If a child is born with sight and finds that blindness would be advantageous they can always become blinded. The problem with eliminating blindness is that not all people necessarily view it as a handicap. Some blind people consider their blindness a strength, and that a blind child may fit into his or her family better if everyone in their or society is already blind. Opponents to the policy of eliminating the blind gene could argue they want to create blind children for blind parents using germ-line therapy. .
Dena Davis discusses the moral problem with purposely creating deaf children for deaf parents. She argues that children have certain rights, and that adults should only have power over the child's dependency rights (food, shelter, and Protection). "There are rights that Feinberg calls rights-in-trust, rights which are to be saved for the child until he is an adult". (3) When an adult violates this right they are taking away the child's right to determine how they will live there life. She argues that nobody can accurately determine if life with deafness is better than nonexistence. "Deaf people have incomes thirty to forty percent below the national average. The state of education for the deaf is unacceptable by anyone's standards; the typical deaf student graduates from high school unable to read a newspaper". (3) Therefore, parents have no right to create a deaf child because they do not know that it would make the child's life better or that it the child would want to be deaf. .
With blindness it is impossible to determine beyond the shadow of a doubt that life without blindness is better than life with blindness. There are obvious hardships that a person will encounter, but some blind people may see their blindness as a blessing. They learn different morals and skills than many people and have perspectives of things that are unhindered by appearance. However, it appears that an adult has no more right to determine their child should have sight than they did to determine they should be deaf.