> For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life.

It certainly is a personal liberty. I am French, atheist, and I am very much attached to that freedom.

Having healthy discussion about this is good as it is an eye opener for all the sides involved.

Now, there is the general population part: someone who willingly decides to have a sick child that will cost more to the society must be ready to bear all the costs, including the ones after their death.

On the other hand, this should also apply to people who smoke, are overweight etc. and though this choice are also a burden for the society, financially speaking.

The last part (money) is not an easy one. The first one (morality) is much easier as everyone is an expert in the subject :)

> have a sick child that will cost more to the society

This is easy - you just need a way to measure in advance someone's total utility to society, including any inventions they might make, number of people they make laugh or encourage, how many lives or livelihoods they may save, and then decide whether or not they're worth it.

Get back to me when you have that, would you?

Oh come on - you pay taxes, don't you? Either we get rid of money and we live in some kind of wonderland, or we pay for the society and expect it to be serious.

I am very much for a socialist society, like the one we have in France. I am ready to pay, and do it with pleasure, so that people born disabled, or living in poverty have a chance like my children do.

When someone makes the clear decision to have a child that will be disabled then that person must assume that the world will not be running to help them when they realize they have huge expenses. They wanted these expenses so please do not come crying afterwards, though campaigns.

This is very much different from accidents - we need to be solidar here.

This is very similar to people who smoke or eat to become overweight and then cry when comes the operation that costs a fortune.

Sorry - but I want my money to be spent on things that help the ones who need help and did not expect or predict to be in a bad situation. Not the ones who decided to have a disabled child becaise of some shower vision of theirs.

In the scenario mentioned, no one decided to have a disabled child.

See a few steps up in the thread:

> For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life.

Yeah, I still don't see anyone there deciding to have a child with a disability.

What in "to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world" is not clear?

Someone checks for disabilities with their to-be-born child, learns that they have one and then decides not to abort. This means they conscientiously make the choice to have one.

I do not think this need to be debated further.

> decides not to abort

That's deciding not to do something, not deciding to do something.

This is semantics. Deciding not to do something is a decision one takes. It is not like there is no choice.

Yes, and semantics are important. By your definition I make the decision every day not to end the lives of my children, who could for any number if reasons grow up to be a burden on the state.

Calling inaction deciding to do something is just a way to frame things to try and make action the default.

I should add - for men with poor count and/or quality there is a product called ICSI which involves the IVF clinic inspecting sperm cells and finding “the best” one and injecting it into the ovum.

To me it’s spectacular how involved we can be in the natural selection process due to our brains evolving so much. I can’t wait to see how we further this.

> or opt for IVF to prevent the disorder (and all others that are testable)

This is a point I never considered (theoretically - I am a parent of teens so the question is over for me). I always assumed that IVF is much more risky (all things taken into account) that natural procreation but I have never actually gave a thought on that.