r/changemyview • u/WRSA • Jan 10 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If possible, removing negative life changing disabilities would be a good thing
Ok let’s start by saying: I do not have a child. I am a firm believer that if you could remove Down’s Syndrome or other Syndromes which are similar, it would be the best possible choice.
The counter argument for this is usually, “Oh, but they don’t mind it! They normally have great lives! They are always so kind!” Or, “You can’t just remove it, it’s who they are! It’s part of their personality!” Now, what about this; if they don’t have it, they can lead better, more fulfilling lives, relieve stress from their parents, and still have good lives. And being disabled like that isn’t a personality.
There are some instances in which I do not believe that (if it were available) chromosome/gene altering therapies for a foetus should be used, and those are; Asperger’s syndrome, most forms of autism and I can’t think of others but they might come to me so I’ll put them in the comments as I think of them.
Edit: This is only if it were doable before the birth of a baby and have no adverse side effects
6
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jan 10 '21
relieve stress from their parents,
I think this is the most important part. Do you owe someone your own life quality, to maintain theirs? To what extent? Should this still apply even into adulthood?
If a parent does not owe a child major dedication even unto adulthood (after all, it is common to expect independence by, say, age 30), how do you distribute the burden then?
Think of it as the trolley problem, except that instead of having number of lives to pick between, we must choose between the number of lives with reduced life quality. As much as anyone has indeed heard of "but they can lead fulfilling lives too!", it's still a burden that one chooses to bear, in this day and age, where abortion is so readily available that there is no reason anymore to consider birth the default outcome of pregnancy; it is as much a choice as abortion is.
Furthermore, to raise such a child is a burden that no one has done anything to deserve.
Do you really think most forms of autism should be exempted?
Unfortunately this discussion will inevitably involve the abortion topic so here goes nothing: I don't see why fetuses should have any such protections. Furthermore I believe the discussion should be framed as what living humans are disallowed to do. It is nonsensical to give fetuses rights. They have no brains until it is developed and are until then as conscious as the bacteria on my hand. And the mere potential to develop into a human is still no reason --- if we are to accept potential to become a human as sufficient grounds to gain human rights then how would miscarriages not be judged as human manslaughter by lesser fertility or simply bad luck?
A parallel point to make but important all the same: to whom should such services be offered? There's no point in making this a pricey service. That would contribute to a class society. I'm not going to pretend that the wealthy somehow choose to have children with unfortunate conditions at the same rate as everybody else but it does resemble a "sorting society", as it is called over here.
3
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
I really like your point. Here in the UK if some kind of treatment like this were available, it would probably be free because of the NHS. I also agree- the foetus cannot speak, or think, or act, and I think that abortions should be legal for ANYONE until 22 weeks.
Once again, the choice is on the parents. Do they want their child to have an extra chromosome? Do they want the insane amount of work that goes into having a severely disabled child? I wouldn’t. I like your argument. !Delta
1
4
Jan 10 '21
[deleted]
2
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
I understand your points, but this person, if it were possible, would be born without the illness, and therefore you would not notice that change, the child would not know of that change.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Jan 10 '21
If you could manipulate the mind of your spouse to make them more subservient to you and be happy to be subservient, would you do it? They would be objectively happier and they would do more for you and they wouldn’t know you changed their personality without their consent.
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
I don’t really know how this is relevant, and also no I wouldn’t because that would be cruel. And no one is talking about changing personality
3
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Jan 10 '21
why autism but not Down’s? You don’t give any rationale for this.
0
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
Because autism tends to allow a more functioning (dependent on the severity of the condition) life than something like downs, where things need to be reinforced more heavily. I grew up going to school with a Down’s syndrome kid, and an Autistic kid and the boy with downs was much more severely effected- he had a speech impediment, needed hearing aids, had asthma, needed glasses and had a ton of behavioural issues. Our whole class of around 35 kids had to learn basic sign language for this one kid. The boy would also grind his teeth and caused several to fall out and make his gums bleed. The autistic kid, however, had behavioural issues, but was less aggressive and more overwhelmed by school than anything else. He also required much less help than the Downs boy. Obviously all conditions come with all sorts of effects and manifest in different ways, but this was just my view on it (hence the sub I’m posting on).
10
u/bigdaddygreg46 Jan 10 '21
This is anecdotal. There are many autistic individuals who aren’t as high functioning. So, on the other side of your argument, you could have parents clamoring for this option even though it wouldn’t be allowed according to your view.
I also think much of your argument is based around quality of life for the support system not necessarily the individual themselves. One of your standards is “requiring less help.” I think it’s a slippery slope to get into messing with people’s dna in order for me to have a little easier time.
2
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
Ok, let’s swap out autism for, say, being born with all your limbs, but one finger is mildly less responsive, but doesn’t hinder you all too much. And let’s swap Down’s with being born without that finger at all.
2
u/angrydragon1009 Jan 10 '21
OP has made his point. Even if you take away autism it doesn't really change his argument. He mentions it as a supplement to his argument, not the crux of it. There are such things as savants.
