5 ms·

No. I think this is a cruel and ignorant thing to say. Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. Choosing to not bring a a child w

No. I think this is a cruel and ignorant thing to say. Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil. Having a special needs child can dominate your finances, your life, and the lives of your family members and already existing children. People have a right to choose what what they want out of life, especially in the context of before a child is born.

rayiner 5y ago
Why stop there? It can be a challenge to have a kid who is ADHD, or is susceptible to depression or mental illness, or a different sexual orientation, etc. It’s not wrong to abort those children either, right?
- smt88 5y ago
  As someone who has all of those in my family, none involve having a lifetime dependent. Most people don't want to die and leave behind someone who can't care for themselves.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  For one, we don't have a good enough understanding of those things to be able to test adults definitively, so it's a moot point. That being said, if there was a test for ADHD and I knew what the odds were that my child would have ADHD, as someone with ADHD I would seriously consider whether or not I wanted to have kids or subject another human to that. So, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, in some universe, but there's a line between adversities for which you can still overcome and thrive (the ones you listed) versus the sorts of things prenatal tests check for where, if they do have these conditions they are either dead on arrival, dead soon after, will wish they were dead for most of their lives, or at the very least will never be a contributing member of society. I don't think the comparison you draw is fair.
  - titanomachy 5y ago
    I don’t think we understand these subtle mental disorders well enough for this kind of absolute decision-making. What is ADHD, really? “Your child has an extra chromosome and will probably never live independently” feels deeply different than “your child has a gene variant that subtly affects their brain in ways that make it harder to focus in certain circumstances, and also probably in dozens of other ways that we don’t understand, and also many very successful people have this variant and it’s possible it even contributed to their success”. A society that routinely aborts children in the second case is starting to tilt into wild dystopia. Not that we’ve identified such a gene, as far as I know.
  - sundvor 5y ago
    As someone with ASD/ADHD (professionally diagnosed), and with two children (one diagnosed the same so far), let me just say I'm somewhat taken aback by this. I hear you say you have ADHD yourself - each case is different and such, but you're posting on HN and I'd say that puts you far above the rest of society. Sure there are challenges but it can also be a kick-arse superpower; learn to embrace it, and most of all be grateful for the things you have achieved. If anything it has opened my mind about the beauty of a diverse society. There is more to life than a strict adherence to some notion of what it means to be successful. I've done pretty well for myself even though I've also had some rather hard times - no diagnosis or help existed in the 70s/80s. Then again, people will face hardships in the most unexpected ways so if anything it's made me more resilient. With the extremely low confidence factor in some of the conditions, this genetic testing is dangerous and unethical on so many levels.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  Wait, are you objecting to the abortion specifically? Or does it just bother you that people could have a conscious influence on the kind of children they do/don't get? If this is just a coded abortion debate... Count me out But if it's the latter... Parents have been "selecting" children of the "right" race, eye color, height, etc for millenia... It's called "being attracted to certain physical characteristics over others" and it's really quite pedestrian. ADHD, depression, and schizophrenia all appear to have a strong genetic component. I think most people would definitely weigh the knowledge of their partner's family's mental health history when they decide who to have children with. I mean, don't you think people should have the moral right to select their own mates, free from coercion? I think most people would consider that to be an absolute human right, and anything less would be morally condoning rape.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    They haven't been consciously selecting for traits, have they? Not with the certainty of a 1% false positive test. This is eugenism, with its adherents lacking the moral clarity of the of early 20th century eugenists - at leasts they honest about what they were doing!
