 2, I would probably not, and I would judge someone who took the risk. But if it was 1 in 10, I probably wouldn't take the risk, but I wouldn't judge someone who did.

And again, it depends even further on the severity of the disease. If a shortened lifespan is a possible outcome, is it likely to be a lifespan of 12 years or 40 years? Because the latter isn't nearly as bad as the former.

I suppose I'm thinking more about quality of life and a shortened life expectancy. I am unsure how I would feel say if I found out that I could pass on deafness or blindness to a child, knowing that quality of life could be affected but also that they could adapt, and that life expectancy and health would not be affected. I think I'd be more inclined to have a child then, rather than if the child had a shortened life expectancy or a risk of debilitating or chronic illness.

petrolcan

Go for it.

I need to be kept employed.

mahoganygas

Jews are particularly prone to inherit certain genetic disorders.
Tay-Sachs disease is particularly common in New York based Jews.

It causes a deterioration of nerve cells around 6 months of age and usually results in death by the age of 4.

A Jewish organisation in NY will screen all Jewish children from a young age to see if they carry the gene. This is kept anonymous - they never know if they are a carrier.
When they are adults and contemplate marriage the couple can approach the screening organisation to see if they are 'compatible'.
It is common that engagements are broken off before couples get too committed to each other.

It's really tragic when you think of a young couple in love, but this approach does have it's merits.

Medusa22

beks101 wrote: »

IME if someone badly wants kids then the risks associated such as passing on a genetic disease will be overruled.

Like another poster a relative-in-law of mine has huntington's and all of her sons - my cousins - have a 50/50 chance of carrying the gene and developing the disease themselves/passing it along to their children. Two are married with children. None have taken that genetic test - opted not to deal with the death sentence that it may present. The probability is high that at least one of them is a carrier.

I feel when you've not been in that very scenario, it's impossible to call. As a non-married, non-mother with no immediate major life plans along those lines and no genetic disorders in my family history, it's very easy of me to say - no way. Wouldn't even entertain the notion. But there's ideas and theories and judgements and notions about life, and then there's actual life and the realities that it presents.

I think that for myself, I couldn't have children if I knew that I had a 50/50 chance of passing on such a devastating condition, and I try not to judge people who do, but I find it difficult. Having said that though, it is easy for me to do so, as I don't have any urge to have children and I never have, so I know that I am in a position where it is very easy for me to judge others who choose to have children in less than ideal situations, and I try to bear that in mind.

RobertKK

I recently had a genetic test done for health and ancestry.
I think everyone should be genetically tested for health, I can't complain about my genes, got a good health report, my biggest risk is from skin cancer which I found interesting, given my grandfather died decades ago from it - before sunscreen was used but he was also old.
I don't want children, but I know if I changed my mind, my genetics are good as they have no variation or gene that would lead to a disability.

There will be genetic treatments to silence or replace certain undesired genes.
Love is blind, but one could argue there is a need to see if you are genetically compatible, and if not, either move onto someone you are, or simply not breed, and if you want to breed then you are prepared for the consequences.
There is now so much information you can have before you even consider having a child. It is time that people use the technology available and not have a guessing game.

Zillah

RobertKK wrote: »

I recently had a genetic test done for health and ancestry.
I think everyone should be genetically tested for health, I can't complain about my genes, got a good health report, my biggest risk is from skin cancer which I found interesting, given my grandfather died decades ago from it - before sunscreen was used but he was also old.
I don't want children, but I know if I changed my mind, my genetics are good as they have no variation or gene that would lead to a disability.

There will be genetic treatments to silence or replace certain undesired genes.
Love is blind, but one could argue there is a need to see if you are genetically compatible, and if not, either move onto someone you are, or simply not breed, and if you want to breed then you are prepared for the consequences.
There is now so much information you can have before you even consider having a child. It is time that people use the technology available and not have a guessing game.

Out of curiosity how did you go about it and how much did it cost?

mahoganygas wrote: »

Jews are particularly prone to inherit certain genetic disorders.
Tay-Sachs disease is particularly common in New York based Jews.

It causes a deterioration of nerve cells around 6 months of age and usually results in death by the age of 4.

A Jewish organisation in NY will screen all Jewish children from a young age to see if they carry the gene. This is kept anonymous - they never know if they are a carrier.
When they are adults and contemplate marriage the couple can approach the screening organisation to see if they are 'compatible'.
It is common that engagements are broken off before couples get too committed to each other.

It's really tragic when you think of a young couple in love, but this approach does have it's merits.

This is fascinating, I had no idea.

charlietheminxx

I would like to get my genes tested! Guessing it's pricey though?

On topic, if there was something prevelant in my family, then I would get tested before trying to conceive. It's a toughie though, it's so subjective and each situation will have different factors at play.

