quote: They say their choice is no different from choosing what gender the child would be.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, that does seem strange to me.... As a person going deaf I couldn't imagine why anybody would want that for someone, especially their child.....
These people were right to be turned away from places....
I will conclude with, THOSE FUCKING IDIOTS!!!!!!!
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Why? How is it different from a dad wanting a girl? Or a mom wanting a little boy?
These parents want a deaf child. More power to them.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Five words:
Best. Interest. Of. The. Child.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes.... and being that nasty, to wish something like that on your own child...... Something that I wouldn't even wish on my worst enemy's child....
So if someone decides to have a child that, say, has no arms, would be okay also..... or if the error doesn't occur then we can just chop the arms off???
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Methinks there's a big difference between being born deaf, and being born without arms.
And if the parents are deaf, isn't it IN the best interest of the child to be deaf? Maybe not, I don't know.
Maybe black parents should raise white children, if its in the best interest of the child.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Deaf culture is a very real phenomenon, and it raises all sorts of sticky questions about what constitues a "healthy" human being.
Intentionally creating a person that you know will have problems... more like a mad scientists thing than a looving parent.....
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It seems to me a sad proposition all around to purposefully deny a person a "sense" and the human pleasures that that person can derive therefrom.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I'd tend to agree. But then, I can hear. To stretch the concept to an absurd end, what if, in 25 years, parents can choose to extend the visual range of their children into the infrared or ultraviolet. Would failing to do that constitute child abuse? Is it incumbant upon parents to do everything possible to ensure their children have the best life possible? Do they have to educate them? Sure, I think we'd say. Do they have to see to their health needs. Again, sure. Do they have to, if possible, ensure they have a "normal" genetic code? Do they have to ensure they have a super-normal genetic code?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I don't say that deafness is necessarily a bad thing. It is no longer the "handicap" that it was once thought of and it certainly doesn't diminish the person as a whole.
And I'm sure that there is a highly deveolved community and culture amongst hearing impaired people.
However, in the case you put forth, the infrared or ultraviolet scenario, what your talking about is the addition to a developed sense and not the willful denial of a sense.
Its one thing to feel part of a special group due to the way you were born as a human, using lack of the sense of hearing as an example. It is another thing altogether to deny a natural human sense to another human being from the get go.
[ April 12, 2002, 08:17: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
These people have an agenda. I skimmed the replies here while the linked page loaded, and thought "surely this must be some pro-life stunt? After all, you can't do anything if the baby is going to be born deaf, so they're out to show that if they'd shosen to terminate the baby, etc., etc., etc. . ."
Silly me. The reality is actually far sicker. I prefer to avoid bringing their sexuality into it, because it likely has nothing to do with it. But what you have is this couple who have chosen to make an unfortunate affliction, their deafness, the basis of this drive to set themselves apart from normal human society.
Argh, how to put this? There are constant attempts to add and improve to ways in which the disabled interact with the rest of the world. Induction loops, wheelchair ramps, "blind-friendly" pedestrian crossings. We shouldn't expect gratitude, these are good things to do, things which should be done. But this is just throwing it back in our teeth. It's paramount to some poor guy in a wheelchair ignoring the ramp, going to the foot of the stairs, throwing himself out of the chair and demanding he be carried up.
Enough of that, people will soon say: "Deaf culture? Fine. Be deaf. Insult us in sign language you know we can't understand, we'll just do the same, out loud, behind your backs where you can't read our lips. Oh, and by the way - watch out for that bus? Hello? Oops. Too late. Maybe your son might have been able to warn you if you hadn't decided he should be deaf too."
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
One of the most important distinction between human and other species on earth is our advance understanding in complex communication.
I think to lose the ability to communicate is far more serious then losing a limb.
Proper or accepted forms of communcation has always been defined the the vast majority of a society, so even if the kid can communcate through other means (sign language, lips reading, etc), it's still gonna be a huge disadvantage on the kid's part, because he simply can't communicate with normal people who made up the vast majority of our society.
