Tue, Sep. 8th, 2009, 02:40 am
WTF of the day
about a man living in the midst of tel-aviv, who has (at least) 32 wives and 89 children and the authorities are unable to do anything about it.
Wed, Sep. 9th, 2009 03:00 pm (UTC)
So, just to make sure, by saying ""maybe you shouldn't be having those babies with TS or CF". It's an excellent thing, in my opinion" did you actually mean to say "it's an excellent idea for people with genetic diseases not to be born", or did I completely misinterpret you?
Because you do realize, don't you, that there are people out there who are capable of wanting and loving sick babies, and even sick adults?
Wed, Sep. 9th, 2009 03:19 pm (UTC)
I'll explain where I'm coming from. I have CF. Yes, I know people are capable of loving sick kids and adults, because my family loves me, I have very good friends, and I am happily married, and I know I am not the exception but rather the rule.
I think there are some illnesses that are so terrible, it is better to not have been born than to live with that illness. CF is one of them. I cannot say for sure about anything else because honestly, I know what it's like to live with CF and diabetes, but I don't know what it's like to live with, say, epilepsy, because I don't have it [and don't know anyone who has it]. In my humble opinion, it is better for the child to not be born if they are going to be born with CF, because living with it - and dying of it - is really, really awful, and I'm speaking from experience here.
The government may agree with me that extremely sick babies are better off having not been born, but I'd say our reasonings differ. I'm sure that the government would prefer there are no CFers in the country because our healthcare being what it is [and I am grateful for it], we cost tons of money. Our care is expensive. Plus factor in social security, we pay less taxes even when we are healthy enough to work, we don't pay "arnona". We cost a lot. I can understand that. My reasoning is that I wouldn't want a child with CF to be born because I wouldn't want them to suffer.
Now, having said that, I don't think - in Israel, at least - there will ever be an actual law regarding who can be born and who can't. That's eugenics and again, especially in Israel, that won't fly. Nor there should be a law like that, because it's just like the case with Goel Ratzon - it's not illegal, we may not want to live the way he does, but it's his right to have 32 wives if they are all consenting adults. Same with having sick babies. I personally wouldn't have a baby with CF. My husband was tested and found to not be a carrier of the gene, and if we conceive, we will still do the amniocentesis test to make absolutely sure the baby doesn't have it, and if the baby's sick, we're aborting. But that's OUR choice.
The only thing the government can do is to provide those tests, both for the sake of the parents and the unborn children, and, well, it benefits, too, because less sick babies are born now than before the genetic testing.
Wed, Sep. 9th, 2009 03:48 pm (UTC)
"I think there are some illnesses that are so terrible, it is better to not have been born than to live with that illness"
I consider this statement to be logically inconsistent, but from respect am not willing to debate it with, specifically, you. Being unwilling to either debate or accept it I will leave it without a response and try to change the direction of the argument. Here goes -
However, above, you said "if they didn't have any kids, I'd say - fine." which logically contradicts "But that's OUR choice. ". This means we are not discussing the government, but rather whether you believe the government's actions are fine, which is entirely different. We are left with two possible conclusions:
1. You mis-wrote, meaning something more like "wow, these people are irresponsible, but one still shouldn't stop them"
2. You do believe that the reproductive choices of individuals should, under some circumstances, be restricted by society. Somehow you distinguish yourself from those individuals. How?
I, obviously, would go with option 1.
There are things people can legitimately choose for their children. Non-existence is among those things. This is a very restricted choice - it is no longer allowed when the child may be presumed to have an opinion, i. e. after birth. It also should not be allowed in any way, shape, or form, to be made by anyone other than the parents, because only they may be presumed to experience pain from this choice.
The government does not experience pain. That makes it easy for the government to choose, which is why it should not be allowed to do so.
If it provides tests (and I agree, that it should) and abortion opportunities (and I believe that it should) this should not be under any circumstances connected to any kind of hints, gentle or otherwise, that might in any way influence the choice. This is difficult, but appropriate.
Wed, Sep. 9th, 2009 04:21 pm (UTC)
Yes, I did mean option 1. They do have the right to have sex with each other, I just think they should have been more responsible about it and not have had kids.
Laws about incest exist to protect child abuse, but because they exist, they are being extended to adults, too, which is wrong, IMHO. If these are consenting adults, really, it's their business.
Wed, Sep. 9th, 2009 04:25 pm (UTC)
Well, the good thing is that we've come to a consensus. The bad thing is - this ends the discussion. Whatever shall one do?
Wed, Sep. 9th, 2009 04:41 pm (UTC)
Go read the long-ass comment I wrote about cats =)