Originally posted by ivanhoeIf by "engineer" you mean do the same as this couple did, that is increase the chances that the child would be born deaf, and by "allow" you mean that do I think they shouldn't be barred from doing such by law, then I would answer "Yes" as it's none of my business individually or the State's business as the agent of a collection of individuals.
Question for Nemesio and No1:
If a deaf couple is allowed to "engineer" a deaf child, should a hearing couple be allowed to do the same ?
Originally posted by no1marauder
If by "engineer" you mean do the same as this couple did, that is increase the chances that the child would be born deaf, and by "allow" you mean that do I think they shouldn't be barred from doing such by law, then I would answer "Yes" as it's none of my business individually or the State's business as the agent of a collection of individuals.
And how about a healthy couple would "engineer" a blind child ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf by "engineer" you mean do the same as this couple did, that is increase the chances that the child would be born deaf[or blind or any condition short of infectitious disease or one that imposes actual suffering on the child], and by "allow" you mean that do I think they shouldn't be barred from doing such by law, then I would answer "Yes" as it's none of my business individually or the State's business as the agent of a collection of individuals.
Does that mean you don't have any objections to healthy parents "engineering" a blind child.
A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
Originally posted by no1marauder
If by "engineer" you mean do the same as this couple did, that is increase the chances that the child would be born deaf[or blind or any condition short of infectitious disease or one that imposes actual suffering on the child], and by "allow" you mean that do I think they shouldn't be barred from doing such by law, then I would answer "Yes ...[text shortened]... my business individually or the State's business as the agent of a collection of individuals.
So, your answer is "yes".
Would it be allowed if the parents decided to make a child deaf or blind right AFTER birth ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo; this is simply a variant of your abortion debate and I have given my position clearly so there's really not much to add. And my answer to the above question was a "Yes" under the conditions specified in my answer. Be precise, Ivanhoe.
So, your answer is "yes".
Would it be allowed if the parents decided to make a child deaf or blind right AFTER birth ?
Originally posted by no1marauder
No; this is simply a variant of your abortion debate and I have given my position clearly so there's really not much to add. And my answer to the above question was a "Yes" under the conditions specified in my answer. Be precise, Ivanhoe.
no1, I think Ivan does bring up a good point. Why do you believe it would be wrong for a newborn to be bilnded purposefully ? The same question applies to deafening a newborn ? Surely it is not suffering provided the procedure is painless ?
Could you explain the difference between doing that to a newborn and the unborn ?
PS: I do actually admire your answering Ivan's question. It commits you to defending a view, which puts you in a vulnerable position should you not be able to support that view. If only your friend Nemesio could follow suit, but I would not expect that from him.
looking forward to continuing the debate.
pc
2 edits
Originally posted by pcaspianWell again this is merely a variant of the abortion debate. I would not support allowing anyone to blind or make deaf a newborn for the same reason I would not allow maiming of any kind by one individual of another. A new born child is still an autonomous individual in my view.
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
No; this is simply a variant of your abortion debate and I have given my position clearly so there's really not much to add. And my answer to the above question was a "Yes" under the ...[text shortened]... that from him.
looking forward to continuing the debate.
pc
Technically, these individuals are not "blinding or deafening" an unborn either; what they are doing is increasing the chances that a child will be born with one of these conditions. I cannot see the logical difference between two deaf or blind people procreating (assuming they have a genetic predisposition to these conditions) knowing that they are increasing the risk of these conditions being present in the child and what this couple did. As I assume you would not agree that deaf or blind people should have to endure forced sterilization to avoid an enhanced possibility of a child being born deaf or blind I cannot differentiate the case here.
Justice Holmes once said in a famous 1920's case upholding the state's power to impose forced sterilization on people of low intelligence: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." I think most of us would regard such a view as shocking now. Also, I would stress that I am taking a position as to a legal issue; whether they should be "allowed" to take an enhanced risk of these conditions meaning not forbidden to by law. I have not expressed a personal moral stand and don't feel it's terribly important what I would personally do as I have said here and on prior occasions that I do not feel that my moral stands should be necessarily codified into law.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Well again this is merely a variant of the abortion debate. I would not support allowing anyone to blind or make deaf a newborn for the same reason I would not allow maiming of any kind by one individual of another. A new born child is still an autonomous individual in my view.
Technically, these individuals are not "blinding or deafeni ...[text shortened]... ions that I do not feel that my moral stands should be necessarily codified into law.
Why do you keep introducing that red herring called forced sterilisation again and again ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat is a lie on many levels and a deliberate one.
In the perspective of your introducing this red herring, please allow me to remember you no1 of the fact that you didn't oppose infanticide, the killing of handicapped and disabled children (upto 12 ?) in the "Groningen Protocol" discussions.