5 ms·

Put yourself in the child's position. You'd grow up and discover that your deafness is not due to some random genetic mutation, or even just inheritance - but y

Put yourself in the child's position. You'd grow up and discover that your deafness is not due to some random genetic mutation, or even just inheritance - but your parents selected you to be deaf - just so that you could be exactly like them. I'd be outraged. Wouldn't you be? And I'm not saying that we should abort deaf children, nor am I saying that we should deliberately select "hearing" embryos instead.

leoedin 14y ago
The point tunesmith is making is that if the parents hadn't selected the child to be deaf, that particular child simply wouldn't exist. The parent's child would be a different combination of genetics. The child themselves really couldn't be outraged, because if the parents had made a different choice they would have never developed into anyone. It is an interesting ethical question. It isn't nearly as simple as the circumcision debate, or the "remove an extra finger" issue discussed elsewhere. In both those cases, the parents make a choice to modify an existing child. The child grows up knowing that had their parents made a different choice, they would have a foreskin/extra finger etc. The deafness debate is profoundly different, because the child simply wouldn't exist had the parents made a different choice. If the choice for me was between being selected to be deaf and not being selected at all, I'd choose the former.
- saalweachter 14y ago
  Considering the countless potential never-borns is a terrible game. If the children who could be born get a full say in the matter, then all women everywhere should always be pregnant, so that the maximum potential number of children can be born. Worse: we should really be inducing labor prematurely at 7 or 8 months, once survival is nearly guaranteed with current technology, so that the mothers can become pregnant as soon as possible, giving even more potential children the chance to be born. Simply matching up every egg with a sperm does not give every potential child the chance the exist: we need to clone every egg and every sperm a trillion times over, and match up every possible combination. Half our population must be constantly pregnant, and the other half tending the endless fields of frozen embryos waiting their turn, if every potential child is to be given their day in the sun. There are just too many potential children to go down this road. Every action we take closes the door on an infinite number of potential children while opening the door an a different infinite set. Getting pregnant closes the door on the infinite number of children you can't have while pregnant with the one actual child.
  - leoedin 14y ago
    I completely agree with you in broader terms, but that wasn't really what my comment was about. The poster I replied to suggested that they'd be outraged if they discovered that their parents had made a concious choice to select a deaf embryo. My point, and the reason that it isn't a black and white debate, was that if the parents hadn't made that choice, the deaf-but-outraged child wouldn't exist. On a larger, societal level, I think that purposefully selecting deaf children is wrong. On a personal level, if I was that deaf child, I don't know if I could be outraged at my parents choice because if they hadn't made it I simply wouldn't exist. You'd have to be fairly certain in your beliefs to be outraged at acts that resulted in your being.
tunesmith 14y ago
In that case, your parents did not select you to be deaf. They simply selected you. They did not select you, and then cause you to be deaf. You were deaf by definition. Your alternative was not existing at all. In a sense, they saved your life. The outrage, from the perspective of the people who disagree, is that the parents didn't select an entirely different child.

leoedin 14y ago

The point tunesmith is making is that if the parents hadn't selected the child to be deaf, that particular child simply wouldn't exist. The parent's child would be a different combination of genetics. The child themselves really couldn't be outraged, because if the parents had made a different choice they would have never developed into anyone. It is an interesting ethical question. It isn't nearly as simple as the circumcision debate, or the "remove an extra finger" issue discussed elsewhere. In both those cases, the parents make a choice to modify an existing child. The child grows up knowing that had their parents made a different choice, they would have a foreskin/extra finger etc. The deafness debate is profoundly different, because the child simply wouldn't exist had the parents made a different choice. If the choice for me was between being selected to be deaf and not being selected at all, I'd choose the former.

saalweachter 14y ago
Considering the countless potential never-borns is a terrible game. If the children who could be born get a full say in the matter, then all women everywhere should always be pregnant, so that the maximum potential number of children can be born. Worse: we should really be inducing labor prematurely at 7 or 8 months, once survival is nearly guaranteed with current technology, so that the mothers can become pregnant as soon as possible, giving even more potential children the chance to be born. Simply matching up every egg with a sperm does not give every potential child the chance the exist: we need to clone every egg and every sperm a trillion times over, and match up every possible combination. Half our population must be constantly pregnant, and the other half tending the endless fields of frozen embryos waiting their turn, if every potential child is to be given their day in the sun. There are just too many potential children to go down this road. Every action we take closes the door on an infinite number of potential children while opening the door an a different infinite set. Getting pregnant closes the door on the infinite number of children you can't have while pregnant with the one actual child.
- leoedin 14y ago
  I completely agree with you in broader terms, but that wasn't really what my comment was about. The poster I replied to suggested that they'd be outraged if they discovered that their parents had made a concious choice to select a deaf embryo. My point, and the reason that it isn't a black and white debate, was that if the parents hadn't made that choice, the deaf-but-outraged child wouldn't exist. On a larger, societal level, I think that purposefully selecting deaf children is wrong. On a personal level, if I was that deaf child, I don't know if I could be outraged at my parents choice because if they hadn't made it I simply wouldn't exist. You'd have to be fairly certain in your beliefs to be outraged at acts that resulted in your being.

tunesmith 14y ago

In that case, your parents did not select you to be deaf. They simply selected you. They did not select you, and then cause you to be deaf. You were deaf by definition. Your alternative was not existing at all. In a sense, they saved your life. The outrage, from the perspective of the people who disagree, is that the parents didn't select an entirely different child.