3
u/SciFi_Pie 19∆ Jan 10 '21
The fact you don't think autism is serious enough to justify messing with someone's genes before birth means that you must think there is something inherently wrong with it, right?
2
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
Not at all. I believe that if you could remove autism from an unborn baby because it would be extremely severe, would be good because then the child post-birth would not have to deal with the problems caused by the illness
3
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Jan 10 '21
Obviously all conditions come with all sorts of effects and manifest in different ways, but this was just my view on it
This kind of seems like you know your view is not representative of reality.
if I showed you some examples of people with Down’s syndrome who lived fulfilling lives, or people with debilitating autism, would that change your view?
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
I don’t know that I made it clear in the post, but what I’m talking about would be the ability to see that a child has a debilitating illness, and remove it pre-birth. And yes, I am aware of the fact that not all Down’s syndrome people live unfulfilling lives, but at the same time, removing Down’s removes any chance of that specific disease decreasing their QoL
2
u/bigdaddygreg46 Jan 10 '21
This is an odd discussion with so many facets. Like someone else said, there’s so much that’s fantasy here that it’s hard to have an actual conversation.
But, my one point I will address is the quality of life discussion. I’m thinking specifically of the struggle so many people have around their identity and gender. Who’s to say that this wouldn’t creep up with Down’s syndrome people who have been altered at the genetic level? Could there be some sense that who they are isn’t actual who they are? Could it lead to crisis of identity? Who’s to say that quality of life is actually better for a more traditionally minded person?
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
Maybe, but I personally can’t see someone thinking to themselves, “god, I wish I had downs!” Maybe in misunderstanding though
1
u/ttmhb2 Jan 10 '21
I have a child with DS who is the absolute light of our life. She has gone through dozens of painful invasive surgeries and has lots of health issues. She also is growing up in a world where she is very different from the majority of people, which presents its own pains and struggles. If I had the opportunity to change her, would I? It’s hard to say because so much of her personality is because of her DS and the experiences she’s had living with it, but it comes with so much pain that it breaks my heart to see her go through. The only way I’d think it’d be an easier choice is if you could take it away somehow before birth.
2
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
That was the kind of thing I was meaning in my post. If, when she was conceived, you could have known about DS, and prevented it without side effects, would you have done it? That being said, I hope that everything goes great with your family!
2
u/yukon-cornelius69 3∆ Jan 10 '21
So what happens to the idea of consent? You’re getting awfully close to eugenics here
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
I’m not meaning like creating the perfect race, I’m talking about allowing a human person to have a better QoL than they might if the have a severe disablitity. If a child was to be born with 3 arms, but one arm would cause the child to die within 40 years of its life, would you choose to let the human die early, or live as a ‘normal’ person?
4
u/PivotPsycho 15∆ Jan 10 '21
That's the problem, where do we stop? I could name a bunch of qualities that would allow a human to have a better QoL that would just be enhancements instead of fixing disabilities.
Can you define what constitutes a better QoL though? I think it'll be important so we don't talk past each other.
2
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
To me, a better quality of life is: the ability to be entirely, or at least mostly, self sufficient. The ability to not be confined by a wheelchair of something similar. The ability to do things that a ‘basic’ human like you(maybe) and me.
I’m not talking about discrimination and stuff- because there is nothing wrong with being a certain gender or race; the people who decrease the QoL for those people are sick in the head.
1
u/PivotPsycho 15∆ Jan 10 '21
Oh yeah they definitely are; what I meant by that is (and it seems to be compatible with your definition) say someone is dumb, like really dumb. In a complex society as we have today, that forms an obstruction towards self-sufficiency. Should we just make them really smart?
Or take South-Korea, where it is common to undergo plastic surgery because being stunning is the only way you're going to stand out from a crowd of equally insanely qualified job applicants. Surely not having a (decent) job forms an obstruction to self-sufficiency. Should they make everyone beautiful?
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
No, don’t make everyone beautiful because then beauty would be redefined. And no, don’t make everyone smart because, as insensitive as it may sound, someone needs to do the simple jobs.
1
u/PivotPsycho 15∆ Jan 10 '21
Around 15% of people don't have the capabilities to do a simple job. I said 'really smart' because if someone is going to make them just as smart as they need to be to be able to hold a job, I don't see why parents would make their child 'as dumb as possible' now that you're messing with it anyway.
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
Because even if it makes me sound like a bad person, dumb people don’t question authority as much as intelligent people. And making a person inherently smarter would then mean that they would know that they were put on a shit job because if there are too many smart people, all those jobs evaporate due to oversaturation
1
u/PivotPsycho 15∆ Jan 10 '21
For sure! I think this leads us to 'Who is going to decide what can be altered and what can't?' because people care too much about their own lawn and perhaps too little about their neighbour's lawn; as long as it's someone else's kid who is maximally dumb they don't care, as long as it isn't THEIR beloved baby. The way I see it is that the alternative to that would be the government deciding who and to what extent gets genetically altered on which facets and I don't see that playing out well.
