posted
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???
-------------------- "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
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 ]
-------------------- "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: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
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
