The ethics of making babies

I recently read about the Kentucky mom with osteogenesis imperfecta who just gave birth to a baby almost as big as herself. It's not that the baby was huge - 18 inches is all. It's just that the mom is only 28 1/2 inches tall.

This is the second daughter born to this woman. The new baby appears to be perfectly "normal" and will be expected to grow to standard size. The first daughter was afflicted with the same genetic disorder as the mom and so will face a lifetime of pain and struggle.

Part of me celebrates the miracle of this amazing accomplishment. Doctors had warned the mother that she most likely could never carry a child to term. Because her torso is so tiny the growing fetus would smash her heart and lungs, killing them both. But that didn't happen. By all accounts, mother and daughter are doing just fine. Also the birth of the older daughter goes to show that doctors are not always right.

Still, I cannot help but wonder, at what point is the best choice, the most responsible choice to forge ahead and build a family despite significant challenges and when is it better to choose NOT to have children? Who decides?

Years ago I was acquainted with a woman who had the same disease as Stacey Herald. Although considerably taller, the woman I knew had tremendous challenges. She also had four children, ALL born with osteogenesis imperfecta.

I know of another family in which a mentally retarded mother has two mentally retarded children she is unable to care for. Would it have been better if those children had never been born?

We've all known of families in which child after child after child is popped out when it appears rather evident that the parent(s) have neither the physical or emotional resources to deal with them. Does that make it WRONG for the woman to continue to get pregnant?

As we learn more and more about genetic testing, we have to face the reality that most families have a mixed bag of chromosomes and genes. My own boys both inherited my poor vision and my family's predisposition to heart disease and cancer. Yet I certainly would not think they or the world would be better off had they never been born just because they are not biologically ideal. However, had I had some extreme disability would I have felt different about bring babies into life?

I don't know.

For the most part I do believe that all life is sacred. I have seen first hand through my stepson, Troy, who is brain damaged how much a handicapped child can bless the lives of all who know him. But if I KNEW before getting pregnant that the chances were 50/50 of bearing a child with a brain disorder, a major organ malfunction, or some other illness, would I take the risk?

In the Sociology of the Family class that I teach we have been discussing the factors that go into influencing the decision whether or not to have kids. I suppose there are some people who do give it serious thought. I suspect most do not.
But at what point does it make sense for a couple to keep trying to reproduce their own genes and when should they explore other options?

I would not suggest denying someone the right to be a parent simply because he or she faces significant challenges. Or would I? Do I support the right of seriously mentally ill patients to have babies? Do I support the right of someone who has ten or fifteen children already the right to continue propagating? Do I support the right of someone who cannot afford to care for themselves the right to bring babies into their family?

There is a difference, I think, and a rather substantial one - between thinking a choice may be misguided and proposing it be restricted. I would seriously question the wisdom of getting pregnant in any of the above situations. But I would not support any law that would stand in the way of it.

How much can a responsible, compassionate society permit individual members freedom to make choices that have painful/negative consequences for themselves and others?

The old axiom goes that my right to extend my arm stops where your nose begins. So by that rationale we can do things that have some negative consequences so long as they don't hurt someone else. But what about the most serious of personal/private choices - like deciding to make a baby? Doesn't that very much have direct impact on someone else?

Is there ANY circumstance that would justify mandatory sterilization? Yes. I can think of one or two. I knew a woman who used abortion as her primary form of birth control. When I met her in her mid twenties she had already had seven. I found that absolutely reprehensible. I thought she should lose the right to create life.

But what of these other circumstances? It's complicated business.

GATTACA

Every couple years I am compelled to go to the local video store and rent the best Sci Fi movie ever made - Gattaca. I LOVE this film.

Made 10 years ago, this sweet little movie has so many layers to it... and raises some important questions.