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      Well, solely with respect to skin color, which is arguably THE single biggest physical characteristic of concern... Yeah, I'd say >95% of Americans consciously select their mates with skin color in mind. Google the rates of interracial marriage if you don't believe me. And yes, the skin/eye/hair color of the parents is probably about 99% determinant in the perceived race of the children... There are always exceptions, but two random people who are "white passing" are overwhelmingly likely to have children who are also "white passing". You can call this behavior "eugenism" or even just racism, and I'm not saying your terminology is wrong... But I dare you to start going around telling people that to their faces.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Why stop there? It can be a challenge to have a kid who is ADHD, or is susceptible to depression or mental illness, or a different sexual orientation, etc. It’s not wrong to abort those children either, right? But we don't stop there. The bar is considerably lower than "the kid might have problems". The mother, exclusively, can decide whether or not she wants to proceed with the pregnancy through to birth, and she doesn't need a reason other than "I don't feel like it". All those reasons you gave are still better than "I don't fell like it", and you somehow think that those are the wrong reasons?
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    To be fair, the pregnant woman isn't a mother yet - unless she has other children. She's deciding whether or not she wants to (or can!) cope with pregnancy and the hardships involved. She's deciding whether or not to become a mother or bring another child into the world. And yeah, it can look like "I don't feel like it" to a casual observer, but then again, it really isn't the casual observer's business. They won't know if it was planned or the result of failed birth control, if the father was/is abusive, and a myriad of other things. And to be absolutely clear: People would try to tell me "I didn't feel like it" - nevermind that I've never wanted children. I'd have been sterilized years ago if it were readily available and cheap in the US.
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      > And yeah, it can look like "I don't feel like it" to a casual observer, I think you misread my argument: if the bar is currently at "I don't feel like it" for abortions, then judging someone as morally or ethically "wrong" (or evil) for a higher bar is silly. [EDIT: I'm not making any judgement on a pro-choice position, nor am I attempting to trivialise the complex and often traumatising decision-making involved in abortions. I'm simply saying that if we accept "I don't need to give any reasons" then we shouldn't judge the people who give medical reasons]
  - watwut 5y ago
    This is not true in every state. Abortion is in the process of being outlawed in United States. Texas outlawed it. Supreme court is hostile to it for religious reasons.
tagoregrtst 5y ago
“ Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. ” No its not. “Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil.” A huge evil. Just consider your next paragraph explaining why its not evil; it centers around how having a disabled child affects you and others. I do apologize, but I find your last paragraph frighteningly narcissistic .
- honkycat 5y ago
  I can see from your comment history you are catholic. I don't see any point playing the "yes" "no" game with someone. I doubt you are going to convince me of your ethics, I doubt I will convince you of mine.

