Liberal Neutrality and the Nonidentity Problem: The Right to Procreate Deaf Children.

Consequently, if to justify PIDE a neutral state claims that everyone is better off not being deaf, then, a neutral state would also be claiming that Deaf persons are mistaken about what they think "better off" means. And like Guy Kahane - who sympathizes with the idea of deafness as a harm - one would have to say that Larissa's parents have a "morally awry" attitude because they desired to harm Larissa and keep her in a harmful state (Kahane [24], 200). Appealing to autonomy as a neutral state would, one could claim - without claiming that deafness is or is not a harm - that it is not morally permissible to deafen a child because the child should make her own decisions and value judgments about deafness when she becomes an adult. Similarly, if a neutral state attempts to use the "lower quality of life" claim, such state would be claiming that deafness is a condition that necessarily diminishes a person's quality of life. [Extracted from the article]