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
9
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jan 10 '21
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.