miles37

If only you could respect the mucous out of them.

P.S. Said with a kind heart, taking the O.P. on his words that he is a humorous guy.

As per reddit tradition, please skip to the end if you don't feel like reading the wall of text.

No I'm not a HatFilms fan, I'd never heard about them before now, I take it you asked because I said 'good day sir' (did a search for them and they said it in a video and people seemed to find it funny)? =)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

I think that by having sex, the parents are engaging in an act which causes another human to become dependent upon them, and therefore that they owe that human (the child) restitution, to care and provide for it.

However, I really am unclear on what should happen in regards to diseased children... I have thought that maybe a parent should have a period after the birth of the child wherein they would be allowed to choose whether or not to support the child, and also that this would be a chance to find someone to adopt the child. Then, if the parents chose not to support the child either it would die or it would be adopted by someone else, but if they chose to keep the child, then they would be obligated to support it for as long as it needs thereafter. This period of choice may be seven days after birth, for example…

I think it is fair that a parent who has had sex by his own choice must look after a child, but I don't know how fair it is that someone must be stuck supporting a diseased child just by having given birth to it, something which they usually cannot have any reasonable reason to expect, which will take up so many resources and maybe prevent them from having other children or looking after their other children properly. Primal reproductive desire is strong at least in some people, the urge to have strong offspring who will go on and be successful and produce their own offspring. For some people they see their children as the equivalent of life after death, as a part of them lives on in them through their genes and their teachings (and others feel this way even if they do not think it consciously), and some put a great deal of planning into how they will be the best parents and raise the happiest, healthiest most successful offspring. For such people, such a thing as being stuck with diseased children against their will could be crushing.

I think the diseased child’s well being is also extremely important, which is why I’ve suggested a grace period wherein the parent would have to decide whether or not to keep the child, after which he would be obligated to do his utmost to provide and care for it. This ability to choose, also ensures that diseased children will only be raised by parents who really want to be doing it, which will create a better experience for the child. It's not nice for anyone to be raised by parents who do not want them.

These are only my thoughts on the matter so far, and are in no way set in stone nor even close. I consider many important topics such as this and am always keen to refine my understanding of them in response to alternative perspectives and other new information.

P.S. / tldr: I am very glad that you are happy and bringing happiness to those around you. Thank you for doing this AMA and I hope you will be able to offer support to others living with CF or other similar diseases if that is what you desire. I don't know your state of mind, so I'm sorry if a philosophical discussion such as this is not what you were looking for. If it is not then please say so and disregard. I will be very happy to release you to go on doing whatever it is you want to do. I don't know how draining CF is or isn't on your energy, I know people with CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome) who will find a conversation like this very draining, but I don't know anyone with CF nor 13% lung capacity etc... I will now be reading through the rest of your AMA answers to gain more understanding.

Good day sir, I'm happy to have the opportunity to talk with you. I hope you will still take the time to answer my questions considering I am rather late to the party, as I am very interested to hear your thoughts.

Some parents, if their baby was born diseased, would prefer to allow the baby to die so that they could focus their resources on their other children, as most other animals do and most humans also presumably did until relatively recently in their history.

What do you think about this perspective in general (i.e. I'm welcoming all your thoughts on the matter, nothing specific)?

Distinct question: Do you think individual parents should be legally allowed to decide whether or not to support their diseased babies?