In the article, “Are attempts to have impaired children justifiable?”, the author discussed the issue of parents genetically selecting for impairments in their children. The article focuses on a case where a couple deliberately attempted to ensure the birth of a deaf child via artificial insemination. The couple justifies their attempt based on claims that it is not wrong to deliberately to have a child who will likely experience harm when the harm is socially imposed. Additionally, the couple argued that deaf people should be considered as a minority group, and would experience social harms much like women and people of colour. Therefore, a distinction should not be made between attempting to have a deaf child and having a girl (Anstey, 2017).
The author provides specific arguments against the couple’s claims by first acknowledging the theory behind the claims, then providing counter arguments to discuss why the validity of the claims cannot be specifically applied to this case. The author acknowledges that people tend to prefer specific gender, characteristics, and values in their children. The author agrees with the claim that having specific characteristics in their children may allow parents to form a closer bond with the child, sharing a “likeness, an affinity, of experiences, and capacities” (Anstey, 2017). The author is quick to point that selecting for impairment however is inherently unjust as it predisposes the child to avoidable harm. Additionally, selecting for impairments can encourage the selection against impairments. Among our population, selecting against impairments will be the overwhelming majority. The author ends the article with the clear statement that couples should neither select for nor against deafness.
The persuasive message in clearly stated by the author in the article. The author makes a clear statement at the end of the article that couples should not be able to select for nor against deafness, and impairment in general. The supporting evidence to the author’s statement was clearly discussed throughout the article. The author makes specific arguments against the couple’s claims, providing clear reasons why the claims are unjustifiable in this circumstance. The author’s values and beliefs are that we should not be predisposing children to avoidable harm. If we can select for impairments, there will be an overwhelming majority of parents that would select against impairments. At that point, we are approaching the controversial topic of gene selection.
I agree with author’s claims that couples should not be allowed to select for impaired children. Although the couple who were in article argue that there is not a difference between people who are preferring their infant’s sex verses those selecting for an impairment, I strongly believe that there are big differences between them. While it is understandable parents may prefer a boy or a girl, there are currently no artificial process to ensure the gender of a fetus....