Interesting Moral Question

Subscribe to save a kitten.

Stalk me:
http://Twitter.com/DeanLeysen
http://Facebook.com/DeanLeysen

Tumblr:
http://DeanLeysen.com/Tumblr


Music:
Brad Sucks (used with permission)



Tags:
DeanLeysen "Dean Leysen" OGFurious Furious

Category:

Education

Tags:

• DeanLeysen
• Dean Leysen
• OGFurious
• Furious
• interesting moral question
• interesting
• moral
• question
• dilemma
• law
• baby
• babies
• murder
• consiracy
• legal
• illegal
• government
• society
• bill
• right
• infant
• couple
• relationship
• pregnant
• pregnancy
• mutation
• mutate
• disease
• genetic
• gene
• genes
• DNA
• genome

[ericafash]

I think in some areas in the world its selfish to even birth healthy children. I don't think most of us realize the current problems, and future problems of overpopulation.

But in terms of this question I believe no child should be brought into an environment where their needs won't be met. As well, if parents know they will pass on some kind of disease to their child, it would be immoral in my opinion to have one. There are many alternatives now.

[TheP1x3l]

The difference I think lies with the fact that murderers usually want to commit the crime then go on with their lives and not be caught. Whereas, the parents of such a child would hopefully know what will happen and hopefully be willing to take responsibility for the care of that child and make the child's life as comfortable as possible.

[JesusManSauce]

no, adopt a child

[LadyPerlOfMoonlight]

I think the couple should be educated on the high risks of pasting on genetic problems to future children they plan on having, and promote the idea of adoption. Nobody has the right to force others on having children or not having. But goverments can and should protmote and use propaganda to think about the risks and selfishness of having child and what effects it may have on a child. Also there are thousands of children in childcare or in the streets lost and lone needing a family.

[andell1]

The type of question that would present a more interesting moral conundrum, for me at least, would be if a person or people who you loved and cared for were planning on murdering someone you hated, would you reveal the plot to the police ahead of time, and risk seeing those you loved sentenced to a long stretch in prison or worse?

It's not a comparing issue...but I think it would test the moral fibre of even the most moral people around!

[andell1]

I'm not sure how to answer this question. I mean, I suspect that when two people predisposed to passing along a horrible genetic ailment to offspring decide to have that child, it is for selfish reasons...and they choose to believe that the science of the matter may not be correct.

Murder, by contrast, presents a more certain outcome...and if we're removed from it, it's easier to act upon...especially if there are no specific consequences for us.

[KFuzze]

The question ultimately boils down to "Is it better to live a very hard short life or not to live at all?" The answer to this question obviously varies depending on the individual and circumstance. Therefore, it's unanswerable from a realistic approach. However for me personally, the question has absolutely nothing to do with overpopulation. It's about how much respect and love parents plan on showing their newborn. I think it's unfair to stop someone from living, regardless of circumstance.

[Storestyggesvendsen]

I would like to get your opinion on Inbalance between right and wrong

watch?v=vDFsZThCJh0&context=C3­d36efeADOEgsToPDskLWtOduNdHOWq­7vFGBwRzpp

[007mano1]

@JRico4qh2 yh, In part that is true, up untill the point were humans, even those who are stronger and fitter and more fertile might end up with a baby not as healthy so to speak, genetically or physically, cause even through evolution we have seen birth-defects on species, supposed to be evolving in a better way through superiour genetics, hence was the point I tried to make, is the virtue of science allowed to be able to judge whether or not that child should or shouldn't be born

[JRico4qh2]

@007mano1 The fact of the matter is that a huge part of our procreation is (sexual) human attraction. Human attraction is (and seemingly has always been) greatly subject to genetics. The stronger, fitter and more fertile have always been more attractive to the opposite sex. Then here comes my question: Has - by using selective attraction - evolution not always tried to predetermine the health and success of our children? Think about it...

[007mano1]

we as humans never knew before if that would happen through the miracle of science we do know, the moral question lies in the part of; should we even know what kind of baby we are having...should science be able to tell us if it's gonna be a healthy kid or not...shouldn't we treasure life as it is handed out to us, like evolution did for us millions of years, what if one of these supposed to be unhealthy kids is a prototype of our race that we can't even see untill it has fully grown, we evolve

[MsMouseymousey]

u need a licence to have a dog... and u dont to have a kid! wheres the cop on in that?!