Tasden

This thread has made me feel very thankful that my daughter happened to be born pretty healthy all things considered. Very grateful I don't have to make those kind of decisions. I think you will really only feel certain about it if you've been faced with these types of disorders and seen the damage they can do. I've been kind of blissfully ignorant to all that so wouldn't have thought about it til now

I'm not sure I would look at having children in terms of morality. Or at least I certainly would not say having disabled children, or on the other hand aborting a foetus with a profound disability, is morally wrong. I don't think there is a neutral position from which we can judge the morality.

RobertKK

Zillah wrote: »

Out of curiosity how did you go about it and how much did it cost?

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I would like to get my genes tested! Guessing it's pricey though?

On topic, if there was something prevelant in my family, then I would get tested before trying to conceive. It's a toughie though, it's so subjective and each situation will have different factors at play.

I used https://www.23andme.com/en-eu/ €169 that was founded by a woman who was married to one of the men who founded Google.
Takes 6 to 8 weeks from start to finish, they keep three reports hidden that you can choose to open - if you have the bad Alzheimers gene, the bad breast cancer gene and for Parkinsons. Of course you look and hopefully it is a sigh of relief.
Because you never know, you should be prepared for anything.

You can then use other programs on other sites to further analyse the raw data, and get even more information about yourself.

Herb Powell

Zillah wrote: »

There is a very simple genetic test for Huntingtons and I think it was an act of extraordinary stupidity and ignorance to barrel ahead without having it done, and an act of monumental evil to choose to have children if you know you have it.

Huntingtons guarantees an utterly nightmarish death and for someone to flip a coin to see if they condemn another person to it is pure reckless evil in my book. Your cousin is an irresponsible moron. You should tell her to get the test before she has children, she has absolutely no right to make that decision for anyone else.

To play the cheeky cunnt, no it doesn't, nothing in life is guaranteed. Anyone can die at any time, be it in an accident, or otherwise freakish occurence.

Medusa22

Herb Powell wrote: »

To play the cheeky cunnt, no it doesn't, nothing in life is guaranteed. Anyone can die at any time, be it in an accident, or otherwise freakish occurence.

There is a difference though, between knowing that you could die at any time (as we all know) and knowing that you will definitely not live beyond a certain age, as some people with diseases know.

beks101

RobertKK wrote: »

I used https://www.23andme.com/en-eu/ €169 that was founded by a woman who was married to one of the men who founded Google.
Takes 6 to 8 weeks from start to finish, they keep three reports hidden that you can choose to open - if you have the bad Alzheimers gene, the bad breast cancer gene and for Parkinsons. Of course you look and hopefully it is a sigh of relief.
Because you never know, you should be prepared for anything.

That's fascinating.

I've thought about the consequences of finding out I'm carrying the cancer gene or alzheimers or huntingtons etc quite a bit actually. Probably because of what my own cousins are faced with.

I think it would seriously impede my quality of life to know that one of these was in store for me down the line. BRCA1 you can do something about (granted it's still a daunting road of tests and surgeries etc) but alzheimers and huntingtons - well, you're just sitting and waiting. I think that's why my cousins opted not to know. Because statistically, at least one of them will die of huntingtons. Knowing that lay ahead for me would probably destroy my life and sanity.

Herb Powell

Medusa22 wrote: »

There is a difference though, between knowing that you could die at any time (as we all know) and knowing that you will definitely not live beyond a certain age, as some people with diseases know.

That's not even definite, though, it's still down to chance.

Pat Mustard

Herb Powell wrote: »

To play the cheeky cunnt, no it doesn't, nothing in life is guaranteed. Anyone can die at any time, be it in an accident, or otherwise freakish occurence.

Fair enough. Huntingtons offers a nightmarish death, all going well.

Medusa22

Herb Powell wrote: »

That's not even definite, though, it's still down to chance.

I can see where you are coming from, and you're right in a way, I shouldn't have said ''definitely''. For me though, I mean there's a big difference between ''sure you could get knocked down by a car tomorrow'' and being told ''listen, chances are you probably won't live beyond your 30s''. That makes a big difference to a person's life, or to their perspective anyway.

Herb Powell

Medusa22 wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from, and you're right in a way, I shouldn't have said ''definitely''. For me though, I mean there's a big difference between ''sure you could get knocked down by a car tomorrow'' and being told ''listen, chances are you probably won't live beyond your 30s''. That makes a big difference to a person's life, or to their perspective anyway.

Oh I'm not trying to sweep the morality of it all under the carpet. Just playing devil's advocate, which as I admitted is a cunntish thing to do usually

asherbassad

Medusa22 wrote: »

Let me elaborate here. I'm talking about people who are aware that they carry a particular gene that causes disability or illness and they consider the risks and still decide to have children, or they already have one ill/disabled child and choose to risk having another?