If the couple had adopted this child, then sure, it's their freedom of choice, but in my personal opinion, a dumb choice.
But they choose to "make" this baby with intentional genetic defects by selective breeding, then I say this couple is evil, sadistic and derserve to be shot for the sake fo the children, and for the sake of moral standard in our society.
This couple is no different then the scientists performing questionable genetic experiements, but at least some of these scientists are trying to do some good by bring out the best of humanity, where the couple is trying to bring out the worst.
[ April 11, 2002, 17:19: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, look! It's a genuinely new issue in the Flameboard! Will wonders never cease?
Hmm... well, it's generally accepted that it's OK for people to go to a sperm bank and try to obtain sperm from donors with desirable characteristics, so I don't see much of a problem there. And I suppose that LEGALLY speaking, they have the right to conceive a child however they please, so long as both genetic donors are agreeable. My problem is that the parents attitude seems to be that THEY would love to have a deaf kid. They don't seem to consider the CHILD in this. I'm also forced to wonder what they'll do if the kid ISN'T born deaf...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I fail to see how being deaf harms ones ability to communicate. ASL is a real language, you know.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Simon: Your example is really completely different. You are stating a possible future where people are enhanced. A situation where you'd have to chose to have the enhancement. Presumably by that point, the enhancements would be standard, and a parent would have to chose not to have them. But even then, this is different, as hearing is a standard sense, one that most people are born with.
These parents are not just ignoring medical advances. They are not saying "We don't want our child to ever use antibiotics". They are deliberatly, from birth, ensuring that the child is born with a disability. They say that when the child is old enough he can choose whether or not to have a hearing aid. Fine. So why didn't they have a "normal" baby and then let it deceide whether, at age 18, it wants to smash its ears in with a hammer?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I suppose my point is that "standard" is really just arbitrary. I think hearing is a good thing. You think its a good thing. But obviously not everyone does.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I have lost my hearing while serving as a mortarman in the Army, a good majority of it anyway, which wasn't all that good from having tubes as a child. Now I have to really concentrate on what the other people are saying.... I remember when I didn't have to put that much effort in to hearing what someone was saying, it was nice, compared to now.
So, knowing what I have lost, and having a good idea of what this kid faces, I can not understand why someone that is deaf would want to deny their offspring something they either never had or lost....
Maybe they are just snubbing Darwin.....
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
quote:I fail to see how being deaf harms ones ability to communicate. ASL is a real language, you know.
Yes, and let's see how far you'll get in McD trying to order a burger with using only ASL.
Better yet, let's see how far you'll get in ALMOST ANY PLACE with ASL as your only form of communication.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Would you try to prevent two people with poor eyesight to have a child? (prolly not on this board!) What about two congenitally blind people? Where would you draw the line? What about two criminals? What about two mentally retarded people? Two drug users? Two little people? Two fat people?
Ultimately, I think the only question is whether these people are going to be able to raise their child, and whether they are going to be able to provide the special needs their child may require. There's no way to make a correct blanket descision about this. It has to be case by case. If they truly understand the issues their child will face, and are prepared to meet those needs, then who has the right to prevent them from excercise their right to reproduce? Really, who better to raise a deaf child than two women well experienced in this and immersed in hearing-impaired culture? Would I ever do it? Never. Do I think we have the right to tell people who they can reproduce with? Not even close. That smacks of a certain teutonic policy which went ended some time in the early 1940s.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It is the seeking out for the expressed purpose of....
If it just happens that, well, then that is that....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
These parents will eventually come to regret their decision.
Why?
Because eventually, the kid's going to find out he/she was engineered with a defunct, and (quite rightfully) resent his/her folks for it. I know I would.
The idea that people make a statement by purposely impairing their own children (i.e.: abusing to promote self-interest, whatever that might be)... makes me sick.
