Having children, knowing they will be born ill?

[HaloNoble6]

Suppose someone is expecting a child but that they find out the child will be born with a physical deformity or a mental illness, like Down's Syndrome; something that would make the child's life particularly different than the normal physically and mentally healthy life of a human. Say the child was to be born with Down's Syndrome. What would you say of this person's life view if they decided to have this child anyway (supposing they found out with enough time to abort it without complications)? That is, what would you say of someone that has a child knowing it will be born with such a crippling deficiency, when aborting it would not cause any complications, and why would you say it? Does there need to be more context? Does it depend on whether or not a family has the resources and time to dedicate to such a child? What say you?

[Dufresne]

What would you say of this person's life view if they decided to have this child anyway (supposing they found out with enough time to abort it without complications)?

A religious person could argue that human life starts with conception and that it is immoral to kill another human being (healthy or unhealthy) because God said so. But another person could argue against abortion of secular grounds. Why do you ask?

[softwareNerd]

Some religious folk refuse certain pre-natal tests which can detect birth deformities. I was first aware of this in a pre-natal meeting with other parents at a hospital, when my wife was pregnant. One couple mentioned they had forgone such tests because: "what's the point if nothing can be done pre-natally to help the child?"

... Does there need to be more context? Does it depend on whether or not a family has the resources and time to dedicate to such a child?

I suppose someone could creatively think of an "emergency type" context in which it would be the right thing to do. Outside of that, I cannot see how there can be any context.

I start with: why are you having a child? The rational reason is selfish.

The second question is: will the physical or mental deformity critically interfere with the rationale for having child? If yes, then -- in light of the new information gained between conception and now -- how can it be rational to want to have this particular child?

In most typical contexts, the decision not to abort would be irrational.

As for the person's sense of life. I don' think I'd make that leap, based on the information.

[HaloNoble6]

I tend to agree with you, "softwareNerd". For me, the selfish purpose in having a child is, paraphrasing my friend Jason, to see what can be achieved in the field of human development by me when I'm in control of all aspects of that development, including the mate that I choose. Not "let's see what we get and work with that."

If the child were to be born with some tragic flaw that precluded full human development, then that would be against my purpose.

About deriving the person's sense of life from this, yes, much more context is necessary, though at minimum one might rightly be suspicious to begin with.

Edited September 3, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

"crippling deficiency"

"tragic"

"the decision not to abort would be irrational"

?! Huh? People with Down syndrome generally now attend school with other children, and many pursue higher education (associates or bachelor's degrees), careers (say, managerial positions in restaurants), and marriage (and such people possess a 50% chance of having a child without Down syndrome).

In the early 1900s the average lifespan of a person with Down syndrome was 9. Today it is 55. Many live to be older thanks to medical advances.

This all begs the question of what one considers, exactly, to be "normally physically or mentally healthy." What is "normal human development?" Please define. Please define what a "normal genetic profile" is. Would a normal person, genetically speaking, simply be one that lacks an extra chromosome?

Most people with Down syndrome that I have met (and I have met many, as my mother worked with the mentally disabled for most of her life) are more productive and happy in their jobs and personal lives than the majority of the ghetto people I live amongst. People are by no means necessarily irrational for knowingly bringing a child with Down syndrome into the world.

Let's assume that we can come up with a series of genetic markers to assess the potential intelligence of a fetus (I would not be at all surprised if these markers become available in the future, along with the more clearcut genetic profiling that takes place today for diseases, etc.) Let's say that an IQ of under 80 is considered moderately retarded, while that of 100 is considered average, and over 120 is considered quite intelligent.

You become pregnant and are told that your fetus will attain an adult IQ of roughly 89. What course of action would you take - abortion or not?

An easy decision? No. And these decisions will become less easy in the future as we gain more control over reproduction. Would it be right to bring to full term any fetus that comes along, even if it will turn out to be a total vegetable with an adult mentality of a one-year old? NO. However, I am bothered by the basic assumption in this thread that those with physical or mental disabilities cannot lead productive or meaningful lives. How easy it is to lump people into categories (healthy or sick, intelligent or retarded, fulfilled or failure), when in reality, there is a continuum of health, intelligence, fulfilment, productivity, etc., and that most people in this world are just average!! Those with Down syndrome are certainly on the lower end of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence, but tend to be very hardworking and loving people.

