Re: If there would be a way for getting your sight back, would you do it?
The wording, though. "Normal" is a fuzzy, context-dependent concept, but the way it's generally used, it's pretty hard to say that blindness is "normal". That's not just because most people think of blindness as abnormal, but because all the blind people in the world are, what, less than 5% of the population? There would be advantages to normalizing extreme rarities such as blindness, but too much normalizing could conceivably reduce encouragement for relevant medical research and treatments.
re: children with disabilities. The deaf I get, even if I do not agree, because of the ways in which hearing loss affect communication. Linguistic isolation is a good way to develop a distinct culture. For blindness, though, the only reason to prefer passing on a hereditary eye condition is to encourage the passing on of nonvisual life skills, which isn't what I'd call a good reason to select the blind embryo over the others! However, I would not encourage actively avoiding passing on a disability if and only if the parents know based on clear evidence that their child(ren) will be able to take it without major reduction in quality of life, and I suspect those conditions are very rarely met. However, that push when Eugenics was still in for maried couples with hereditary blindness to not have children was a terrible idea, since generations of blind parents is a good place to expect the relevant knowledge to accumulate. Also I object to mandatory antinatalism on principal.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