[ April 12, 2002, 16:14: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Unless, of course, they spend many impressionable years convincing the kid that it's a good thing. After all, they've already convinced themselves.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I don't think this is right; like it or not being able to hear is vital to communicate. the vast majority of people in the world cannot sign or read braille. Also many warning signals (e.g. car horns) are aural. Is it legal for deaf people to drive?
This is akin to maiming a child; if someone purposely destroyed a childs hearing after they had been born no one would agree with it. How is this different?
Posted by Alshrim (Member # 258) on :
I disagree. People don't need hearing to communication. People live entire lifetimes communicating using a language that you simply don't understand.
If you can hear and go to China (assuming of course you are english speaking primarily), and you talk to a chinese person... they can hear you - but they do not understand you .. How is this different?
Deaf and mute people simply speak a different language. I bet you if you knew sign language - you wouldn't have such a strong opinion!
To suggest that deaf people are less than us hearing people, I think, is unfair. Ask most deaf people - and they can tell you that they can do as many things as you or me. It's just they do it differently. Sure -- they are limited in some ways.. but their other sense are twice ours are. I bet ya their powers of observation are far better than mine...
Just because someone is deaf doesn't mean they are invalids!
It's not like they are freaks. And it's not like they're wishing bad things on the kid.. they are obviously fullfilled in their life - and they are both deaf.
I dunno... I don't think we should feel sorry for deaf poeple. Hell -- Beethoven was deaf -- look what he accomplished!!
[ April 12, 2002, 12:03: Message edited by: Alshrim ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Beethoven was deaf -- look what he accomplished!!
And think what he might have accomplished if he hadn't been.
These people have the LEGAL right to have kids any way they please. However, I also have the legal right to treat everyone I meet like dirt. That doesn't mean that I should.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
.....and if you are in China you can even pick up the language...... if you can hear them....
[ April 12, 2002, 15:09: Message edited by: Ritten ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: If you can hear and go to China (assuming of course you are english speaking primarily), and you talk to a chinese person... they can hear you - but they do not understand you .. How is this different?
Deaf and mute people simply speak a different language. I bet you if you knew sign language - you wouldn't have such a strong opinion!
The difference of course, is that we *choose* not to learn German, Cantonese, ASL, or what not....but we have that choice.
These parents are making that choice for their child right off the bat. Even if they want to learn Chinese, German, etc....they can't, no matter what.
My question is, why didn't they simply adopt a deaf child instead of cruelly breeding for it?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Erm... Luwig van Beethoven went deaf. Do you honestly believe he would have had any concept of what music even is, much less been able to compose it, if he'd never had hearing at all?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
quote:Would you try to prevent two people with poor eyesight to have a child? (prolly not on this board!) What about two congenitally blind people? Where would you draw the line? What about two criminals? What about two mentally retarded people? Two drug users? Two little people? Two fat people?
There is a difference here, the parent choose to geneticlly impaired the child.
quote: If you can hear and go to China (assuming of course you are english speaking primarily), and you talk to a chinese person...they can hear you - but they do not understand you .. How is this different?
Again, there's a different, like I said before, the accepted form of communication is decided by the vast majority of the population in a area, hence in China, people speak Chinese, in North American, people speak English. However, I have yet to seen a country or region to have its main form of communication in sign language or anything similar. Plus, normal people have the option of learning a new "spoken" language with relatively short time, can we say the same for deaf people?
quote: Beethoven was deaf -- look what he accomplished!!
Man, what the hell were you thinking! He wasn't deaf to begin with! You think Beethoven could've been as great as he was in his time if he was born deaf?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, but these people would have you believe that it was the act of going deaf that enabled him to do it. And they have no conception of music themselves, and are quite happy to deprive their children of it.