rayiner 5y ago

Why stop there? It can be a challenge to have a kid who is ADHD, or is susceptible to depression or mental illness, or a different sexual orientation, etc. It’s not wrong to abort those children either, right?

smt88 5y ago
As someone who has all of those in my family, none involve having a lifetime dependent. Most people don't want to die and leave behind someone who can't care for themselves.
xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
For one, we don't have a good enough understanding of those things to be able to test adults definitively, so it's a moot point. That being said, if there was a test for ADHD and I knew what the odds were that my child would have ADHD, as someone with ADHD I would seriously consider whether or not I wanted to have kids or subject another human to that. So, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, in some universe, but there's a line between adversities for which you can still overcome and thrive (the ones you listed) versus the sorts of things prenatal tests check for where, if they do have these conditions they are either dead on arrival, dead soon after, will wish they were dead for most of their lives, or at the very least will never be a contributing member of society. I don't think the comparison you draw is fair.
- titanomachy 5y ago
  I don’t think we understand these subtle mental disorders well enough for this kind of absolute decision-making. What is ADHD, really? “Your child has an extra chromosome and will probably never live independently” feels deeply different than “your child has a gene variant that subtly affects their brain in ways that make it harder to focus in certain circumstances, and also probably in dozens of other ways that we don’t understand, and also many very successful people have this variant and it’s possible it even contributed to their success”. A society that routinely aborts children in the second case is starting to tilt into wild dystopia. Not that we’ve identified such a gene, as far as I know.
- sundvor 5y ago
  As someone with ASD/ADHD (professionally diagnosed), and with two children (one diagnosed the same so far), let me just say I'm somewhat taken aback by this. I hear you say you have ADHD yourself - each case is different and such, but you're posting on HN and I'd say that puts you far above the rest of society. Sure there are challenges but it can also be a kick-arse superpower; learn to embrace it, and most of all be grateful for the things you have achieved. If anything it has opened my mind about the beauty of a diverse society. There is more to life than a strict adherence to some notion of what it means to be successful. I've done pretty well for myself even though I've also had some rather hard times - no diagnosis or help existed in the 70s/80s. Then again, people will face hardships in the most unexpected ways so if anything it's made me more resilient. With the extremely low confidence factor in some of the conditions, this genetic testing is dangerous and unethical on so many levels.
SkittyDog 5y ago
Wait, are you objecting to the abortion specifically? Or does it just bother you that people could have a conscious influence on the kind of children they do/don't get? If this is just a coded abortion debate... Count me out But if it's the latter... Parents have been "selecting" children of the "right" race, eye color, height, etc for millenia... It's called "being attracted to certain physical characteristics over others" and it's really quite pedestrian. ADHD, depression, and schizophrenia all appear to have a strong genetic component. I think most people would definitely weigh the knowledge of their partner's family's mental health history when they decide who to have children with. I mean, don't you think people should have the moral right to select their own mates, free from coercion? I think most people would consider that to be an absolute human right, and anything less would be morally condoning rape.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  They haven't been consciously selecting for traits, have they? Not with the certainty of a 1% false positive test. This is eugenism, with its adherents lacking the moral clarity of the of early 20th century eugenists - at leasts they honest about what they were doing!
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    Well, solely with respect to skin color, which is arguably THE single biggest physical characteristic of concern... Yeah, I'd say >95% of Americans consciously select their mates with skin color in mind. Google the rates of interracial marriage if you don't believe me. And yes, the skin/eye/hair color of the parents is probably about 99% determinant in the perceived race of the children... There are always exceptions, but two random people who are "white passing" are overwhelmingly likely to have children who are also "white passing". You can call this behavior "eugenism" or even just racism, and I'm not saying your terminology is wrong... But I dare you to start going around telling people that to their faces.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 5y ago
> Why stop there? It can be a challenge to have a kid who is ADHD, or is susceptible to depression or mental illness, or a different sexual orientation, etc. It’s not wrong to abort those children either, right? But we don't stop there. The bar is considerably lower than "the kid might have problems". The mother, exclusively, can decide whether or not she wants to proceed with the pregnancy through to birth, and she doesn't need a reason other than "I don't feel like it". All those reasons you gave are still better than "I don't fell like it", and you somehow think that those are the wrong reasons?
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  To be fair, the pregnant woman isn't a mother yet - unless she has other children. She's deciding whether or not she wants to (or can!) cope with pregnancy and the hardships involved. She's deciding whether or not to become a mother or bring another child into the world. And yeah, it can look like "I don't feel like it" to a casual observer, but then again, it really isn't the casual observer's business. They won't know if it was planned or the result of failed birth control, if the father was/is abusive, and a myriad of other things. And to be absolutely clear: People would try to tell me "I didn't feel like it" - nevermind that I've never wanted children. I'd have been sterilized years ago if it were readily available and cheap in the US.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > And yeah, it can look like "I don't feel like it" to a casual observer, I think you misread my argument: if the bar is currently at "I don't feel like it" for abortions, then judging someone as morally or ethically "wrong" (or evil) for a higher bar is silly. [EDIT: I'm not making any judgement on a pro-choice position, nor am I attempting to trivialise the complex and often traumatising decision-making involved in abortions. I'm simply saying that if we accept "I don't need to give any reasons" then we shouldn't judge the people who give medical reasons]
- watwut 5y ago
  This is not true in every state. Abortion is in the process of being outlawed in United States. Texas outlawed it. Supreme court is hostile to it for religious reasons.

tagoregrtst 5y ago

“ Wanting to have a child who is not special needs is not an evil thing. ” No its not. “Choosing to not bring a a child with special needs to term is not evil.” A huge evil. Just consider your next paragraph explaining why its not evil; it centers around how having a disabled child affects you and others. I do apologize, but I find your last paragraph frighteningly narcissistic .

honkycat 5y ago
I can see from your comment history you are catholic. I don't see any point playing the "yes" "no" game with someone. I doubt you are going to convince me of your ethics, I doubt I will convince you of mine.