posted
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
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.*
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
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."
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
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 ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
****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.....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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
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!
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
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
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(PS -- you don't want to know how we view your English ...) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
