[adiaireton8]

Tell me, A8, what do you see is the actual harm in stunting this child's growth?

Preventing the child from reaching her natural potential.

as it's impossible to determine one's lifetime mental capacity in utero

Totally false. I know at least six other couples who have detected conditions in utero that indicate moderate to severe lifetime mental retardation.

But, no, I wouldn't approve thalidomide just like I wouldn't approve amputation. The existence of limbs serves to give any person who has use of those limbs more ability to move, to shift oneself if uncomfortable, to respond to painful stimuli by rolling away without the substantial difficulty that an even mentally normal person has in movement without any limbs. I didn't see if this child can creep, crawl, or roll around like an infant. All of those things can benefit an individual, so no, I wouldn't choose thalidomide because I think it has potential for harm in a way stunting growth does not.

But if the child could not move his arms and legs, your justification for not giving in utero thalidomide disappears.

-A8

[cammie]

Tell me, A8, what do you see is the actual harm in stunting this child's growth? Preventing the child from reaching her natural potential. Well, I was really asking about ACTUAL harm and not PHILOSOPHICAL evaluations of harm, but the potential you're arguing is her natural height potential? A person's natural height potential is of little moral value. Her natural potential for love (even as an infant loves)and to be loved is the potential that has moral worth. The longer she's with her family, the more that potential is developed. as it's impossible to determine one's lifetime mental capacity in utero Totally false. I know at least six other couples who have detected conditions in utero that indicate moderate to severe lifetime mental retardation. You can absolutely detect severely retarding conditions in utero, but you cannot state with any certainty whether a child will have the neurological and physical capacity of an infant (very limited movement, very limited expression, etc.) or a two-year-old (movement ability, expressive ability, ability to express wants, likes, dislikes). That kind of pinpoint ability detection is still well beyond us. But, no, I wouldn't approve thalidomide just like I wouldn't approve amputation. The existence of limbs serves to give any person who has use of those limbs more ability to move, to shift oneself if uncomfortable, to respond to painful stimuli by rolling away without the substantial difficulty that an even mentally normal person has in movement without any limbs. I didn't see if this child can creep, crawl, or roll around like an infant. All of those things can benefit an individual, so no, I wouldn't choose thalidomide because I think it has potential for harm in a way stunting growth does not. But if the child could not move his arms and legs, your justification for not giving in utero thalidomide disappears. You mean a child who is severely mentally retarded and cannot move (because I've already explained a rationale for mentally normal children with physical disabilities)? No, the justification still does not disappear. I chose one rationale, but even though the movement issue becomes moot in your hypothetical, you should use the less intrusive procedure. Not ethically, but practically. Ethically, I'm not sure there is an ethical wrong either way. (If we assume away any other effects of thalidomide).