I was thinking about this because of the cousins thread, and also because I have Cystic Fibrosis which is a genetic disease that is the most common genetically inherited disease in the world, and Ireland has the highest incidence of it in the world. One in 20 people in Ireland carry the gene for CF and if they reproduce with another person who carries the gene then there is a 1 in 4 chance of their child having CF, so every time a couple who is aware that they carry the gene has a child, that child has a 25% chance of CF.

So, if you knew that you carried a gene for an illness or a disease would you still choose to have a child, would you risk it? Would it depend on the disease and the severity or the percentage of risk? I mean you could say that when my parents had me, I had a 75% chance of not having CF, and I have an older sister who doesn't have it but carries the gene (you need 2 genes to actually have CF because it's recessive, but just one to carry it).

I think I'm conflicted on this one myself, I mean I hear about people who already have one child with CF and deciding to 'risk' it and have another, and part of me feels that it is their choice and if I had to choose I'd rather be alive with CF than not exist at all, but then again, they are knowingly taking a risk of inflicting a debilitating illness on their child and I don't know if I could do that either. I'm talking about genetic diseases in general though, not just CF, but that's just my own area of expertise so to speak.

In the millions of years that life has been around and will continue to be, in the billions of years that the universe has been around and will continue to be, what harm will you have caused to that infinite tapestry of mass, and foreverness by living your blink of an eye life? And what harm would you cause if there were a few microscopic speed bumps in your life and your influence in the grand scheme of things?

TheNobleKipper

asherbassad wrote: »

In the millions of years that life has been around and will continue to be, in the billions of years that the universe has been around and will continue to be, what harm will you have caused to that infinite tapestry of mass, and foreverness by living your blink of an eye life? And what harm would you cause if there were a few microscopic speed bumps in your life and your influence in the grand scheme of things?

Do you want to give us some details on what you're on?

Azalea

Herb Powell wrote: »

Oh I'm not trying to sweep the morality of it all under the carpet. Just playing devil's advocate, which as I admitted is a cunntish thing to do usually

Ah I don't think so unless it's deliberately argumentative and obtuse for the sake of it.

So here's my devil's advocate point of view (well in relation to severe disability - I guess there is a spectrum).

It's a tough one because people who raise/look after disabled people have a very difficult job, and I have nothing but admiration for them.
At the same time though, I'm not sure I agree with bringing a severely disabled person into the world if they're going to be in terrible pain and have lots of illnesses and not much way of communicating all of this. But then again who am I to say who should get to live and who shouldn't...

I don't think I would continue the pregnancy if I knew the child I was carrying was severely disabled.

Medusa22

asherbassad wrote: »

In the millions of years that life has been around and will continue to be, in the billions of years that the universe has been around and will continue to be, what harm will you have caused to that infinite tapestry of mass, and foreverness by living your blink of an eye life? And what harm would you cause if there were a few microscopic speed bumps in your life and your influence in the grand scheme of things?

If this is your roundabout and convoluted way of telling me that my life is incredibly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, well, frankly I don't care. My life is significant to me.

OneOfThem

I dunno, I'd see both sides of things. But the world (well, boards.ie in anyway, let's not completely lose the run of ourselves here, shall we) would be a much poorer place for it if your parents hadn't of decided to risk it Medusa22. So I'm gonna go with sure, why not.

byhookorbycrook

To turn it on its head a bit: I was diagnosed with MS within a relatively short period of getting married. For me, to bring a child into the world, when I don't know how I will be from day to day was just not right. I know a lady with MS whose primary age children used to change her nappy and feed her. To me, it's not something I could submit a child to.

myshirt

We should not give up on life, there is absolutely enough brains amongst us to do better for disabled persons. Looking to adopt a policy of you are not welcome is stomach turning. Greed, greed, and more f#cking greed.

Something like the post above is just appalling, I am utterly ashamed of myself that we live in a country where that is allowed to persist.

Thanks to some fantastic people of great courage and strength, disabled persons and other service users live a life of a meaning and value above one where they are cast to the bin. Ffs people, have a hard think, some of these posts are just shocking.

colossus-x

If the parent is willing to look after the child as best they can then I don't see any moral objection.

It is only the human races ingenuity that we can know disabilities before they arrive. Maybe this is a minus to knowledge but I'd rather have knowledge and science than not have a clue what is going on , otherwise how could we even have drugs such as penicillin or antibiotics.

There are many examples of disabled people having perfectly good lives, especially these days.

I'd be much more concerned about the fact that there are many who take a moral objection to people ending their lives when they have a life debilitating disease. I find it morally wrong to deny then their preferred manner of exit from this life.