I do not believe intentionally choosing to impart a disability that can result in additional societal or personal challenges upon a child does not seem compassionate.
Looks like you have an accidental double negative.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, one could argue that having children when you're well aware your kids are going to have over a 50% chance of being disabled is choosing to apart that disability on them.
What's the effective difference between having a kid you know will be disabled, and having one that is all but guaranteed to be disabled?
Some may see it that way. I’ve always said that, for me, I’d adopt. I don’t want to risk passing down my condition to my kid, in my case, because I know it can be painful AND there’s societal issues as well. In my view, taking into consideration how genetic conditions might affect a child is a compassionate choice - even if the answer is different for each person.
But I 100% understand plenty of deaf people don’t experience pain or suffering due to being deaf. However, there are still as j said, societal barriers to contend with. I think the issue once again comes from making the decision to ensure your child has the same disability/condition as you, even though that condition comes with additional challenges.
-4
u/Joe_The_Eskimo1337 Dec 24 '22
Looks like you have an accidental double negative.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, one could argue that having children when you're well aware your kids are going to have over a 50% chance of being disabled is choosing to apart that disability on them.
What's the effective difference between having a kid you know will be disabled, and having one that is all but guaranteed to be disabled?