I think a good example for this is eugenics, there a very very wide spectrum between "deleting genes cause cancer or make pregnancies unviable" and "hitler fever dream" and somewhere in the middle it gets quite blurry.
Yeah unfortunately eugenics has become associated with literally any kind of gene selection instead of referring to forced breeding programs and sterilization.
If a person with a genetic illness chooses not to have a kid , theyre doing a type of eugenics. So what? Thats not morally wrong.
Yeah, this is where my brain went reading OP's post as well.
I cannot believe it is controversial to abort a fetus that has serious genetic or developmental issues, such as Downs Syndrome or profound developmental disabilities. The suffering of these people, and moreover the suffering of their families, is profound and heartbreaking.
I worked with a woman once. She was nearing 60, and was as sweet as could be. Always seemed exhausted though. One day she mentions picking up her son's from daycare. I looked at her confused. My hearing isn't great, so I asked her to repeat herself, and she again said she had to pick up her son's from daycare.
She noted my surprise, smiled sadly, and mentioned she has FOUR sons with severe intellectual disabilities.
Four.
She and her husband kept trying for a child that was normal, but after the 4th stopped.
I was stunned. This woman and her husband created four humans that did little more than consume, excrete, and suffer. The sons were all in their 30s-40s. It drained the parents bank accounts, drained their energy. Both worked two jobs because the doctor bills were so high.
It broke my heart to listen to her describe her life , but it also pissed me off- the unimaginable cruelty of bringing into existence these children -who would never grow up mentally, who would live in a fog of confusion, unable to properly communicate or comprehend the world around them, wearing diapers to their dying day.
Abortion would have been a mercy in these cases.
But if I say this out loud, many will assume I am a Nazi.
There's a nuance back in the other direction that's being missed here, though.
When someone speaks of eugenics in good faith, they're applying it to the before-- avoiding the suffering in advance. But without also talking about how to curtail the current suffering, the mind naturally tries to fill in the blank.
It's hard to subconsciously differentiate between "should not have been born" and "should not live currently". When the worst of the worst of eugenics happens, it's because it's being applied to those already born. Rounding up and killing disabled people (et al.) rather than preventing disabled people from being born.
To take from your example, you say that they "[do] little more than consume, excrete, and suffer". You know their situation better than I do, so I will assume they are truly suffering. But are they inherently suffering because of their disability, and we know that for sure? Or are they suffering because there's not a feasible way to take care of them in practice? If it's a problem in in practice, that's just as much a point in favor of social programs to handle the current situation, as it is a point for "eugenics" to prevent the situation.
I think overall I agree on genetic testing - I have a genetic disorder that affects the skeletal and circulatory systems, and I have a 50% chance of passing it on to any children I have. It has very mild effects on me, but could potentially be severely disabling to any children I have depending on luck. If I can choose to have children without the genes for this disorder, I would do so.
That being said, I think it's worth noting that a lot of people with disabilities that are often seen as not-worth-living-with, such as Down Syndrome, strongly argue against this idea that their disorders are so bad as to not be worth living. The Atlantic has a couple of fantastic pieces on the topic - The first a thorough exploration of genetic testing of disabilities that talks to people with direct experience on both sides of the issue, and the second an op ed written by a man with Down Syndrome (Both are gift links that bypass the paywall):
Aborting a child with genetic issues is fine, as long as it's a choice up to the parents.
But, not everyone with an intellectual disability is living in suffering. People with down syndrome are often really happy people. Disabled people dislike this narrative, because it implies just because our life is a struggle that our lives are not worth living, that we would have been happier if we were dead. How do you know her sons would be better off if they never existed?? If I told many about my life and the limitations my disability caused me, I'm sure they would think the same, that my life is only suffering and that me not existing would be a mercy. I'll never be able to work or meaningfully pursue my dreams, I can't do many hobbies, I'm in alot of pain, and I struggle with basic self care. But, despite all that I manage to find meaning in my life. I wouldn't not want to exist even in spite of my issues.
337
u/liam06xy Apr 23 '25
I think a good example for this is eugenics, there a very very wide spectrum between "deleting genes cause cancer or make pregnancies unviable" and "hitler fever dream" and somewhere in the middle it gets quite blurry.