A fully rational person with reasonable access to genetic profiling should assess or somehow quantify all important characteristics in themselves and in their mate, score these on a scale of importance, and then quantify the characteristics of the fetus to see whether or not it "passes the test," should they not?

Whether a couple or a person decides to take on such a task depends on their resources (financial, emotional, etc.) and priorities, as with any pregnancy. IMO, most of the people out there bearing so-called "normal" children aren't even fit to raise kids.

If you're dead set on having a child that turns out to be a neurosurgeon or some such, I suppose you wouldn't consider having a fetus with Down syndrome, nor would you consider bringing to full term a fetus of even average intelligence. And that would be your right and should not be considered immoral.

[softwareNerd]

If people with Down's syndrome are not severly mentally handicapped, then it is really outside the context of Felipe's original question.

My point was simply this: that asking "should we abort the fetus?" is the wrong question. Until the child is born, the question is "should we have this child?"

[i fear we're going to end up with another 300 post abortion thread. ]

Edited August 21, 2005 by softwareNerd

[HaloNoble6]

Let's be clear here. Normal human: someone born with no significant barriers to achieving anything man, the rational animal, has ever been capable of. This, to me, bars deficiencies such as the absence of motor skills, the incapacity to ever think in abstract terms. Is there not a tool-set a "normal human" is endowed with at birth? A mind with the capacity to reason, a body with the capacity to be self-sufficient? Perhaps the later of these two general tool-sets will be less and less necessary as technology develops and we see motor skills supplemented by artificial limbs and such, but the former could never be supplemented.

To bear a child I knew would have little to no chance of interacting with his father at the level of thinking I operate at, to bear a child that I would always have to treat as a child at some fundamental level, would be contra my purpose of having children.

If a child born with Down's Syndrome has the capacity to achieve anything a child not born with Down's has, then this discussion is over and there's no problem. However, let's not kid ourselves, this is clearly not the case. From any number of Down's Syndrome webpages:

Down Syndrome is a genetic condition caused by extra genetic material (genes) from the 21st chromosome. The extra genes cause certain characteristics that we know as Down syndrome. Individuals with Down Syndrome also have all the other genes given to them by their parents. As a result, they have a combination of features typical of Down Syndrome on top of the individual features from their parents. This includes some degree of mental retardation, or cognitive disability and other developmental delays. Some of the physical traits that are common but not always present are epicanthal folds over the eyes, flattened bridge of the nose, a single palmar crease and decreased muscle tone.

In my time in existence, I've been raised by two kinds of parents: one, my mother, for which I can't ever interact with about my research, my philosophy, or about anything abstract for that matter because she has suffered from massive depression and she has willfully crippled her capacity to reason out of laziness, and another, my father, for which I can interact at any level whatsoever. Why do I call Down's syndrome a "tragic deficiency?" Simply because having such a child would mean I'm knowingly creating the kind of relationship I have with my mother between me and my child. It would mean that I would, like with my mother, have to always treat my child as a child, never sharing my greatest values (in engineering and philosophy), simply because he would not have the capacity to understand this.

No one here has said that all "normal" children are guaranteed to be intelligent. Furthermore, no one is arguing that a child with Down's Syndrome can't go on to live a perfectly moral, self-sufficient life. No, what I, at least, am saying is that every "normal" child is born with the tools to be as intelligent as me, if not more so, and as anyone else if given the proper guidance. A child with a mental deficiency such as Down's syndrome could never achieve this, regardless of my efforts, simply because he does not have the tools to do so.

[HaloNoble6]

My point was simply this: that asking "should we abort the fetus?" is the wrong question. Until the child is born, the question is "should we have this child?"

[i fear we're going to end up with another 300 post abortion thread. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/uploads/emoticons/default_confused2.gif' alt=':confused:'> ]

I agree, let's stick to this question.