Sure, they're probably great parents. And there are loads of other, worse, things that parents can inflict on their kids as part of the rearing process: religion to name but one. But kids brought up in a religious background can at least figure out that maybe they don't want Mom and Pop's revered Guru Bob taking advantage of them sexually as soon as they hit puberty(and don't think they like all those guns lying around, and have heard bad things about those ATF guys outside), and get the hell out. Young Gavin (or whatever his name was, something similar I think) isn't going to be able to decide later in life that maybe he's not all that into deaf culture.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Beethoven has already composed a lot before he went deaf. And when his hearing did start to go, he used to do things like bite the piano to help him hear the notes.
"If you can hear and go to China (assuming of course you are english speaking primarily), and you talk to a chinese person... they can hear you - but they do not understand you .."
Completely different. If you spoke English, you could then chose to go and live in China, and you could chose whether or not to learn the language. If you are deaf, you live in a world of largely hearing people, and you cannot chose to hear.
In China, the majority speak Chineseand only Chinese. In the US, the majority speak English and only English. And all over the world, the majority can hear.
"I suppose my point is that "standard" is really just arbitrary."
How? The majority of people are born able to hear. We have ears designed to allow us to hear. Human beings are, my design, designed to hear. Not hearing goes against that standard design. Nothing arbitary about it.
"I bet ya their powers of observation are far better than mine..."
I believe that's slightly apocryphal. Blind people don't become Daredevil, y'know.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I'm not saying that I agree with what they've done. Far from it. I'm just saying that I think they ought to have the right to do it. It wasn't exactly Dr. Genetrakon blazing into her womb with his impair-o-ray to make the child deaf (and I might feel differently were this the case). It was two women wanting to raise a child and selecting a sperm donor with a desirable (for them) trait. I don't agree with their choice, but I feel strongly that they should be allowed to make that choice if they fully understand the consequences that choice entails and are prepared to deal with those consequences.
I totally agree with Cartman in thinking the children might come to resent it. I know that missing out on music completely would really piss me off, but that's because I have that ability now. If I had never heard it, things might be different.
quote:originally posted by PsyLiam The majority of people are born able to hear. We have ears designed to allow us to hear. Human beings are, my design, designed to hear. Not hearing goes against that standard design. Nothing arbitary about it.
Not to stir the bees-nest here, Liam but I have little faith in majority rules. A majority of people are also heterosexual. One could even argue that the species was biologically designed for heterosexual coupling (Since (until recently) same sex pairings don't generally produce offspring). I would certainly hope that no one would percieve homosexuality as being heterosexually-impaired. I know I certainly wouldn't. These people view their condition in a similar light. I mean to use the grotesquely PC term, they are "differently-abled", and unless that means they are incapable of providing for their child, I don't think their reproductive rights should be any different than anyone elses.
*knows he's going to catch a burning shitstorm for this, but rests easy in the knowledge that it is the Flameboard.*
[ April 12, 2002, 20:05: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That's mostly what I was getting at, too.
quote: The difference of course, is that we *choose* not to learn German, Cantonese, ASL, or what not....but we have that choice.
Er...I've never chosen not to learn any of those languages. It's not like I wake up in the morning and say "Gee, I think I'm going to not learn Arabic today."
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alshrim: Deaf and mute people simply speak a different language. I bet you if you knew sign language - you wouldn't have such a strong opinion!
As it happens I do know sign language.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, like kids arguing for the reason of just arguing, this couple choose to make their child deaf just because they can.
Of course, this is their freedom of choice, but man, a pretty shitty and sadistic one.
This couple is out to make a point, about how this is their freedom of choice to do so. But freedom of choice does have limit when it intrude on the right of others, in this case, the kid. This couple have no respect for life, or sense of responsibility to consider the moral consequences involved here.
And no matter what a person might said, deafness is consider a defect or a disease by all of the medical community. It is also consider by the society as a whole to be a set-back for a person's quality of life. So, unless you spend 8 years in med school, or/and prove that your logic is far more superior then whole population of our society and the medical community, I'm gonna consider that person's opinions amateurish with no moral, or professional support.
