If the whole world had Hiv, i still believe that it would be our moral duty to have children through natural marital relations

[MindOverMatter2]

This topic is inspired by a discussion about the Pope and contraceptives.

If the whole world had Hiv, i believe that one could still argue that it would be our moral duty to bring children in to the world.

At first glance it seems obviously immoral; the main reason being is because the idea of bringing HIV infected children into the world appears extremely selfish and monstrous. But if the natural end of life is spiritual salvation rather than physical salvation, if physical salvation is secondary in importance to bringing people in to the world so that they can share in the love of God, then i think that perhaps there is a context in which knowingly having infected children would not be immoral. If the purpose of life is to bring as many people in to the world as possible so that they can share in the eternal love of God, then why should Hiv or any disease or genetic impediment be a hinderence to that end? Is it possible that it would in fact be selfish to not bring children in the world, regardless of the suffering that will occur? I think so, that is if selfishness is defined in terms of actions that are an impediment to the end of bringing new life to God.

In my defense i would say that God himself certainly permits evil. He knowingly brings people into the world with full knowledge that some will gain genetic disorders and sexually transmitted diseases.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

St Thomas taught that leprosy didn’t remove the positive obligation to render the marriage debt and raise children.

Leprosy voids a betrothal but not a marriage. Wherefore a wife is bound to pay the debt even to a leprous husband. But she is not bound to cohabit with him, because she is not so liable to infection from marital intercourse as from continual cohabitation. And though the child begotten of them be diseased, it is better to be thus than not at all.

I can’t imagine why this would apply to leprosy but not to HIV.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

St Thomas taught that leprosy didn’t remove the positive obligation to render the marriage debt and raise children.

I can’t imagine why this would apply to leprosy but not to HIV.

Thank you for showing me this; it confirms my intuition. Godbless.

 

[tonyrey]

It is a question of choosing the lesser of two evils. We have to decide whether the suffering in our children’s lives will outweigh the immense value of being alive. The answer will vary according to our circumstances. The problem will be far worse for those who lack the basic necessities of life.

Disease and death alone are inadequate reasons for not having children. Even if we don’t know whether they will suffer ill health we do know that one day they will die. There is a risk attached to everything we do but the old adage is true: “Nothing venture nothing gain”. There is also the probability that a cure will be found for HIV. Even for those who reject God every venture requires faith…

 

[Bluegoat]

St Thomas taught that leprosy didn’t remove the positive obligation to render the marriage debt and raise children.

I can’t imagine why this would apply to leprosy but not to HIV.

One could ask though whether it is reasonable for the husband to ask her to render the marriage debt if he could possibly remain continent otherwise, even if one thinks that she is obliged if he does ask.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Well, we have medication that prevents an HIV positive mother from passing the disease onto her child. It’s possible that much of the next generation would be born without the disease.

 

[GEddie]

It is a question of choosing the lesser of two evils. We have to decide whether the suffering in our children’s lives will outweigh the immense value of being alive.

Amen. “Immense value of being alive” is in fact an understatement.

Everybody suffers, but human life remains an awesome gift.
Many persons who suffer hideously in their lives were A-OK at birth; and science has cured or ameliorated many birth conditions that were once considered tragic.

The answer will vary according to our circumstances. The problem will be far worse for those who lack the basic necessities of life.

One could say that dire poverty is similar to a frightening physical condition, in that the child’s future is uncertain. But children are born into dire poverty every second, and go on to live life.

Disease and death alone are inadequate reasons for not having children. Even if we don’t know whether they will suffer ill health we do know that one day they will die.

In fact, they will all suffer ill health, if only at the end of life, by definition. Everybody is unwell when they can no longer breathe.

Ill health is the tax we pay to entropy for the privilege of having a natural human body. No reason not to share that privilege.

There is a risk attached to everything we do but the old adage is true: “Nothing venture nothing gain”. There is also the probability that a cure will be found for HIV. Even for those who reject God every venture requires faith…

Indeed. ICXC NIKA.

 

[paduard]

“If the whole world had Hiv, i believe that one could still argue that it would be our moral duty to bring children in to the world.”

As we are all going to die; surely the answer is yes we still have a duty. Same principle?

 

[Jonatello]

in a world where everyone had HIV, the only question would be “is it better to be born with a serious illness or never be born/exist at all”. i think most of us would say “better to live for 5 minutes than never taste life”.

the worst thing that could happen in such a world would be a mutually-infected couple fails to conceive.

BUT

we live in a world where only SOME have HIV, and the worst that can happen is not simply failing to conceive, but infecting a healthy person - failing to make a new person while killing an existing person.