Morality in the world

genieguru

I saw this story on the net recently(don't remember the site though)

Its about a family,or more to the point the parents
They have 2 kids,both well educated and "normal"

And they have a 3rd child who was unfortunately born with deformities to his legs and his arms had to amputated from the elbow down

The parents had the option to abort the child but they chose not to
and they were being praised for giving the child a chance to live

So here is what bugs/confuses me

On one hand,they did the right thing by giving the child a chance at life

But on the other hand,they have done a gr8 injustice to the kid

Lemme explain
He is about 6 years old now,and has no doubt had a sheltered up bringing
He is happy because,he is with his family and doesn't have any other worries

But eventually as he grows up he'll have to enter a place known as "Society" and there he will have to deal with countless problems
Which includes people staring at him,people talking behind his back,fools laughing at him and worse yet .......people pitying him
It'll be interesting to see if he doesn't get depressed
He will eventually see other kids on the street playing baseball and wonder why he is unable too......

Now because of his physical state,he will need someone to take care of him or the rest of his life
He'll be fine for a long while as long as his parents are alive
After that his brother or sister might take care of him

Then what......

So where is the morality in this????

On one hand,the child gets a chance to live but on the other hand he has to live a life time of misery

So what do u guys think??

Maddogg6

You would have to ask the kids (plural) and his parents if they made the right decision - its not up to a 3rd party to decide that. It really is that simple for me. Its a personal decision that they will have to live with and shouldn't be legislated by law or religious beliefs - nor should it be judged by *anyone*.

I see pitying people as a lack of respect in general towards that person. It often leads to patronization which is too often humiliating for many who are still with full mental capacities. (A quadriplegic taught me that lesson) Sure, some may get addicted to the added attention, but ultimately it often leads to resentment.

In my talking with many of those with 'life challenges' - most just want to be a normal citizen who can function without needing any help or pity. Most learn to deal with their challenge - but few learn how to deal with others 'humiliating patronization'. Consider: how can you with clear conscience, curse someone who is trying to be extra nice and/or helpful toward some one with a disability? Many feel when others offer their help that its out of some obligation, moral or otherwise, and not out of simple humanity. Thats the real challenge for most I met, getting in and out of a shower is nothing compared to that.

genieguru

^^Dude thats exactly my point

The kid will have to deal with people interacting with him not because they want to,but out of pity

"nor should it be judged by *anyone*."
Agree with u there,but i'm only concerned about the justice(or lack there of) that was done to the kid

Russ

Well it's true, some such people may end up living an unnecessarily cruel life, full of physical and emotional pain, some do alright, and may even end up living a better life than *normal* people, so where do you draw the line?

What about normal people that have some sort of accident that results in a similar condition, should the doctors just let them die?

What about people with a dangerous (maybe crippling) and contagious (not necessarily highly contagious) disease, should doctors let them die so that they do not suffer? Should they be forced to live in isolation so that they cannot spread the disease?

What about people who carry *bad* genes (i.e. genes responsible for birth defects, etc), should they be prevented from having children so that they do no pass on the bad genes?

Who is to decide such things and where does it stop?

genieguru

"normal"

This is where the question comes,who decides what is "normal"
Most common definition is "the majority"

@russ-what u said is true to a gr8 extent
but all i am saying is that the parents of the kid in the case i mentioned have done a gr8 injustice to the kid

Russ

I understand what you are saying, but maybe this child (due to his/her condition) devotes more time to education, and becomes the next Stephen Hawking or something, or maybe finds the cure to some bad disease, etc.

... and ends up being happy.

BTW: The above does not even consider any future technology that could make a difference.

Technology in prosthetics keeps improving... who knows maybe some day they will have thought controlled prosthetic limbs, etc, that work as well as or better than the real thing.

Or maybe through stem cell research, etc, you will be able to grow new limbs one day.

The above is not as far-fetched as some might think.

elle08

this very true and that is probably the outcome if a child has been tried to be aborted. A couple should think about the results and what might happen to their baby if they will try this things. It is a big sin, why do you have to take away the right of the child when evryone has a chance to live in this world.

genieguru

^^no they didn't try to abort the child and fail

they knew the child would be born with defective limbs,but still went through with it

on one hand,its probably the right thing to do,by giving the child a chance at life
but its also cruel since the child will have to face a life time of difficulty,he will feel awkward in society more often than not,he will be pitied by others and he can't even change the channel on his TV by himself if he wanted

so thats why i'm questioning the moral behind the decision

Al_Vampyre

The problem with this type of question is that every individual's thoughts and ideas about what is going to affect quality of life for a child is different.

This is a fairly extreme example but what if a child was known to be congenitally deaf or blind? Do the same thought processes apply? Its also a fairly new dilemma, medical science is at the point now where these young lives can be saved, but whether or not they should be is an altogether different, and very difficult, question.

Russ

I think that the example chosen was not necessarily the best one to make the point (and the fact that we were not able to read the story ourselves does not help). If there was some indication that this family could not possibly help this child to have a good life, there might be an entirely different response.

i.e. What if it was a single mother, addicted to drugs, living in a homeless shelter, etc?

In any case, one can only hope that anyone who is faced with such a decision, puts careful thought into it, and does not act on emotions or religious beliefs alone.

So where do you draw the line? Is it OK with you that doctors help people to be born, that if left in the hands of god (i.e. no doctors), most likely would not be? Is the doctor doing gods work? What about when the same doctor does an abortion? How do you know that it was not gods will for them to do so?

Alistair

Others have said it already but given that this child's only problems appear to be with his/her limbs, I'd have to say the parents made the right decision. We have soldiers who get prosthetic limbs that function very well. Prosthetics have indeed come a long way and are closing in on functioning nearly identical to their flesh and blood counterparts. There is a good deal of research going into this.


Had the example been different and included mental retardation or something that would literally have made the kid require the personal care of the parents for the rest of their lives and then either have to be institutionalized or taken in by healthier siblings, my personal decision would likely be different. Personally I'm opposed to abortion unless the mother has a very high chance of dying (actual death, not some bullshit about the mother having to change her lifestyle thats a cop-out) in childbirth or if the child has serious health problems. To me Blindness and Deafness while inconvenient and difficult to deal with as a parent, aren't something worth aborting the child. I've met plenty of blind and deaf people (not both at the same time) who are well adjusted in society and that I have alot of respect for, not to mention I'm not sure how you would detect that in the womb.

power_drain

They made it seem like not aborting the child was what is expected from them, and that is what is right and moral. Just because it looks good to others, not actually thinking about what the child would go though in the long run. That being said, if they had chosen to abort the child, because they thought about him having a miserable future, others would look at them and say that they are evil. When actually, not aborting the child is just selfish on the parents part.. If i were them i wouldnt care about what others think of me, as long as the child doesnt have to live in pain.

genieguru

@power drain-
Thats exactly my point of view

but considering what the others have said about prosthetics,i guess the kid will grow up and fit into society well enough
i hope he does