Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My friend's husband is blind and he has a daughter from a previous marriage to a woman who is partially blind. They apparently have conditions (I'm not sure what the condition is) that cause them to be blind, but it can also be passed down to their children.
Well, their 21 year old daughter is now starting to go blind.
Was it morally wrong for them to have had children knowing that their condition could be passed down to their child?
Personally I would not have a child if there was a good chance they would have a genetic condition that could cause their lives to be drastically different in a negative way than a healthy person. Nobody asks to be born and to force someone to live a life where they're already behind the 8 ball so to speak, is not something I would do.
Now the tricky part. There are so many variables here that have to be taken into account. What are the odds of inheriting this condition? How could the condition effect them (eg. blindness, hearing loss, heart condition, etc.). What is the condition? Eg. I think it would be ok if there's a 5% chance the child could have minor hearing problems later in life, but not a 50% chance of some horrible, incurable genetic condition. This is just my opinion, there is no one size fits all.
You are spiraling down the path of Eugenics. IIRC, it was the state of Delaware where in the past, all mentally incompetent that were institutionalized were sterilized. I won't even start on the "Master Race" bullcrap.
On the surface, Eugenics is an idea based in kindness. People who would have a difficult time in life or who would be a burden to society are simply not born. In reality, those with power decide who is "valuable" and who is not. People with power have an unusually large percentage of sociopaths and other "defectives" in their group. In a true "scientific" implementation of the theory, many of the famous leaders would be forced to be sterilized.
There was a Talmudic debate once where it was determined that the creation of humans itself was an unkind act, due in part from the huge amounts of senseless suffering that it created.
The OP question is not a general moral question, but in a free society one of personal ethics. The Shakers had one all-encompassing answer, other religions have had the exact opposite response. In coming years, I suspect becoming blind may only be a minor problem compared to others that people will face.
IMHO this discussion doesn't belong here unless you were trying to suggest that one or both parents were exhibiting psychological problems. Parents end up making choices on behalf of their future or existing offspring all the time. They might seek out or refuse testing that could alert them of some congenital problem during pregnancy. They might choose to terminate because of the results or choose to continue. They choose what sorts of preventive health care and education their children get. On and on. Of course, the eugenics' slippery slope is bound to come up, but part of all that is whether someone is making an ethical/moral choice for themselves or imposing those beliefs on others.
Last edited by Parnassia; 04-04-2023 at 04:20 PM..
How many parents even know they might be carriers to some genetic disability when they're getting jiggy? I guess it becomes a moral question when they find themselves pregnant, and then through the prenatal care process, find out they're carrying a child with genetic disorder.
I'm a pro-life person...but there's ONE genetic disorder that would certainly make me ponder abortion. It's Harlequin-type ichthyosis, and it seems dreadful. I don't know that I could watch my child suffer with that.
How many parents even know they might be carriers to some genetic disability when they're getting jiggy? I guess it becomes a moral question when they find themselves pregnant, and then through the prenatal care process, find out they're carrying a child with genetic disorder.
I'm a pro-life person...but there's ONE genetic disorder that would certainly make me ponder abortion. It's Harlequin-type ichthyosis, and it seems dreadful. I don't know that I could watch my child suffer with that.
A friend’s sister has cystic fibrosis. She actually had a child, but only after her husband got genetically tested to make sure he was not a carrier. The friend and his wife also got genetically tested before they had kids.
There are other issues that aren’t really as major but may merit genetic testing AFTER you become pregnant. For example, I had a friend who had Marfan’s. Her insurance refused to genetically test the fetus until it was too late to abort and the poor child was born with many genetic defects and was never able to leave the hospital. The experience destroyed her marriage. Luckily she was able to have a healthy pregnancy with early genetic testing after she remarried, but I don’t see a reason to totally avoid procreation when you can get a genetic test early in pregnancy. Unfortunately, I think that may be harder in states where they have new really early bans, as genetic testing cannot occur until 10 weeks and then it takes a while to come back to the point where a first trimester decision may not be possible.
You said they "knew" this condition could be passed on. If they looked into it and determined the chances were good for their child to inherit this condition then Yes, I'd say they were irresponsible in their choice. It strikes me as selfish and cruel to inflict this deficit upon a child.
I guess it depends upon their rationale, if any, for choosing to become biological parents.
There are lots of heritable conditions, and we're discovering more every day. Should people with the genes for breast or colon cancer never have children?
Should each person get screened for every possible heritable disease, then be sterilized if they are carriers?
There seems to be a huge pressure to procreate in most people (though I seem to have missed out on that). Folks are broken hearted if they can't produce offspring, and adoption doesn't seem to fill the void. I doubt many people would willingly give up their chance at passing on their genes to a new generation, just based on the likelihood that that child may have problems in the future.
In related news, I'll bet insurance companies would love to be able to exclude people based on genetic testing, and that will probably start happening soon, as tests to show propensity for lots of cancers become more common. I've heard some insurance companies are offering these tests for free. Uh-oh
I wouldn't stop them, but I don't understand in some cases how they go through with it. When I was a child, there was a couple whose oldest son inherited muscular dystrophy. The mother had watched her own brother die from it at age 21. They went on to have two daughters after that, and I believe they would be carriers, if I remember correctly. The son died at 21 also. It was confusing to me as a child, and even more confusing now.
Morally wrong? I am not sure as everyone has their idea of "moral" anymore. I would not do it, as after watching a brother die like that, I would have chosen sterilization! I did see the boy a couple of times as he became more debilitated by the illness. Personally, I think that couple was cruel to have children.
This subject would probably have been a great one in the "Great Debates" area of the forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I think that couple was cruel to have children.
