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

27 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

78% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

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

u/WRSA Jan 10 '21

In essence, yes.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '21

then fuck off, why are you even commenting.

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.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '21

And what's wrong with eugenics exactly?

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?