What would you suggest in the following situation ?

no .. but i would recommend they get educated as to the dangers of having kids ... the problem with abortion as it is now is people are not reponsible for their actions and commit a selfish act of murder to compensate ..

1. I'm sure Blind people will tell you there lives have purpose, meaning, joy and have every right to life as you. If you are blinded tomorrow in an accident are you then to be put to death?

2. Anybody can have a stillborn child its a tragedy for any parent.

3. Deaf and dump people have just as productive and joy filled lives as anyone else. My aunt was deaf and dump, went to school, got a job, got married, had children you see where this is going?

4. TB is a treatable condition and hopefully in the 21 century with all the appropriate care the child's health will recover.

b) the baby has a right to live.

I would suggest however that they both get there tuberculosis and syphilis treated before thinking about producing another child.

The problem with your question is that in most cases (99%) the baby may well be deformed and the pregnancy should be terminated. In 1% of the cases the baby may be alright and may turn out to be a value to society, perhaps a famous person? But you can't base all your decisions on a 1% statistic! That would mean drastic failures in most cases. Thats the flaw in your logic.

I would support either decision made by the parents.

Now, if the man and woman in this example were myself and my husband, it would depend upon the circumstances of the pregnancy. Honestly, after that track-record (not to mention having three children already) I would not be wanting more kids and would be using birth control to prevent another pregnancy. If I got pregnant anyway...I can at least see the possibility of an abortion. It would involve a long discussion with my husband, not an off the cuff decision.

There was a similar situation with a 17th century family in Austria. The family had 5 earlier children only one of whom lived. They decided to have the sixth child and he lived and had a very productive life. His name was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

B!! this child has all the potential in the world right now killing it would be wrong but if the parents cant take care of it because if there health then the child could be adobted .... this is no excuse to kill a baby.

b.

Who is to say whose life is worth living and whose isn't? Making that decision for other people is called eugenics. I am not being hyperbolic when I say this is tantamount to what the Nazi's did to disabled people with the gas chambers.

Just as an interesting aside, one that Im sure will get me lots of thumbs downs, CS Lewis predicted in Abolition of Man that this and cloning for harvesting organs and such would be the outcome of atheism and relativism and he makes an ecellent case in that essay for why we ought not to do it.

b) No they deserve a fair shot at birthing a fully functional child, as many tries as it takes. You don't believe that statistical probability can yield a good result in such a situation?

b) the baby has the right to live.

This is hypothetical right?

I can't imagine someone living with those two diseases long enough to be able to have those many children. They would have died already.

I'd suggest that they see a doctor before creating any more children.