| Sarpedon wrote: |
So you're saying it would have been appropriate to abort the child given that they knew it would be born with lowered mental functions and physical disabilities but it is wrong of the parents to make a decision regarding the child's life once it is born? |
Not saying that at all - that presumes my opinion on whether an embryo is "alive". I'd recommend that they don't abort, but that's all. What they (the parents) decide is up to them. I just don't agree with the decision that they made the news with. The parents make decisions in the best interest of the child and I agree with that as well. I just think that the reasons outlined in the article are not very compelling.
Here's a reformatting of the problem: let's say I'm a 400 lbs man, but I develop MS so I can't move on my own. Should I be given surgery to remove the excess weight so that it is easier to care for me?
Or I'm a quadriplegic from a car wreck and I'm 10 years old. Should my parents lop off my arms and legs so it is easier for anyone to care for me? I mean, the arms and legs are pretty useless and they get in the way, make things difficult - being dead weight and all.
| Sarpedon wrote: |
Leaving abortion arguments aside, I think there's a difference between predicting whether or not your child is going to have disabilities and predicting your child's life path given the disabilities they have. In this case, we aren't given causal information on the condition. Was it from fetal alcohol, CP, autism, etc? Basically, I don't think we know enough of what's going on to pass any kind of judgement on this family. |
I think the cause isn't important. If that factors into your decision then you are applying a morality to conditions. Here's another situation to consider. There is a group of orthodox Jews (in New York I think) that follow some strict traditions as to who can marry. For various reasons, this has limited their choice of mates in certain generations and led to the propagation of several recessive genetic conditions. If two people married and they both shared a genetic trait, their children would be born with some pretty nasty conditions. They will not abort and many families raised children with bad issues. They developed a system where potential couples could seek discreet approval to marry. This approval would test for various conditions and would tell the couple only whether they ought to marry. The specific traits are not revealed to anyone, only whether the couple is compatible.
This is an example of a group of people that will handle whatever happens, but use technology to try and avoid the most serious problems. The children will always be cared for an respected as human beings, no matter what problems they have.
And I think that last statement has finally led me to what I've been driving at - treating everyone as a human being. Before deciding what should be done, imagine the target was an ordinary person. Would that person find the proposal insulting just in the asking of it? Is it based on a possible outcome? Treat them like a human being.
If you were to start a relationship with a person, there will be things you don't like about that person. Most people likely recognize that trying to "change" that person is futile. I feel this situation is one where they felt the girl had some things they didn't like or were worried about and they "fixed" these things with a medical procedure. I think they should have handled it like one does in a relationship - you either learn to live with it or end the relationship.
I do not want to leave the impression I am judging the family - they have made their decision. If I met them now, I would not bring the topic up. If they asked, before the decision or now, for my opinion I would say that I disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment