Is It Morally Justifiable To Birth A Genetically Deformed/Mutated Fetus?

[Neo-Logic]

I was watching a show the other night and they featured the struggles of children and adults who suffer from an asortment of incurable genetic disorders whose names are too much of a medical jargon for the non-pre-med brain to recall. These genetic disorders turned babies and people into monsterous and hideous looking beings - ones that most would associate with horror stories or monster tales. The life of those suffering from these genetic disease had a much shorter life span, required constant medical attention, and suffer from constant humiliation and alienation, as well as difficulties in doing the everyday things.

If technology permitted and was accurate 100%, would you knowingly choose to birth a fetus that will suffer the worst forms of genetic mutation or deformations? More importantly - is it justifiable?

My argument:

It is NOT justifiable for for parents to knowingly birth a fetus that is determined to suffer from the worst forms of incurable genetic deformations. I'm not intending to argue on grounds of pro-life or pro-choice. I'm not intending on debating the definition of fetus/baby/spark of life. I'm arguing the moral justification of bringing into this world, a being that one knows will suffer from extreme genetic disorders that is incurable.

Morally speaking:

Under a utilitarianism ideal: the greatest good for the greatest number of people maxim would not make the birth of fetuses deemed to suffer from extreme forms of genetic deformations that are incurable a justifiable act.

The loss to society is great. The resources of time, money, and labor spent by parents to take care of this extra burdensome baby that otherwise could've been directed to more productive tasks is lost. Raising a child with an incurable genetic disease requires more money that society will end up spending, more medical resources that could be better allocated towards the curable, and would detract the parents from raising another, more healthy baby, in its place.

The only gain to society is the chance for medical science to advance at the expense of lifetime of suffering and incoherence for the deformed child. Although the possibility of future advancement exists by this deformed baby having lived through suffering, the present cost is far greater than any possibility of future advancements.

Under the golden rule: "do onto others what you would want done onto you" - I personally would not want to live life if living would mean a short-term span of existance filled fighting a disease that best science cannot defeat & my own DNA and genetics are cursed, and against me. The question is - how many of us want to live a live primarily of physical suffering unlike that of mysery or pain experienced by the normal circumstances of life?

[Mister Emu]

*** Mod Post ***

Moved per thread creator's request.

[Father Heathen]

Depends on how severe the mutation/deformity is. I don't think it's right to knowingly give birth to a baby you know will have a very short, painful and/or miserable life. In some cases abortion is simply the humane and ethical choice to take.