For people who doesn't like "majority rules", tough luck, we have yet to find a better system.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
So, what would everyone's opinion be if Joe and Jane, who both happened to be deaf (and met at an event for the deaf), got married and had kids? Would you have this same opinion?
What if Joe was deaf and Jane wasn't (or vice versa)? Should they not have kids for fear that the child would be born deaf?
quote:I'm gonna consider that person's opinions amateurish with no moral, or professional support.
Does that mean you consider your own opinions amatuerish, and without moral or professional support? (PS -- you don't want to know how we view your English ...)
As far as moral goes, er, dude, you're the one essentially saying that people who have defects SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN. How moral is that?
[ April 13, 2002, 16:55: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
quote:So, what would everyone's opinion be if Joe and Jane, who both happened to be deaf (and met at an event for the deaf), got married and had kids? Would you have this same opinion?
In a family planning clinic (which is always run by medical professional), once they find out a couple have a definite family history of genetic defects, and such defect would almost certainly be carry on to the child this couple is planing on having, usually they politely inform the couple of the findings, and offer their professional opinion to the couple that it's probably for the best not to have a child. So yes, I will stick to my opinion.
Plus, the couple we're talking about is having a deaf child intentionally to prove their point, where as the couple in your example are having a kid to build a family in which deafness of the child is a unforunate side effect. TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION!
quote:Does that mean you consider your own opinions amatuerish, and without moral or professional support?
Obviously I don't have to provide prove that all doctors are gonna tell you that deafness is a defect, because it's call common sense.
quote: (PS -- you don't want to know how we view your English ...)
Languages are used to communicate, anything more is a waste of time. An idea should be judge by its contains, and not how well it is presented.
[ April 13, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
****Side note**** ((((mmmmmm, American's is what it should be....
Sorry, we didn't consult before we started using (Bastardized) English...... We are a breakway/rebellious colony of England.....
The U.S. does not have an offical language.....))))
I guess my problem is that parents should, it would seem, want their child(ren) to be better than they are...... I don't disagree that they have a choice, I just think the choice is stupid.....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
As far as moral goes, er, dude, you're the one essentially saying that people who have defects SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN. How moral is that?
Now, now, that's the LEGALITY of it, not the morality of it. We're not trying to legislate morality, here.
Now is it just me, or are we all repeating the same thing over and over? "They can do this. They SHOULDN'T, but they can."
Languages are used to communicate, anything more is a waste of time. An idea should be judge by its contains, and not how well it is presented.
Yes, but if your ideas are presented so badly that we have no clue what you're trying to add to a discussion, then there's no point to your having said anything at all. Presentation IS important.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:In a family planning clinic (which is always run by medical professional), once they find out a couple have a definite family history of genetic defects, and such defect would almost certainly be carry on to the child this couple is planing on having, usually they politely inform the couple of the findings, and offer their professional opinion to the couple that it's probably for the best not to have a child. So yes, I will stick to my opinion.
That is such a run-around, BE.
HOW is it moral to tell people they can't have a child together? I don't get it. Maybe you do. I don't.
If a person is deaf, or blind, or whatever ... you essentially take the stance that they should NEVER EVER have a kid. Wow. Well, I'll laugh the next time you say you're in favor or "freedom" ...
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
like Omega said, they can, but they shouldn't.
And how am I a run-around? The family planning clinic example just points out fact that even doctors don't agree with such decision. The doctors won't prevent them from having the child, just advice them not to have one, there's a difference here.
And how is it not moral? Is it the part where we are being considerate about the consequences that the child have to suffer from deafness that's not moral?
And I point out again, a disable couple having a children is different then a healthy couple intentionally trying to get a genetically defective child!
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:And I point out again, a disable couple having a children is different then a healthy couple intentionally trying to get a genetically defective child!
... this was exactly what I asked, BE. You need to study English more.
I'd point out that the women are asking for sperm from a deaf man. There is very little difference here then if the woman who donated the eggs slept with the guy directly and got pregnanted (add a marriage in there if you'd like).
