Deaf couple engineers a deaf child.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier. My position is based on individual innate rights which leads to a theory of limited government. An individual who is already born has a right not to be deprived of something he already has i.e. be it sight or hearing or physical beauty or dozens of other characteristics or his life for that matter. Ne ...[text shortened]... sterilization, allowing this couple their choice to procreate and abortion are all consistent.

No1: "I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier."

🙄

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1: "I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier."

🙄

Thanks for your off-topic trolling, Wolfie.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Thanks for your off-topic trolling, Wolfie.

Nemesio

You're welcome, Nemmie .......

Originally posted by pcaspian
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
I believe I have already addressed the difference between depriving an individual of something that he has and what this couple did which is to increase the POSSIBILITY that they might n ...[text shortened]... ief of morals regardless of the legal aspect.

thanks.

From my own perspective as a person who can hear and see, I would not want to deprive a child of the chance of being born with hearing and/or sight. However, I am not a deaf person and therefore do not feel that my opinion on the matter should be binding on a deaf couple; they may very well feel that attempting to have a deaf child would be beneficial to them AND the child. They may feel that they would be less effective parents to a hearing child than a deaf one. Since their perspective is one I cannot fully understand, I don't feel that my judgment is superior to their's on such a matter.

I still don't agree with the distinction you make between this couple and a deaf couple with a genetic predisposition to deafness. While to use legal culpability terms, this couple would be acting with "intent" and the other deaf couples would be acting "recklessly" (see my earlier post), both are sufficient levels of culpability to make such an act criminal if we accept the premise that to enhance the possibility of a deaf child being born is wrong. Therefore, your distinction does not work in legal and logical terms.

I recognize the rights of a person after viability and not before because they are not a person to me until viability. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to grasp. As a practical matter, recognizing rights in non-viable fetuses would make a severe limitation on the rights of pregnant women. There are any number of behaviors that can potentially cause harm to a fetus; smoking, being overweight, not exercising, etc. If we accept that fetuses have rights then any of these activities could be banned with criminal sanctions to enforce the banning. This is philosophically unacceptable to someone who believes in a person's individual rights and limited government; it is severely denying an undenialable person's rights to "protect" an inchoate person's "rights". Therefore, I cannot support the premise that children have any right to not be born deaf even though an already born person has a right not to be deafened.