One of the quotes from the film is when Vincent Freeman says "We now have discrimination down to a science"

Some would argue that the only reason discrimination is bad/wrong/unfair is that it is based on prejudice that inaccurately attributes negative assumptions to an entire group or class based on a few limited cases. The reason people think that ALL women are bad drivers is because SOME women are bad drivers, believe ALL African Americans are better at sports or inclined to violence is that SOME are. Individual cases or limited trends get extrapolated to blanket assumptions about the whole. Now, that's just wrong, correct?

But what if we had some sort of science which could unequivocally prove that a person was prone to certain diseases or had specific personality type, would develop particular limits of mind or body?

Would it be unethical to deny that person insurance coverage if we KNEW in advance he or she would get cancer or advanced heart disease or merely prudent on the part of the company offering the coverage? Would it be wrong to socially favor those who have demonstrated a far greater potential for achievement rather than taking a chance on someone whose genotype indicated he or she is more likely to produce marginal results? Could such a test determine entrance to colleges, to jobs, to who should or should not reproduce? Would that make the world a better place?

Do we resist the idea because it is a bad idea or do we resist the idea out of fear that we would wind up on the wrong end of the privilege stick?

American minds balk at the backward notions of a caste system whereby individuals are assigned to a profession, a way of life, AT BIRTH that cannot be changed, based entirely on the role of the parents. We are so locked into the notion of hope inherent in the possibility of social mobility that we resent any system that dictates an ascribed status that cannot be changed.

But what if those assignments were not based on the happenstance of who one's parents were, but rather based on a proven calculation of some scientific test that indicated what a person's strengths and weaknesses and aptitudes would be?

As for me, I'm with Vincent. I believe in pursuing dreams beyond all reason. I believe in scrambling for what my heart longs for even in the face of being told by rational authorities that it is utterly impossible. I don't want to be reasonable. I want to chase my dreams.

Yet as we advance in developing refinements of knowledge based on mapping the human genome there are all sorts of quirky ethical questions that arise.

Does it make sense to spend limited resources educating those with limited ability to benefit or contribute back?

Should we spend public dollars giving medical care to those we are quite sure are about to die anyway?

Is it fool hardy to marry a man (or woman) whose genes can tell you in advance you are just asking for a life on the more painful side of the balance scale in the "for better or worse" pledge?

These are the sorts of questions that will pivot through my brain whenever I watch this film. So I'll pop up a big bowl of popcorn and settle in with my favorite movie for the third or fourth time. I'll ponder big questions and dream of flying to the stars.

Situational Ethics and the Case for Torture

The essay that I have to analyze this week for my WR 122 class is actually a blog posting. Go figure. The piece in question is "Situational Ethics and the Case for Torture" by McQ over at the Q & O Blog. This posting is printed in my textbook along with a variety of others - Like John Ashcroft's testimony to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary extolling the virtues of the PATRIOT act and a piece on post 9/11 Racial Profiling.

My task for the class, as I've noted before, is NOT to argue the issues at hand, but rather to analyze how well the writers used evidence to make their points or to assess which specific rhetorical devices they use in effort to persuade.

It is an interesting exercise. It definitely helps stretch my capacity for critical thinking. Some weeks it goes smoother than others. This week I am in a "my dog ate my homework" frame of mind. But even when it gets tedious, I'm kinda diggin' the class. It exposes me to writing to think about that I probably would not have seen otherwise.

It terms of what McQ has to say....

Is there EVER a justification for torture? If you could save 5 or 20 or 300 lives by doing something abominable to one or two or three people identified as "terrorists" to elicit critical information, would that make it ok?

It seems to me the whole point of his posting is NOT about terrorism or torture at all. Rather, it is about principles. Do the ends justify the means? If you claim to believe in and support human rights can circumstances justify violating that principle?

The strength of McQÂ’s essay, IMHO, is his ability to clearly focus on issues rather than resorting to emotionally charged attacks, personal criticism or down right name calling which, sadly, seems to be so prevalent in the blogosphere. He shows a respectful engagement with others in dialogue, even when it is clear he disagrees with them.

I was exposed to this guy as a simple homework assignment. I can tell I will want to do more reading over in that direction as time goes by.

