The problem of the lack of identity is one of the most urgent in recent times, as a fundamental question has been raised. This question is whether it is better to let the child be born with abnormalities or not to let them suffer all their lives without allowing them to be born at all. In addition, the critical question is who exactly has the right to decide the existence or non-existence. According to Brock, the moral dilemma should be solved by responsible persons, such as parents (Vaughn, 2016). Nevertheless, the main problem remains whether it is worth aborting a pregnancy, knowing that the child will be born with a disability and choosing to temporarily treat a pregnant woman and then re-pregnancy.
The problem of non-identity mainly lies in how costly and effective the birth of a person who will be disabled from the very first day of his life will be. Brock (Vaughn, 2016, p. 514) states: “These genetic conditions and diseases will take different forms and many factors will affect the moral case for preventing them.” Summing up, non-identity raises the ethical question of whether it is worth changing the life of an unborn child and deciding whether they should be born at all, knowing that their life will be hard. It is complicated to solve this problem since everyone has their own idea about this issue.
This issue is especially relevant for families with a low-income level since their ability to make the life of even a disabled child full-fledged will be difficult. Still, some parents, even in difficult financial conditions, decide to save their child’s life, even if it is flawed, and take care of them always and by any means. Brock (Vaughn, 2016, p. 516) says: “It is morally good to act in a way that results in less suffering and less limited opportunity in the world.” This moral dilemma will exist, and its solution will be difficult to find since each of them will be morally and ethically incorrect.
Reference
Vaughn, L. (2016). Bioethics principles, issues, and cases. Oxford University Press.