Originally posted by NordlysRight, in many cases society can ameliorate the effects of a disability by providing extra resources to those with disabilities. Another way society could ameliorate the effects of disability is to allow folks access to genetic techniques that prevent disability.
It certainly is true that many disabled people don't have very good lives. But I also believe that in many, if not most cases, this is not a direct result of the disability, but a result of how society deals with disability, which means that it would be possible to give them a better quality of life without taking away their disability (and thus also their u ...[text shortened]... le with Down's Syndrome have a much longer life expectancy now than they had fifty years ago.
You seem to think that there is something that we would lose, as a society, if there were no disabled people. I tend not to think that we should prevent people from deciding not to have children with disabilities because we think that disabled people are instrumentally valuable.
The race analogy is poor. The only reason why it would be better to be born white (for instance) is because black folk are discriminated against. There are reasons why it is better to be born with sight, or without Down's syndrome that have nothing to do with systematic discrimination. One problem with having Down's syndrome is that it typically results in difficulties mastering a public language and mastering complex abstract cognition. One problem with being blind is that you tend to run into things...
Originally posted by wucky3Disabled people are called disabled for a reason; there are certain abilities they don't possess. Such people have a more limited ability to participate in the economy. This is why they get "disability" checks. A person who can't see can't drive, use most computers, work as security, etc.
As Nordlys has already pointed out people with impairments are only madde disabled by society. Disabled people will argue 'change society not people' If we are willing and able to change the social environment in appropriate ways , we can prevent an impairment becoming a disability. The point of the 'change society not people' slogan is that it is a mistake t ...[text shortened]... equal opps) is by preventing the physical or mental impairments that result in disabilities
I don't see why parents should be prevented from choosing to have a child who can see if they have that option.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI never implied that parents should be prevented from choosing to have a child who can see 🙄
Disabled people are called disabled for a reason; there are certain abilities they don't possess. Such people have a more limited ability to participate in the economy. This is why they get "disability" checks. A person who can't see can't drive, use most computers, work as security, etc.
I don't see why parents should be prevented from choosing to have a child who can see if they have that option.
There are plenty of people who can't drive, use computers or work as security that are not disabled
Originally posted by snowinscotlandAs I said, I don't think it's better to have Down's Syndrome than not to have Down's Syndrome, so I doubt there are circumstances in which it would be preferable to have a child with Down's Syndrome. But my personal belief is that a society with both non-disabled and disabled people is preferable to a society with only non-disabled people. And while most parents wouldn't choose to have a disabled child, many parents of disabled children say in retrospect that they wouldn't change a thing if they could go back. Therefore I think it may be a good thing that you can't choose exactly what child you are going to get.
so please tell me under what circumstances it might be preferable to have a child with Down's Syndrome?
Originally posted by NordlysMany parents who say that they wouldn't change a thing probably would have said the same thing if they had actually changed something. Of course once you get to know your child, and have developed a relationship with that child, you couldn't imagine going back and making a decision that you think would have prevented that child from being as it is now. But this doesn't show anything at all. The question here is whether, prior to having a child and getting to know it, it is permissible for a parent to engage in techniques of genetic manipulation that will prevent certain traits from being manifested in some future child.
As I said, I don't think it's better to have Down's Syndrome than not to have Down's Syndrome, so I doubt there are circumstances in which it would be preferable to have a child with Down's Syndrome. But my personal belief is that a society with both non-disabled and disabled people is preferable to a society with only non-disabled people. And while m ...[text shortened]... nk it may be a good thing that you can't choose exactly what child you are going to get.
Originally posted by bbarrOf course. My point was that even though very few parents would choose to have a disabled child (some would, but that's mostly parents who have that disability themselves, so they choose what's normal for them), it doesn't have to lead to a miserable life if they nevertheless get a disabled child. So even though my concern is mostly for society in general, I don't think it puts an undue burden on those who happen to get a disabled child.
Many parents who say that they wouldn't change a thing probably would have said the same thing if they had actually changed something.
Originally posted by bbarrI believe theat the use of genetic interventions for enhancements and the prevention or cure of a disease is permissable if that is the parents wishes.
Many parents who say that they wouldn't change a thing probably would have said the same thing if they had actually changed something. Of course once you get to know your child, and have developed a relationship with that child, you couldn't imagine going back and making a decision that you think would have prevented that child from being as it is now. But t ...[text shortened]... tic manipulation that will prevent certain traits from being manifested in some future child.
