53
If a doctor told you your unborn child has a 99% chance of severe downs syndrome, to the point where they would need constant care until the day they die. Do you think it's ethical to abort? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Part 2: what if you found out their diagnosis 1 week after birth

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

These are always technology problems more than moral problems. The issue is our technology is too shit currently to fix the genetic disease. Same with abortion generally. If we had artificial wombs then we could even have late term abortions and birth the child to be adopted and yes there is a shortage of babies to be adopted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    and yes there is a shortage of babies to be adopted.

    So adopt literally anyone besides a baby instead. The issue is that adoption is almost singularly focused on babies, while the foster system is falling apart at the seams due to being overfilled and underfunded. In the foster system, any child older than 4 is considered a “late” adoption.

    The sad reality is that if a baby doesn’t already have adoptive parents waiting for them when they’re born, they likely won’t ever get adopted. Because adoptive parents are entirely focused on adopting babies. And that really says more about the adoptive parents, because it means they’re adopting for their own sake, instead of the child’s. It’s selfish to sit on an adoption list for years to get a baby, instead of simply adopting a toddler who needs a home. The sheer level of arrogance and narcissism on display is honestly astounding. Adoptive parents see a system bursting with kids who need a home, and then go “nah, make a new one just for us. We want that bun straight out of the oven.” It’s honestly disgusting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    It is, I mean unless we start forcing people to adopt kids they don't want to adopt or something else I'm not sure that will change anytime soon. As for me in my family it's more like accidental adoptions aka a more distant family member can't take care of their kid whose 10 then someone else takes them in. It worked that way with family friend's kids as well. It's not like official legal guardianship or adoption, more so an informal familial help.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    There's very much an ethical problem here. Sure, it's fairly clear-cut with some debilitating genetic issues. But there's a point at which you're veering into eugenics, and that's sooner than people think.

    Take children who are deaf due to a genetic defect. I'm sure most parents imagine being deaf a terrible lot in life that they'd like to spare their kids from.

    Then listen to actual members of the deaf community. They're proud of their identity, they have their own language, and they're terrified of the prospect of being essentially eliminated in just a few generations by well-meaning folks that can't imagine a happy life as a deaf person.

    What if we discover a few years from now that there are genetic markers for being queer? What if we can genetically engineer people to be thinner, more muscular, have a more attractive bone structure, lighter skin? Those are all things that offer an objectively more comfortable life, which I'm sure many parents would want for their kids without much thought given to what the societal implications are.

    And what if this technology becomes available to a charismatic cult leader, a narcissistic tech CEO, a fascist regime?

    Such technology doesn't just fix genetic diseases. In a hierarchical global society that measures people's worth by their body rather than their character, it eliminates human diversity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Yes designer babies are totally going to be a thing. The ethical discussion we had about this in college boiled down to it being ethical if and only if an individual could choose to undo and redo the changes as they desire.

    I've run into that argument from the deaf community. It's a tough one, should a community of people have more of a say over what health outcomes are chosen than the parents of said child?

    Ultimately technology should make whatever one wills be (short of causing suffering to other minds). Anything less than this is insufficient or otherwise broken technology. Theoretically if we had sufficient technology one could take any form whatsoever they desire at any moment with any senses they desire and so on. Now it's a quite far fetched concept short of us gaining the ability to digitize our minds or otherwise inhabit simulated realities. To achieve this in physical reality would be quite difficult.

    The issue you're really getting at is the unequal spread of technology and our current technological limitations. Minds should be maximally free to experience whatever they desire short of causing other minds suffering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent