hmm..that's a nice insight lorraine. I too believe that it is important that in taking care of children with deformities, everyone in the family should be included. I have a churchmate who has a child with a deformity. Ive observed that each member of the family were really supportive and caring towards that child and it really has a positive effect on the child. ^_^

2. Another concept of justice is “Equals shall be treated equally” (Gustafson: 113-114). In principle, all children in the family belong to a class of equals and should be treated equally. Does a child with severe abnormalities belong to a class of equals? If he does, then he should be treated equally with others. But to treat him equally with others would be unfair to him because of his particular needs as a malformed child. If he does not belong to a class of equals, then he should be treated in a special way (i.e., unequally with others) because of his condition. But to treat him unequally (i.e., in a special way) would be unfair to the others who should be treated equally with him. How would you resolve this apparent dilemma of equality with regard to the moral issue of birth abnormality?
For me, yes. Like what I have said awhile ago it depends on the strategy of the parents on how they will going to balance everything. In the first place they have to explain everything to their children about the case of their severely deformed sibling and allow them to be involved in taking care of their severely deformed sibling and I think through that they will realize and understand the situation of their severely deformed sibling and they will also realize that they are so bless they aren’t in the place of their severely deformed sibling.

1. In Rawl’s view, justice is fairness, e.g., “to each his due” (Gustafson, James M. 1987. Mongolism, Parental Desires, and the Right to Life. Bioethics. Third edition. New Jersey: Paulist Press). Would it be “fair” to raise a severely deformed baby with the other children in the family? Would the other children get what is due them alongside the inordinate requirements of time, energy, and financial resources that would be required to raise or save the severely malformed child? Or, if the other children did receive what is due them, would there be sufficient time, energy and other resources to attend to the particular (nay, special) needs of the deformed child? Discuss your views among your classmates.
For me yes, it is fair to raise a severely deformed baby because in the first place that is a gift from God. Created in the image and likeness of God though physically he/she may looks gruesome; however he/she is still a human being who needs to be accepted and be love for what he/she is. Like what other had said, it still depends on the parenting skills of the parents on how to balance everything in order to meet the needs of their children.

>>The second principle contains elements of other familiar ethical theories. The "socialist" idea that responsibilities or burdens should be distibuted according to ability and benefits according to need is partly contained within the Difference Principle.

We may reasonably assume that the "least advantaged" have the greatest needs and that those who receive special powers (hinted at under "social inequalities") also have special responsibilities or burdens.

However, the merit principle that the use of special skills should be rewarded is also included in the Difference Principle. What the Difference Principle does not permit is a change in social and economic institutions that makes life better for those who are already well off but does nothing for those who are already disadvantaged, or makes their life worse.

For raiza's question:

i believe that like what ara said, it depends on the style and acknowledgment of the parents on how they will raise their children. Most especially if they are prepared with this kind of situation.

Goodevening ladies

I’m Raiza and I will be the moderator for the 2nd Moral issue.

Same rules apply.

Here is the 2nd Moral issue:

2. Another concept of justice is “Equals shall be treated equally” (Gustafson: 113-114). In principle, all children in the family belong to a class of equals and should be treated equally. Does a child with severe abnormalities belong to a class of equals? If he does, then he should be treated equally with others. But to treat him equally with others would be unfair to him because of his particular needs as a malformed child. If he does not belong to a class of equals, then he should be treated in a special way (i.e., unequally with others) because of his condition. But to treat him unequally (i.e., in a special way) would be unfair to the others who should be treated equally with him.

Question:
How would you resolve this apparent dilemma of equality with regard to the moral issue of birth abnormality?

Before I give you my insight I would like to share with you these bible verses.

“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, i know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:13-16

I do believe that every child is a creation of God. They should be considered as a gift---either normal or with birth defects. Each one is considered as a wonderful proof of life. They are still considered as HUMAN who can experience pain, joy and all emotions though they may show differently from other normal children. A human being that deserves respect and protection as well as love and care. It is only right that they should be treated equally. Parents with children borne with abnormalities should remember to let themselves enjoy their child the same way any parent would — by cuddling or playing, watching for developmental milestones (even if they're different from those in children without birth defect), and sharing their joy with family members and friends.

That child belong to the same class, that is he too is also a Human being…A human being that has special needs. If treating him in a special would seem unfair to other then you must explain to them the reason why.

bye everyone!gtg!

see u soon!:p

Also, in deciding for the second question, i think it will uphold the notion of Rawls of justice as fairness as an illustration of a political conception of justice. This affirms the second principle in this notion: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Thanks for your answers ara, tina, raiza, angel and jenny.


We all believe in the idea of equality. That there will be no problem if at the first place, a just explanation to the children is given. In a family where a special child lives, comparison should be set aside. Understanding and acceptance should occur.

Let me leave you a quote by Sir Charles de Montesquieu "In the state of nature...all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the law."

Law-- in legal or in familial form. Family most especially the parents protects the children from unjust happenings in this world.


Thank you classmates. This night is kinda off-beat for us.

You have a point there Thea. Hmm, so what you mean is that their decision to raise the child will be affected by their morals in life?

i believe...

that if we apply the principles of rawl's in this case, both the normal children and the deformed child will be of equal stand...however, it was not indicated here kc the whole scenario of the family...if we look into other aspects of their lives, maybe, we will be able to figure a good stand that is ethically and morally acceptable and just.

like for example, the resources available to the family, the relationship within the family and will it be accepted in the family...

but, for me...if raising the child is the less evil choice for the family...and that is how they believe it...therefore, the question of it being fair or not should not be asked.

I think yes... it would depend on how the parents would treat their children and balance the situation. Like if on the start they have already explained that having a sibling with severe deformity entails a specific care which could be different from the other child, like there would be more assistance and guidance, still their time and attention in terms of the differences in the needs of their children should be equally acted upon by the parents.

> i think this would address the issue of parenting style and parenting skills.. or how would the parents strike a balance in giving care for both children.

Though it is obvious that the malformed ones will really have more needs than that of the other children, the parents must be able to make the other people understand the condition of their other siblings. Same way, despite the business of the parents on the other child, they should not make their other children suffer..

>> thea, i'm having problems with my net connection..

it will be hard on the part of the parents but again, if Rawls theory will be applied then it'll be easier because they will view the children as equals having their physiological and psychological needs..