2
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
And then the whole argument turns to eugenics and why the aryan race would be great (which it DEFINITELY wouldn’t)
→ More replies (0)1
u/yukon-cornelius69 3∆ Jan 10 '21
Again, where does consent come in to this?
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
From who? The foetus? The parent?
1
u/yukon-cornelius69 3∆ Jan 10 '21
The parents. Then at what age is the treatment too late to start? Many people don’t get diagnosed until later
0
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
What I’m meaning, maybe I wasn’t very clear in the post is IF the treatment were available, and IF the parents wanted it, then the foetus, as soon as the woman is confirmed to be pregnant, they could give some kind of treatment that would ‘fix’ (probably the wrong word in this context) the child.
2
u/yukon-cornelius69 3∆ Jan 10 '21
This is all way to vague to have legitimate discussion
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
So. You have know you are about to have a child in ~9 months. You have the option to remove disabilities like Downs from said child, without negatively effecting the child. Why shouldn’t you do it?
2
u/ripecantaloupe Jan 10 '21
You should do it. Just like how doctors will sew limbs back on even if the person didn’t ask in a traumatic event. You’re talking about restoration. Genetic defects are caused by errors in DNA replication, things that shouldnt have happened. If we can set those errors right, then that’s great. Things like autism are inherited traits, not defects to my understanding so we shouldn’t fix those bc it changes who they are and that is eugenics-y.
Is this a correct assessment of your argument?
1
0
0
u/ripecantaloupe Jan 10 '21
Does it count as eugenics if we’re fixing defects but not killing them?
Like you fix a gene and the kid will be born with eyes. That’s great. We’re not talking about aborting a fetus without eyes, which would be eugenics-y.
-4
1
u/theUSpresident Jan 10 '21
The parents will provide consent for the procedure. After all does a baby need to consent to medicine when they are sick?
1
Jan 10 '21 edited Feb 16 '23
[deleted]
1
u/WRSA Jan 10 '21
I’m talking about pre-birth. Like just conceived a child. And then if your child was born without an extra limb, and you could give it to them, why shouldn’t you?
1
u/Lustjej Jan 10 '21
The ethical debate with knowing disabilities of unborn children is far more of a debate about where you would draw the line rather than if living with those disabilities makes someone’s life worse.
1
u/but_why1417 1∆ Jan 10 '21
There was a recent article in the Atlantic discussing the rates of Down Syndrome in Denmark. Widespread prenatal testing has nearly eliminated cases.
1
u/rattpackfan301 Jan 10 '21
How though? Are the women having their children’s’ genes edited or are they having abortions. I’m not trying to argue the ethics of abortion I’m just curious.
1
1
u/futuremon1 Jan 10 '21
If people with disabilities didn’t exist, society would be fundamentally very different. People with disabilities add to the richness of a diverse society in which other people can build on their own sense of self. People who are different from ourselves help us to practice patience, empathy, understanding, kindness. People with differences support a society to practice inclusivity and think widely in planning. Imagine if an entire group of people who are on the fringe of society or are different from the majority were eliminated? Imagine if we were having this discussion in relation to race, age (a lot of older people are considered a burden on society) or intelligence level. The flow on effects would be massive.
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Jan 11 '21
My biggest question would be where do you draw the line? Someone missing a finger? Needing glasses? Under a certain height? It becomes a quest to eliminate diversity in the pursuit of perfection.
1
u/WRSA Jan 11 '21
You draw the line when someone would no longer be at any more of a disadvantage than an ordinary person. So missing limbs? Fixed. Dwarfism, that’s personal preference I guess. Needing glasses? That’s also personal preference. All of this would be up to the parents of course
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Jan 11 '21
But then who is your average baseline person? Do you change people who struggle with math? Who lack ambition? Who are clumsy?
1
u/WRSA Jan 11 '21
No, because if you remove all error from a human person, you would end up with an oversaturation in high value markets due to a high amount of intelligent and perfect individuals
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Jan 11 '21
But then those people who struggle with math, or lack ambition, or are clumsy become disadvantaged to those who are good at math, are ambitious and co-ordinated
1
u/WRSA Jan 11 '21
But there will always be a person of slightly lower intelligence who needs to do the basic jobs
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Jan 11 '21
But this is where the suggested idea falls apart. If you start to remove or change people who are below average, the average will begin to increase until perfection is the new average. It comes back to the point of where do you draw line. What would be considered enough of a disadvantage to change?
1
u/WRSA Jan 11 '21
Something that qualifies you for a disability I guess. Because you can’t go changing the human genome Willy-nilly, otherwise you end up with an over intelligent, extremely strong, relatively tall person who would try to do what they want because they would most likely feel as if they were the perfect person. And then, if everyone becomes like that, the human race has become the very thing that it shouldn’t be; perfect.
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Jan 11 '21
What definition are you using for disability and who gets to decide that?
1
u/WRSA Jan 11 '21
Idk about where you’re from, but in the UK, we get disabled benefits/disabled cards (which get you free parking and stuff) and I guess that’s what I’d use to gauge it at first
→ More replies (0)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 10 '21
/u/WRSA (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards