Re: Cheating Destiny (book excerpt)
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ The Islet Foundation Message Forum ]
[ FAQ ]
Posted by rlruby on 19:16:29 2006/07/12
In Reply to:
Re: Cheating Destiny (book excerpt) posted by klausen
"According to your logic, there is nothing immoral in a pregnant woman chain smoking, injecting drugs, practising risky sex with people she has strong reason to suspect have AIDS, not taking folic acid to avoid spina bifida in the child, and, generally, doing everything humanly possible to risk the future health of the child"
Comment: You are equating voluntary risky behavior with having diabetes, I don't think that's reasonable. Also, in the case of the smoker, if they decide to quit that materially benefits another person. I don't think you can identify a beneficiary of your decision to not have a child, so they aren't exactly the same thing, as the person who never existed isn't around to benefit.
"Have a look at the famous Pullman Car Company case from 1890, which established that a fetus injured by someone's negligence when in the womb has a right to sue the person who injured it!"
Comment: Same point as above - I don't believe that the decision to have a child is equivalent to a deliberately harmful act.
"It is often said today that we have a moral obligation to future generations so we should protect the environment for them. But on your theory, we could have no obligation to them because they do not exist yet!"
Comment: Wrong - future generations exist today (I will likely die long before most infants born today will). In that case, my decision to destroy infrastructure has an impact on an existing person.
"But that does not mean that terrible diseases have a 'right' to continue to plague humanity from one generation to the next if we can avoid this by procedures"
Comment: It's pretty well established that T1Ds exist who have no prior family history (me for one). Preventing me from having children might reduce the future number of T1Ds but it would not come close to eliminating the disease. Genetic counseling is a great idea for people who are unsure they would be able to care for someone with a serious illness, no question about it but it sounds like you are advocating something closer to coerced abortions. I'm all for giving people the most information possible before having children, but that's a long stretch from condemnation of those who choose to proceed.
Bottom line - my issue with you and Sarah is that you are both accusing those of us who have kids as being immoral and I don't think that is either fair or correct.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ The Islet Foundation Message Forum ]
[ FAQ ]