Originally posted by wucky3No, I wouldn't accept that they are "rightfully" concerned. Invidious discrimination against those presently disabled is wrong; it will not be made less wrong if there are more people who are talented in certain areas. Quite frankly, I find such an argument silly. But again, since no one will define what precisely they are describing as "eugenics", I am simply using the example that the Dawkins article provides i.e. the breeding of humans in a way that enhances the possibility that they may have certain "desirable" abilities in areas such as mathematics, music or athletics. The fact that Roger Federer can hit a tennis serve twice as hard as I can, doesn't make me think that I don't have "equal moral worth" with him or that I might not have "a right to exist".
"Where enthusiasts for the new genetics see inclusion and progress, some in the disability rights movement see exclusion and moral retrogression. The charge is that the very conception of progress that lies at the core of the ideology of the new genetics radically devalues individuals with disabilities, inflicting on them what may be the gravest injury of all ...[text shortened]... uld be rightfully concerned taking into account the the discrimination they already experience
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you mean this "attitude":
In particular I oppose the marauder's attitude, the "convenient" attitude, on which I elaborated more than enough.
The preference in a free society is that people should be able to do something unless there are compelling arguments that they not be allowed to do the thing. The burden is always on those who want to "ban" something or other.
Then that would be more properly described as the "freedom" attitude. If you are against a "free" society you might want to provide some arguments why a non-"free" society is better.
EDIT: The usual response by a human being to the command "You can't do X" (X being a thing he desires to do) is "Why?" I don't think it's unreasonable to request an answer to that question; I usually provide one to my 5 year old grandson.
Originally posted by wucky3Sorry; I meant to address my comment to anyone who is opposed to conscious genetic adjustment or planning, not necessarily you.
I never implied that parents should be prevented from choosing to have a child who can see 🙄
There are plenty of people who can't drive, use computers or work as security that are not disabled
Such people might lack the skills to do these things, but they can still do them. If someone is totally unable to do these things for some other reason than lack of skill I think they're disabled; they utterly lack certain important abilities and have to work around these inabilities no matter how hard they try to learn how to do them.
Originally posted by NordlysMy nephew has cerebral palsy. If my brother had a choice, he'd have his son NOT have this disability; believe me. He's done everything in his power to cure his son; surgeries, physical therapists, one on one nannies who are trained in child rearing, etc. If he could have done something or could do something to cure my nephew genetically he'd do it/have done it in a second.
As I said, I don't think it's better to have Down's Syndrome than not to have Down's Syndrome, so I doubt there are circumstances in which it would be preferable to have a child with Down's Syndrome. But my personal belief is that a society with both non-disabled and disabled people is preferable to a society with only non-disabled people. And while m ...[text shortened]... nk it may be a good thing that you can't choose exactly what child you are going to get.
Originally posted by NordlysMy son has a very minor physical disablement. Both I and him would rather he didn't and if technology comes along that can deal with it we will go for it. I don't believe that anyone, even parents of disabled children, can genuinely say that it is a good thing to be disabled. I would not support discrimination against the disabled or killing disabled children at birth, but if there is a choice before conception to choose between disabled and not then anyone who chooses to have a disabled child would be cruel.
Of course. My point was that even though very few parents would choose to have a disabled child (some would, but that's mostly parents who have that disability themselves, so they choose what's normal for them), it doesn't have to lead to a miserable life if they nevertheless get a disabled child. So even though my concern is mostly for society in general, I don't think it puts an undue burden on those who happen to get a disabled child.
Originally posted by NordlysI didn't say only to the non-disabled, but that we have to consider that we'll either have a child with disability (wondering if it wasn't better to correct it) or a child without disability (wondering if it wasn't better to have left it). So we have to consider both.
Why should we only listen to the non-disabled? Why should I believe them more than those who say it's better to be deaf or autistic? Most children would still be born without a disability, unless we started making genetic "corrections" to make them deaf or autistic. And being non-disabled doesn't guarantee that you'll be happy with the life you have. ...[text shortened]... st people would have those attributes, it's not certain that it would still work that way.
The key element was that the question is only about the possibility of ex-post regret as that child's persona isn't formed yet. I'm a bit disappointed that you chose not to comment on that.
Disabilities are not defined by statistical studies about who is happy or not, they are medical conditions, so I put them on a different level than say, having blue eyes.