Blind parents who want blind children

[Alex Libman 15]

Based on the witch-burning I'm getting over this issue on another forum, thus just might be my most controversial opinion yet...

[BonerJoe]

Initiating force sux.

[Alex Libman 15]

They didn't initiate force, they have birth to a baby that shares their disability.

My arguments from that forum:

I agree that deprivation of the ability to communicate with the outside world, beatings that could result in brain damage, and senseless mutilation definitely do violate the child's (negative) right to emancipation.

The issue of some blind parents wanting blind children is something that makes a lot more sense once you do some research on the blind culture, think about it for a while, and really contemplate how different the parents' life experience would be from their sighted children. The idea of having children who perceive the world so differently must be terrifying to them... Outlawing artificial blindness would in many cases result in those children never being born in the first place!

Do you really believe that death / non-existence is better than blindness?!

And what gives you the right to force that opinion on someone else?!

[BonerJoe]

They didn't initiate force, they have birth to a baby that shares their disability.

Then what the fuck is with "and have him or her surgically blinded after birth."?

[Alex Libman 15]

A highly subjective medical procedure, like circumcision, sex change (which can also be done under the authority of parents rights), or even whatever Michael Jackson did to himself.

Children have the right to life and to emancipation, but their parents do get to make medical decisions, including denying treatment for religious reasons, etc.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Cutting out your kids eyes is not comparable to cutting off  a quarter cm of a completely pointless flap of skin.

[Bill Brasky]

Parents are referred to as guardians and custodians for a reason. 

[hellbilly]

Libman- how far do parents' rights go?

What about those people who are born with no skin, should they be allowed to flay their children?

[Alex Libman 15]

Cutting out your kids eyes is not comparable to cutting off a quarter cm of a completely pointless flap of skin.

Yes it is.  Semitic cultures see the foreskin as useless or even harmful.  Those blind parents see eyesight the same way.  You really need to meditate on what it would be like to be blind, to be a member of the blind community, to perceive the world exclusively through your other senses, which then become strengthened...  and to have a child that is completely different from you from birth, who would have a very hard time understanding why his mommy and daddy don't see the world as s\he does...  Many blind people want to have blind children, or none at all!

By outlawing this procedure, you will discourage millions of first-world blind people from reproducing.  Like I've said before, who are you to say that non-life is better than blindness?!

Parents are referred to as guardians and custodians for a reason.

Yes - because mommy government wants them to do all the hard work of birthing and raising the next generation of its subjects without giving them their natural rights as parents.

Libman - how far do parents' rights go?

Radical blindism / deafism is the most controversial example I can think of, and I can't seem to find any examples of it in real life (yet), but plenty in science fiction (ex).  More common examples of the extremes of parents' rights include prenatal genetic engineering, denying medical treatment for religious reasons, sex change operations, corporal punishment, and so on.  The limits are set by the child's rights to life and emancipation - parents may not do anything that poses a substantial (say p>0.1) risk of death or risk of losing one's ability to be emancipated (loss of mental faculties and ability to communicate).

What about those people who are born with no skin, should they be allowed to flay their children?

I don't think this issue is comparable.  Very few babies are born with missing skin, and those that survive have the missing skin grafted on in the first few months, after which they go on to live very normal lives.  They don't go to a special school with other born-with-some-skin-missing kids, etc.  People who are blind constitute a very different culture, they perceive the world very differently than everyone else.

[Alex Libman 15]

This thread is in "The Polling Pit", a sub-category of "General".

The baby's physical autonomy does determine its effective "right to life" (because it clearly doesn't own the mother's body that it depends on as a fetus), and I agree that a stronger case can be made for defending that procedure if it's done through genetic engineering rather than postnatal surgery, but I don't think that is medically viable just yet, and genetically-engineered blindness might have more potential side-effects.  Another interesting variable in this debate is the reversibility of this procedure once the child is emancipated, which I imagine would be easier to reverse if the blindness was induced surgically.

I disagree that children should be able to sue their parents for damages - only to emancipate themselves, nullify their "parents tax" obligations, or expose their parents.

[Terror Australis]

Because of government regulations retarding growth in medical research and development a solution to this problem has possibly been delayed or wont come to fruition.That is the parents will be able to see again through stem cell research or similar science growing them new eyes.

Thus you dont need to remove your children's eyes, the only thing that should be removed is the state.... 

[Alex Libman 15]

I too am optimistic about potential technologies that input artificial sensory data into the brain...

... but that's not what this thread is about.  It's about parents' rights.

[Terror Australis]

I too am optimistic about potential technologies that input artificial sensory data into the brain...

... but that's not what this thread is about.  It's about parents' rights.

Even circumcision is going too far.Your child owns their own body as soon as they break free from the placenta.All a parent can do is guide and protect them.

[Zhwazi]

How about "Parents have the physical power (not the right) to do whatever they want to the kid, but the kid has the right to sue the parent for any body modifications that were made that they disapprove of."

Having other people make decisions for you sucks, but in this case there's no other option. The best thing you can do is hold the fuckers responsible.

[Alex Libman 15]

You're still basing your interpretation of natural rights on wishful thinking and not reason.

Parents create children.  They must be allowed to do so on their terms, or they'll simply choose not to create them!