free12thinker

If someone can explain to me the good in bringing a sick baby into this world, I would like to hear it. Or an unwanted baby for that matter. When can we finally be honest with ourselves and note that there is some bad about bringing life into this world, when that life will be forsaken (medically or by the parent and society)

Scrutinizer

I'm interested in whether you think the converse is true -- do we do something morally good by bringing a healthy baby who would lead a fruitful and worth-while life into the world? If so, would it then be morally wrong to purposely fail to conceive a child you can reasonably foresee would live a healthy & fruitful life? And if not, why is it wrong to bring an unhealthy child into the world but not right to bring a healthy one?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you've written -- I'm just interested in a response to what I've said, because the so-called "person affecting restriction" and talk of aborting a foetus for its own sake, etc., creates many problematic ethical issues.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

free12thinker

You have a very good question. My answer would be as such.

It's never been irresponsible (and in that immoral) to not take the initiative in doing something you are not responsible for doing. Perfect examples are offering someone a ride, , conceiving a child etc.. But if you choose to take that step anyway, a moral responsibility kicks in. If you get pregnant for example, taking drugs and excessive alcohol is deemed immoral, because it negatively impacts the fetus. If you offer someone a ride, and you are their way to work, than it is immoral to renege for no good reason, because by reneging, you are negatively impacting them.

Short answer - - I think it is our moral duty to lessen the suffrage of those we are responsible for, that including a fetus we don't want or a fetus that has preexisting medical issues. But unless we put that responsibility in our hands, we don't have any existing moral obligations. In this, conception is a choice, whether we decide to or not is what ultimately determines the morality behind it.

Scrutinizer

free12thinker,

You make a good point about moral responsibility arising from decisions even when those decisions were not morally incumbent on us to make, eg. pregnancy. But that response seems to imply that it is only after one is already pregnant that moral responsibility arises. To test the moral acceptability of such a notion, let me state the question I asked you originally in slightly different words:

Let's say you carry quite a serious disease or handicap that you know with a high degree of certainty would affect your child if you were to conceive. Do you do something morally wrong by conceiving anyway? And if so, since it is morally wrong to knowingly conceive a diseased/seriously handicapped child, is it morally right to conceive a child you know with a high degree of certainly would be free from such diseases and live a healthy, happy life?

Now your response to the last time I asked this question seemed to say that we don't have any general responsibility to conceive, but that once conception has occurred we have a responsibility towards the foetus. Wouldn't that also imply that we don't have a general responsibility to refrain from conceiving but that once conception has occurred we have a responsibility towards a diseased/handicapped foetus, namely, the responsibility to abort it? Your response seems to indicate that there is nothing wrong with conceiving a diseased/handicapped child but that once conception has occurred we then have a responsibility to abort it. Is that a fair summation?

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

free12thinker

That is a fair summation, yes. :0) I certainly feel by not aborting the sick infant, for whatever reason, we are doing an injustice to the baby. But I am not saying that conception of a healthy baby is morally right or wrong, because I don't think it's either. Conception in itself is a decision, after conception is known, I believe it is our responsibility to do what's best for the child, and for ourselves for that matter. If a woman is pregnant with child, even if that child is considered healthy, but conception may kill the mother, abort the child. For a dead mother to a child is a tragic loss in itself and would bring huge quality of life issues to question.

Jamie_L

I think we tread perilously when we start accepting the judgement of caregivers as a reasonable method of determining when a life should be taken. Suppose the sick infant is born. If, in the parent's judgement, the child will have a bad life, are they justified in killing it? How do we set the standards for "a bad life"? Suppose a parent just thinks being poor will be an awful life. Are they justified in aborting a healthy fetus?

After going round and round in the abortion and personhood threads, I'm settling into the position that at some point during a pregnancy, the fetus has a right to life equal to that of any other person. I think it is dangerous to start allowing that right to be subordinated based on the judgements of others about the quality of life that person may or may not have.

Jamie

free12thinker

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with the danger in alloting decisions like these. But I will answer each one individually. If a mother wants to abort a child because she thinks that being poor will lead to a bad life, let her abort. Why? Because if a mother is considering abortion, no matter what the reason is, it means she is not 100% committed to having the child and that could lead to neglect. We simply can't count on a change of heart.

As fas as killing a child after they're born -- for quality of life concerns? It's done everyday anyway. It's called decision not to resucitate (did I spell that right?), or decision not to continue meds. Doctor's and law allow for it.