They didn't go to some fancy genetics hospital and get the hearing sliced out. There's a chance the child will be born hearing.
I'd still like to hear why this is different from two deaf people meeting at a coffee shop, getting married, and having kids.
When someone posts why that is wrong, I'll understand better why they think the above is wrong.
Or, as Omega might say, "isn't it better that the child be born deaf then not be born at all?"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...a rather emphatic no to that last question, Jeff. How is it "good" for something that doesn't exist to exist? Or "bad," for that matter. It's not like there's some long string of babies in orbit, waiting to get onboard.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I agree w/ the sentiment that a few people seem to be expressing here. These people couldn't be stopped from having the child any more than you could stop two married deaf people from having a kid. (And, of course, this applies to any other genetic defect: not just hearing.) The problem here is the "parents'" intentions. They wanted the child to be deaf. If if the kid had gotten lucky and hadn't been born almost completely deaf, I would still say the people were a rather disgusting lot for wishing something like that on their kid, simply because they've got it.
Basically, I'd call what they're doing morally wrong. Not the act of risking having a deaf child, but the act of going out of their way to do the most they can to guarantee the child's deafness.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
To exist or not to exist? That is a question.....
How many kids have yelled at their parents, "I wish I had never been born!!"?? How many kids could say this with honesty???
Yes, this is a Merry-Go-Round.......
The balance still exists, all is good....
Good Morning....
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Far be it from me to outthink these supergeniuses that would purposely handicap their child (sarcasm.. these sound like the cruelest people imaginable).. but maybe instead of working on this gruesome science of genetically disabling them, perhaps they could find some way to temporarily deafen their child to help them bond with them and then have the choice of gaining the sense... that way the child wouldnt be able to say 'you ruined my life', they would say 'you ruined my childhood years', which is a complaint that all children have of their parents anyway
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
You know ... I could understand this reaction if they were deliberately giving their child down syndrome, or something that completely eliminates the possibility of a successful future ...
... but being deaf doesn't do that. Deaf people are successful in every tier of society -- a friend of mine graduates GWU next year, and is planning to go to Law School in Boston. She's deaf. She's in one of the top schools in the country. Tell her she's got a disability, and she'll call you an "ignorant sack of ignorant shit" (and she's got a really cute and sweet smile on when she says it, too ... )
I think the people who have the strongest opinion about deafness being "wrong" are those who have had hearing, and then lose it (or imagine losing it). Not those who were born without it to begin with ...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'd still like to hear why this is different from two deaf people meeting at a coffee shop, getting married, and having kids.
The intention of the parents. Again, intent is vital.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Snayer, ask you friend what she thinks about this subject..... See if she would do the same, and, if so, ask her why should wouldn't want her child to have more advantages in life???
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Jeff: I'm sure you could also find someone who can't talk, or see, or walk, or whatever, who doesn't consider it a disability. But self-delusion does not a true statement make.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:The intention of the parents
In both cases, the intention of the parents is to have children. In both cases, both biological parents are deaf, meaning their offspring will most likely also be deaf. Very little difference here that I can see.
quote:See if she would do the same, and, if so, ask her why should wouldn't want her child to have more advantages in life???
Ritten, are you suggesting that if she could hear she'd, I don't know, have graduated from Harvard at the top of her class at the tender age of 10? She's at one of the top Universities in the US. Being deaf hasn't exactly stuck her working at McD's her whole life.
quote:But self-delusion does not a true statement make.
Fine. Then we're talking about someone with a disability who has done more at 21 then a lot of the people on this board have accomplished at the same point in their lives. Or does everyone here go to a school with as much prestiege as The George Washington University?
Maybe I just don't get why people are so venemous about a deaf couple choosing to have a deaf child.
Omega, I'm also very surprised in your answers on this subject. Shouldn't you be saying, "it's not anyone's place to tell them what to do or not to do?"