[JMeganSnow]

Mental retardation and developmental delays doesn't necessarily mean that they never develop, it means that it takes longer. IIRC cognitive disability may mean that they aren't as alert to their surroundings as normal, i.e. that their brain works a little slower, not that it doesn't work at all.

[DavidOdden]

I'm having a hard time seeing how such a decision would be anything but wrong, though of course you might be able to construct such a context. One issue is when you find out, since this child-having stuff is highly emotional anyhow. Like it or not, people tend to get all attached to the parasite after it's been around for a few months, to the answer would be different if you make the horrifying discovery a month before delivery vs. a month after conception. That is a real negative consequence of deciding to end the pregnancy after many months of living with it and rearranging your life around it and the child that it is supposed to become. So here's the cold, hard answer. If you cannot give an excellent answer to the question "Why don't you just abort it and start again?", then you should abort it (and maybe start again). In the realm of what counts as a good answer, things like "But it's an innocent little baby", "All life is sacred" or "Everybody deserves a chance" are distinctly bad answers. (I know, you don't want to talk about abortion and I'm all in favor of that because few things will make people crazier than the A word. But let's face it: if a woman is pregnant and laters discovers that the fetus will have Downs, then "not having it" means aborting it). Some people are more into the chip off the old block, propogation of the family genes thing, so for them it might serve some purpose for them to knowingly have a mentally retarded child.

[HaloNoble6]

I agree, Dave. I mean the question is "why have it" not "why not have it?" The choice is inevitably "will you or will you not have a child with a mental disability?" I can't see a proper ethics leading one to "yes."

[Unconquered]

It is one thing to not be able to test for a certain genetic problem, and to be unpleasantly surprised at birth (or later, as the child matures and a problem surfaces.) It is quite another to evade the results of a genetic test or to deliberately not test because of a fear of the results.

Religious people are chock full of rationalizations about mentally/physically handicapped kids for at least two reasons. First, they are typically anti-abortion and thus consider aborting a fetus with a known major genetic problem to be immoral. Secondly, it's part of their philosophy to *want* the deformed, the crippled, the *needy* (at least in Christianity.)

In a rational philosophy however, it would be insane to knowingly have a child with a major genetic problem, especially one affecting the brain. It is hard enough to properly raise a normal child, particularly in today's world. The stress and burden of one with "special needs" is just self-sacrificial. For Objectivists particularly, who are typically above average intelligence (primarily, I think, because it takes above average intelligence to be able to stand back from the cultural crowd and see a different, better philosophy), it would be especially stressful to have a mentally crippled child.

Also, note how rationalizations about "it's ok to have a Down's syndrome child knowingly because they *might* achieve an IQ of 90" are contradictory to future technological advances that will be able to actively select for the best genetic combination from both parents. Gattaca aside (a flawed but interesting movie), it would be irrational to *not* want a child that deliberately has no major genetic problems and the best body (including brain) possible. Currently the best that can be done, which is still a huge improvement over the ignorance of the past, is in-utero genetic testing of the fetus. But if you have a rational idea of the status of the fetus, aborting one with a known major problem, is the only rational course.

Note as well the painful effects on the child. To want to deliberately create a mentally or physically handicapped baby that will experience a great deal more suffering than a normal child, and a normal adult if they live so long, is just plain malevolent in my view.

[DavidV]

In human relationships, we seek to treat others with justice – to choose the best among people, and to foster the best values in them. This applies to a friend, a business partner, or most crucially - a mate or a child.

For this reason, it is unjust and immoral to both you and your child to have a child for the wrong reasons, or to have anything but the very best child you can. Anyone who accepts less either does not care about his or his child’s welfare and happiness, or embraces suffering as the moral norm.

This principles applies to all elements of having children – deciding whether to have one, only allowing a healthy child to be born, and then raising a child with the proper values and education. We should use whatever means and technology is available to us to do so – whether it is abortion of unwanted pregnancies, pre-natal screening, or in the future, genetic engineering (assuming it is safe).