Is it wrong to bring a "bad" life into existence?

[Larry Flyntz]

I had a pretty interesting debate in my Biomedical Ethics class today. The argument was based on the following:

Certain methods of aided reproduction (invitro fertilization and the like) pose a higher than normal risk of serious birth defects. Does this make the use of them morally questionable?

This question itself wasn't all that interesting, but one of the responses was. One argument goes something like this:

Bringing a bad like into existence is not morally questionable, because the only other alternative would have been non-existence, and existence is (almost) always better than non-existence.

The "almost" suggests that there are some cases in which life is so bad that it really would have been better to never have existed. But, the question that I thought was most interesting was, "Is existence (even a pretty bad existence) better than non-existence, and from that, is it morally okay to bring seriously "defective" (this may not be the best word choice) children into the world?

Before I write a whole treatise about what I think, I want to see if anyone at least finds this remotely interesting.

[TemporalRift]

Well I'd have to take the view that in this time of fairly advanced medicine that the chances of a child having problems so serious that their life is totally without happiness is pretty slim, and that probability would only decrease with time. I myself wouldn't have survived past two if I had been born fifteen or twenty years earlier, yet I lead a relatively normal life today. So I'll take the stance that it's worth the risk, because the risk can be managed.

Even in the purely hypothetical situation that a child born with these techniques is so damaged that it can't possibly know anything but suffering in its short life would provide masses of medical information that could be used to refine these techniques and help others, so I don't think there's a issue.

[Larry Flyntz]

I don't think there's a issue.

I don't see how this follows from what you just said. Basically, it seems you're saying "We can force this child to live an awful life, because it will provide useful information." How is that "not an issue"?

The life doesn't have to be "totally without happiness." I think one could reasonably reach the conclusion that it's morally wrong to bring someone with Tay-Sachs disease into existence. There is possibility for happiness, but also a lot of excruciating pain, with the latter far outweighing the former.

So, I guess the question can be refined a bit more: is it morally okay to bring a child who will experience a large amount of suffering into existence? And is one reason for this that existence is always better than nonexistence?

[Shire Le Buff]

It's an interesting question, but in the end I'm of the belief that no one has the right to decide another person's life including whether it gets to happen.

[Larry Flyntz]

It's an interesting question, but in the end I'm of the belief that no one has the right to decide another person's life including whether it gets to happen.

When does life start in this sort of belief?

[Shire Le Buff]

I meant by "including whether it gets to happen" that even if the lines are blurred with when life starts, I don't think a person has a right to keep a life from starting.   Of course this could be interpreted as "I think people should be constantly fucking and shooting out babies" to the extreme so I guess I need to think more on where the line is drawn.   But I'm pretty sure you don't want this to turn into an abortion discussion.

I'm also of the belief that a person's happiness is their own responsibility.   So if a person has been dealt a rough hand in life, they not only are still capable of happiness but are obligated in finding it themselves.   In that respect I don't think someone else can in the moral right look at them and tell them they have a "bad life" and would have been better off not existing at all.

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm also of the belief that a person's happiness is their own responsibility.

That might be a bit tough when you have Tay Sachs and every second of your life is excruciating pain.

And this is an abortion discussion. The question is pretty much, "if you have reason to think your child will lead a bad life, do you have the responsibility to abort it?" I think the answer is yes.

If we can prevent bad things from happening, we should do whatever we can to do so. So, if we know that a child will have, say, Down's Syndrome, I think it isn't only morally okay, but it is morally required to abort that fetus. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should kill all people with Down's, but if we can stop it from happening, I think we should.

I know people will point out that most people who are "deformed" in some way can still find happiness. There are plenty of happy Down's patients, and I think that is fantastic. But, the fact that people can find happiness doesn't mean that we should force them to suffer through enormous obstacles to find it.  Again, if we can prevent those obstacles, we should. Of course, my views on abortion help me in being okay with this kind of thing; I think any and all abortions are A-okay, as fetuses are not "persons" in the moral sense.

[Rhino......................]

Since when is happiness a prerequisite for living? Most people are unhappy for much of their lives. Everyone suffers in one form or another. There is absolutely no way of determining how an individual will live out his or her own life, and the only person who can ultimately determine that is the individual. I think abortion should be legal too, but what you're talking about assumes that those in power would always make the right decisions.

I know you're not talking about mass genocide, because

fetuses are not "persons" in the moral sense.

But that doesn't give the government (any government) the right to dictate which babies get to be born and which don't. The thing that makes abortion laws so important is that they revolve around choice. A mother has the right to make the very difficult decision of whether or not to bring her baby into this world. To say to those same mothers, "Sorry, your baby is on the list. I'm afraid legally, you can't keep it," kind of defeats the purpose.

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm not talking about governmental interference. I'm talking about an individual mother making this decision. Should she be morally (not legally) required to abort a fetus that will lead a life full of suffering?

Happiness isn't a prerequisite for living; it is a prerequisite for a good life. I think we should do whatever we can to make sure our children have good lives. All lives will have suffering, but some, if we don't abort, will have a lot more, and that doesn't seem right to me. Again, I revert to the Tay Sachs example. You say that "the only person who can ultimately determine that is the individual." People can't simply chose to ignore their disease. No one with Tay-Sachs will be able to say "Hey, I'm going to stop being in mass amounts of pain and be happy!"