Split Pants & Pamper Ethics.

Ever since reading Spoke's footprint post about recycling I've been thinking more on the ethics of Pampers. Disposable diapers are certainly convenient. But what is their impact to the environment? It's one thing to use them while on the road or out and about running errands. But most moms I know whose kids are not yet potty trained don't even OWN any cloth diapers...or if they do they use them only as "burp rags." I know that babies are far less likely to get diaper rash when using disposables. I know that disposables save on using water and pouring phosphate detergent into the drain systems. But I can't seem to get past the image of all those thousands upon thousands of Pampers and Huggies in land fills.

While I'm not one to advocate the Split Pants method used for years in China, it seems like there must be a manageable way to deal with baby poop with less impact on both the pocket book of struggling parents and the ever growing garbage heaps of the world. Am I missing something here?

However, I don't mean to be pointing fingers here. Granted, I used cloth diapers when my children were young. But I have PLENTY of room for improvement. When I took the footprint quiz Spoke linked to the results said that we would need nine planets worth of resources if everyone lived like I do. OUCH! that was a bit of a wake up call.

So how can I effect meaningful change?

I know I live in a house bigger than I need, but I don't plan to move any time soon. I CAN be more diligent about use of water/electricity. Probably the single most useful thing I could do would be to eat less meat. I go back and forth on that one. Intellectually I really do understand the impact on the planet of a grain based diet vs. meat fare. However, I've yet to get past my carnivorous ways.

I've been thinking quite a bit about which sacrifices I could make or changes in how I use resources that might help....something as basic as continually refilling one water jug from my filtered water pitcher instead of going through multiple bottles of Evian is something I've been committed to for years. But I am trying now to identify other areas where I am remiss in what I use and what I throw away.

I've often thought that if all of us had to personally burn or bury our trash instead of having it magically scooped away each week by garbage collectors we might be a lot more conscious, and therefore more careful about what we are so quick to throw away.

A Question of Ethics

I've been having some interesting discussions recently about the ethics of violating copyright laws in terms of all the cut and paste use of unauthorized images (such as many of the pictures on this site) or burning a CD / DVD to "share" music or movies with a friend. There are some very good issues on this topic being addressed here.

I am taking a deeper look at my own practices and working toward more honest ownership of the areas where I fall back on rationalization and justification for stuff that it would be better if I simply did not do.

Deviance is viewed differently by different people to be sure. In my mind, if I cross YOUR moral code it doesn't trouble me all that much. But if I can't walk my own talk in terms of integrity, then something clearly is out of whack. I'll be working on this.

What I am recognizing more all the time is that what I consider Right or Wrong does NOT necessarily match the standards for what is legal / illegal or what may be viewed as socially acceptable or deviant.

There are things that are completely, totally legal (such as smoking cigarettes, watching pornography, or being lazy) that I choose to avoid because they cross my moral code.

There are other things that are ILLEGAL, but are such a matter of common practice that most people --myself included--think nothing of violating (such as driving 5 miles over the speed limit). Unauthorized use of private images or other intellectual property is fast approaching this category.

However, just because "everyone is doing it" does not make it right. That's the kind of thinking that created the kool aid catastrphe in Jim Jones's Guyana melt down.

Observing a stupid rule just because it is the rule seems suspect. But at what point is it ethical to violate codes I do not happen to agree with? (Such as my refusal to puchase a licence for my dog.) Face it, if everyone agreed with a given policy or regulation we wouldn't need the rule at all, because individuals' internal values would take care of the situation. The whole reason we make and enforce rules in our society is to provide guidelines and sanctions for those who would otherwise do the thing we forbid. So no spittin' on the sidewalk ya uncouth bum!

I will continue to search and pray and ponder over the issue of ethics and integrity... trying to discern not just what I can get away with or what is acceptable in the eyes of the world, but what, for ME, is "right" and what is "wrong", fully recognizing that my answers may be very different from yours...