[ April 14, 2002, 16:24: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Ritten, are you suggesting that if she could hear she'd, I don't know, have graduated from Harvard at the top of her class at the tender age of 10? She's at one of the top Universities in the US. Being deaf hasn't exactly stuck her working at McD's her whole life.
No, I was wondering if she would like her child(ren) to have the, ummm, the advantage of hearing, over these peoples dubious choice of making a deaf child....
Then again, she may not be the best choice of people to ask.... Those that have been on both sides of the spectrum, or are travelling the course from being able to hear to being deaf.....
Would you, Jeff, seek out a girlfriend/wife, that has a sense that is "offline" in order to see if you could have kids that had the same "offline" gene?? Would you, Jeff, not want your child(ren) to have all of their abilities in a fully functional state when born???
In both questions, Why???
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:Would you, Jeff, seek out a girlfriend/wife, that has a sense that is "offline" in order to see if you could have kids that had the same "offline" gene??
Would I seek them out? No, but if I happened to fall in love with someone who was deaf, I wouldn't not have kids because of the fear that they too might be deaf.
quote:Would you, Jeff, not want your child(ren) to have all of their abilities in a fully functional state when born???
Sure I would, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have kids if my wife was deaf.
And since when it this about what I want, or what you want, or what we want. Isn't it about what they want ... ?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
mmmm, yes, but we stated our opinions that they are a couple, er, few, fucked up people.....
I was also wondering your opinion and stance in as full a nature as possible, which I couldn't do without asking, guessing or trying to put words in your mouth, neither seemed acceptable....
Seeking out for the expressed purpose, as opposed to it being fate/destiny/pheromones/whatever, is the difference. Other than creating a new life for this planet, maybe creating a loving atmosphere, what are they doing for that child??? Pardone, I can't hear you....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, Jeff, you feel that a person's entire quality of life should be measured by how prestigious their college is?
And, again, it isn't a question of whether or not you'd risk having a deaf child. These people didn't say "Well, we might end up w/ a deaf child, and we might not, and it's alright either way." They said "We have to do everything possible to ensure that this kid won't ever get to hear a single thing."
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Well, Ritten, as long as you can see what I'm typing ...
But, yeah, essentially: that's it. They're giving this child life. Yes, the child is probably going to be deaf, but if this woman this man weren't doing "it like they do on the Discovery channel" this kid would never be alive.
Life with a disability or no life at all? It's one of those aspects of pro-choice the anti-choicers like to forget about.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I like to try to read these, but I read slow, so, please type slower....
Life with a parental inflicted disability or no life at all...... We would have to ask the kid in a few years to see how he feels about it....
[ April 14, 2002, 20:03: Message edited by: Ritten ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Omega, I'm also very surprised in your answers on this subject. Shouldn't you be saying, "it's not anyone's place to tell them what to do or not to do?"
Disappointed that you can't jump all over me?
TSN hit it on the head: there is a difference between having a child to have a child, and not caring whether it's deaf or not; and having a child and specifically ensuring that it's deaf.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:Disappointed that you can't jump all over me?
I am jumping all over you. You are passing judgement on what is no-one's business but this couples'. Isn't that a "no-no" for Conservatives? And, er, didn't God say something about only Herself judging ... ?
quote:there is a difference between having a child to have a child, and not caring whether it's deaf or not; and having a child and specifically ensuring that it's deaf.
Well, I might have this wrong, but without chopping off the child's ears, it is possible the child won't be born deaf. And I think you're mistaken if you think that in couples where one person has a defect, the possibility of that defect recurring in the child isn't a "care" at all ... it's usually a great point of concern in the decision to have a child or not.
quote:Life with a parental inflicted disability or no life at all...... We would have to ask the kid in a few years to see how he feels about it....
Bada boom, bada bing!
[ April 14, 2002, 20:34: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The only thing is that this does not seem to be a problem for the case in point....
Points: 1. Should the couple be allowed to do ths? Yes, Freedom being what it is.....