You seem to value freedom, but there are some birth defects that simply do not leave people with any freedom. They are, so to speak, the slaves of their diseases. Why not abort them before they come into existence?

[Shire Le Buff]

Doesn't non-existence give a person even less freedom?

[Larry Flyntz]

Nope. In order to "have less freedom," one must exist. You cannot have anything (even the absence of something) in non-existence, because there is no you in nonexistence.

[Rhino......................]

You seem to value freedom, but there are some birth defects that simply do not leave people with any freedom. They are, so to speak, the slaves of their diseases. Why not abort them before they come into existence?

That's a good question. In most cases I would probably agree with you. I was just confused by this:

So, if we know that a child will have, say, Down's Syndrome, I think it isn't only morally okay, but it is morally required to abort that fetus.

That sounded to me like you wanted to make it a law, which would be government interference. If that's not what you meant, then I just misunderstood.

As for your broader question, I think in my case it would depend on the individual situations and, again, the individual choices of the mothers. I would be as uncomfortable stating that all children likely to have Downs should be aborted, as I would saying no children anywhere should ever be aborted.

[Larry Flyntz]

Yeah, sorry I wasn't more explicit. I meant to make the distinction between moral and legal requirements. In other words, I would suggest that the kind of abortion I'm talking about is morally required but should not be legally required. In this argument, I am trying to stay within the confines of the Constitution, because despite what I said in the other debate, I do hold it in rather high regard.

[GREGORIAN CHANT!!!]

So, if we know that a child will have, say, Down's Syndrome, I think it isn't only morally okay, but it is morally required to abort that fetus.

I was a Special Olympics volunteer when I was in high school, and I have worked with a couple competitors who had Down's Syndrome. Let me tell you that these kids were happy. When I was teaching them to ski, they were more determined than just about anyone I had ever met, and when they succeeded they were the epitome of the word happy. I believe that Mussolini wanted a system similar to what you mentioned, and look what happened to him.

PS- I love and fully support a woman's right to choose, but I think it should be hers and hers alone.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

I think Down's Syndrome is a terrible example to give when talking about something like this, and for exactly the reason that Alex said. Just because a child with Down's Syndrome may not lead the "quality" of life that you and I do, doesn't mean they can't be happy. Actually I'm more or less against the whole preventative abortion thing anyway. It would take a very extreme case for me to think it was morally the correct decision.

[Larry Flyntz]

I agree that Down's wasn't the best example, but I wasn't implying that they can't be happy, but that there will be more suffering than in the life of a "normal" child. So, if we can choose to never have that life come into existence, I don't see why we shouldn't.

There are typically two standards for this: in the first, people say we should only selectively abort those lives that when the person is living, he or she would say "I wish I were never born." I don't think Down's would fit this. But, I don't agree with this standard. I prefer the standard that views a life's capacity at becoming a good life. The first standard is flawed in my view because a "bad life" can still be a life worth living. But, we should promote the good where we can, so I think the second standard sets the bar a little higher.

Edit: Also, please stop comparing me to totalitarian dictators. K thanks.

[GREGORIAN CHANT!!!]

If this is the case I want to be reborn as British royalty or the son of a billionaire. People try to make the most out of any situation given to them, it doesn't matter if they are born into a "bad life" or a "good life."

If the armband and black shirts fit...

[Larry Flyntz]

it doesn't matter if they are born into a "bad life" or a "good life."

I'm sorry, but this statement seems absolutely absurd to me. Good is better than bad. If we can prevent bad to a certain extent, why not do it? There must be some sort of wrong done to prevent us from seeking that, but I don't see what wrong is done by never bringing a bad life into existence.

[GREGORIAN CHANT!!!]

I agree good is better than bad, but some couples when they get pregnant say "Hey, this kid is mine, and no matter what I am going to love it and raise it to the best of my ability." Basically you are saying that if a couple decided to keep a baby that is going to have a higher chance of a birth defect then they are irresponsible. Have you taken into account couples that cannot get pregnant easily, or that require one of the techniques that could lead to a higher risk? Do you support post-birth abortion?

[Larry Flyntz]

Yes, you've stated my argument correctly. I think such couples are acting irresponsibly and even immorally. Parents have a moral duty to prevent harm to their children (or future children). If it is clear that a future child will suffer great harms, they have the moral duty not to bring that child into existence.

Difficulty getting pregnant isn't good enough to get out of this moral requirement. Saying "getting pregnant was hard, so we're going to take what we can get" is morally selfish. You shouldn't bring a bad life into existence just because your biological clock is ticking.

Could you say a bit more about these risky techniques? I assume you're talking about things like in vitro fertilization, but I'm not sure I see what your argument is.

Post-birth abortion is an interesting topic, because I support it argumentatively, but I don't really support it with my "feelings." Here is the argument (or at least my version of it): The reason killing is wrong is that it harms society or members of society in some way. Killing does not actually harm the individual being killed (bear with me). Certainly, while the person is being killed, he is suffering and being harmed, but as soon as he dies, there is no harm done. Here's why: In order for there to be harm done, we must see a decline in "good" over time. Killing someone makes them cease to exist. Non-existence, being immeasurable, is not better or worse than existence. So, taking someone from existence to non-existence does not harm them. But, killing is wrong because it harms the people around the "victim." So, if I were to kill Person A, his family and friends would be harmed. So, the only interested parties in the case of a newborn are the parents, who would presumably be consenting to the post-birth abortion. If the parents are okay with it, I see no harm done to anyone.