Being that one objection is clear to me at the time. In this debate, you can think of choosing a deaf embryo is wrong but wanting a child different from you. In K&S detrimental difference they would say it would be wrong to cause a deaf fetus or child to hear, or even to remove an intellectual and body disability. The mere difference can allow that it is much worse to change a person in a way to make them discriminate each other and be racist or prejudice. So more of K&S would question the natural process of being deaf like Lichy, and his wife is death. I think they would want the child to be deaf because of who is going to teach the child to talk. Also, an objection can be that couples can chose their embryos based on eyes and other characteristics, which should be placed on the same pedestal as choosing a deaf embryo. When a deaf embryo is selected when can think of it as child, family, society, and how other children view the child. When the embryo is selected for the child gets to live the best life possible for them. For the family it's more of they get the kind of child they want, and for society they will have provided the needs of the child. As in associating with other kids the deaf embryo doesn’t get the best possible live for them. As in a child who deafened they lose a sense, but they gain on the culture of being deaf. So what if I a couple took on that embryo knowing it wouldn’t see pass five, and they were deaf. Knowing that the child would have cancer would be morally wrong and criminal but picking a wanting the embryo to be like you is different. The freedom to select can be supported by appeals for reproductive autonomy, for the embryos sake the best interest will probably not be serving by deafening
Being that one objection is clear to me at the time. In this debate, you can think of choosing a deaf embryo is wrong but wanting a child different from you. In K&S detrimental difference they would say it would be wrong to cause a deaf fetus or child to hear, or even to remove an intellectual and body disability. The mere difference can allow that it is much worse to change a person in a way to make them discriminate each other and be racist or prejudice. So more of K&S would question the natural process of being deaf like Lichy, and his wife is death. I think they would want the child to be deaf because of who is going to teach the child to talk. Also, an objection can be that couples can chose their embryos based on eyes and other characteristics, which should be placed on the same pedestal as choosing a deaf embryo. When a deaf embryo is selected when can think of it as child, family, society, and how other children view the child. When the embryo is selected for the child gets to live the best life possible for them. For the family it's more of they get the kind of child they want, and for society they will have provided the needs of the child. As in associating with other kids the deaf embryo doesn’t get the best possible live for them. As in a child who deafened they lose a sense, but they gain on the culture of being deaf. So what if I a couple took on that embryo knowing it wouldn’t see pass five, and they were deaf. Knowing that the child would have cancer would be morally wrong and criminal but picking a wanting the embryo to be like you is different. The freedom to select can be supported by appeals for reproductive autonomy, for the embryos sake the best interest will probably not be serving by deafening