2. Is this a descision that has the best interests of the child at heart? No, not when you consider how useful hearing is, and how much enjoyment people that can hear derive from it, usually.
3. Is hearing essential to life? No, a loss of 1 or 2 senses is not, for the most part, life threatening.
Does this some up my reading here???
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, why are we still arguing about the differences between "deaf couple having a kid" and "normal couple trying to have a deaf kid"?
IF a deaf couple decided to have a kid, they're doing so because THEY WANT A KID! Whether or not the kid will turn out to be deaf is secondary to their desire of having this kid. Beside, how often does a deaf couple decided to have a kid WITHOUT consulting a family planning clinic knowing that there's a big chance the genetic defects would carry on to the next generation.
The "normal" couple we're saying here is totally different, they're having a kid to PROVE THEIR POINT! In their case, the point is pretty sadistic!
We have pointed out again and again, "having a kid for the desire of raising a family" is different then "prove that deaf is cool by having a deaf kid"!
Arguing deafness is good for a child's quality of life is one thing. But to put the child's future on the test just to prove their theory is just disgusting! They even announce their intentions to the public media, which sounds like they're using the kid as a "lab rat" to prove their twisted social theory!
And how does the "prestige university case" even have anything to do with what we're trying to prove here? We're not denying the fact that deaf(or disable people) people can achieve great, or astonishing tasks or goals, we're proving that by genetically engineering a kid to be deaf, we'd be robbing away a precious ability from the kid.
And Jeff, if you ask your friend whether or not she would like her hearing back, would she say no? Further more, does your friend thought of the deafness as a "bless" or a "curse"?
[ April 15, 2002, 00:56: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: Man, why are we still arguing about the differences between "deaf couple having a kid" and "normal couple trying to have a deaf kid"?
Because you don't seem to be getting it.
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: IF a deaf couple decided to have a kid, they're doing so because THEY WANT A KID! Whether or not the kid will turn out to be deaf is secondary to their desire of having this kid. Beside, how often does a deaf couple decided to have a kid WITHOUT consulting a family planning clinic knowing that there's a big chance the genetic defects would carry on to the next generation.
'Defect', eh? I think we've established that these people don't view this as a defect. You may not agree with them on this, but that's the way they feel.
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: The "normal" couple we're saying here is totally different, they're having a kid to PROVE THEIR POINT! In their case, the point is pretty sadistic!
*Blink* I'm not entirely sure how you are defining normal here, but I'm fairly certain it is a definition you've arrived at on your own.
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: We have pointed out again and again, "having a kid for the desire of raising a family" is different then "prove that deaf is cool by having a deaf kid"!
Not sure whether you read the article, but here's a little bit they called out in red in the margin:
quote:Sharon Duchesneau "A hearing baby would be a blessing. A deaf baby would be a special blessing."
Sounds to me like they wanted to have a baby. They'd prefer a baby who is deaf, but really they wanted to have a baby.
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: Would I disagree with a deaf couple having a kid even when they know there's a great chance of passing the deafness to their kid? Yes and No. A couple with history of ANY GENETIC DEFECTS FROM BOTH SIDE should know better and consult medical professional for their opinions. They should also carefully consider the consequences if the defects are pass on to their kid. On the other hand, I can also understand the desire to "carry on the family bloodline" can be very strong, so if they do decides to have a 'deaf kid', I could agree with them to a certain degree.
Again you are judging their condition to be a defect. These people wanted to have a kid. They wanted a deaf kid because they happen to be deaf, just like if a black couple had decided that they wanted to have a black child, or a white couple decided they wanted to have a white child, or--well I'm sure you ge the point...
In regards to 'defects' and what is 'healthy' (and this is not specifically directed at you, BE), you all may want to read this:
quote:The state must see to it that only the healthy beget children. The state must act as the guardian of a millennial future. . . . It must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and can therefore pass it on. -Adolph Hitler
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(PS -- you don't want to know how we view your English ...) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)