Purdy: Genetics and Reproductive Risk: Can Having Children be Immoral?

Question 1

The many causes of misery

Answer 1

1. genetic disease is hardly connected to most misery

2. so, we need to think generally about the morality of conceiving a child

Question 2

is it morally wrong to have a child with genetic risk factors?

Answer 2

1. if one thinks abortion is morally wrong, then a yes answer entails avoiding any conception which carries that risk
2. anti-abortion positions might entail that abortion to prevent a child with genetic risks is like killing imperfect people without their consent
3. if one thinks abortion is morally permissible, then a yes answer entails that abortion to prevent this risk is morally permissible (perhaps obligatory)

Question 3

abortion and screening

Answer 3

1. views of abortion can impact how one sees the morality of aborting to prevent miserable life
2. yet it is possible to believe in the equal dignity of all humans while believing that everyone deserves a high quality of life
3. therefore, it might be permissible to abort babies who will not have a high quality of life (565)

Question 4

the case of huntington’s disease

Answer 4

1. if a person carries the defective gene, there is a fifty percent they will pass it on to their children
2. disease usually sets in between ages of 30 and 50
3. see symptoms on 566

Question 5

Optimists

Answer 5

1. 50 percent chance life will be free of disease
2. even if the child has the disease, it will have 30 or so years of disease-free living
3. so, that’s enough pleasure in a life, isn’t it

Question 6

pessimists

Answer 6

1. 50 percent chance is way too high
2. the suffering after 30 years is not worth it
3. what about the sense of dread during the first 30 years

Question 7

possible children and potential parents

Answer 7

1. we ought to try to provide every child with a minimally satisfying life
   - this principle can be supported by contractarian or utilitarian theories
2. a minimally satisfying life requires normal health
   - note that normal health is somewhat culturally contextual
3. a life with huntington’s disease cannot attain normal health
4. therefore, we ought not create children who can acquire huntington’s disease

Question 8

a question for purdy

Answer 8

1. it is one thing to claim that we ought to provide some basic good
2. it is quite another thing to claim that we should always avoid the situation in which the good is deprived or not easily provided
3. doesn’t she need a claim like: “we are forbidden from creating non-minimally satisfying lives”?

Question 9

possible parents/children version 2

Answer 9

1. we are forbidden from creating lives that are not minimally satisfying
2. a minimally satisfying life requires normal health
   - note that normal health is somewhat culturally contextual
3. a life with huntington’s disease can’t attain normal health
4. therefore, we are forbidden from creating children who can acquire huntington’s disease

Question 10

possible children?

Answer 10

1. do possible children have a right to be brought into existence?
2. no, since they do not actually exist, they cannot be maltreated

Question 11

objection

Answer 11

right to reproduce is strong

Question 12

objection: right to reproduce is strong

Answer 12

1. the value of experiencing family life
2. continue the family line
3. cement married life
4. some of the desires to reproduce are questionable
5. others can be satisfied in other ways
6. therefore, the duty to not create lives that are not minimally satisfying is stronger