|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2002 : 10:39:26 [Permalink]
|
whoa. I wonder if their kids'll be pissed when they get older.
-me. |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 11:52:53 [Permalink]
|
I guess there's nothing wrong with it in principle. And I'm all for self-empowerment, but deafness is an "identity not a medical affliction"?? What is the point of that?
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 11:56:04 [Permalink]
|
Some people should not be allowed to reproduce one way or another.
But they do bring up an interesting point.
Deafness as 'cultural identity' instead of a handicap.
I think most people would agree that deafness is indeed a disabilty, and that in case like this, where it is possible, creating such a child should be avoided.
But on the other hand actively selcting against such a trait when breeding humans does not feel completly OK either.
Where would you draw a line? What is still a hanicap and what is just different from the majority?
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 12:33:16 [Permalink]
|
There are some strange people in this world.
sad.
f
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 13:21:58 [Permalink]
|
Purposely breeding a child with such a profound disability is reprehensible, no matter how much it is possible to struggle and learn to cope with this handicap.
However, it is interesting when one tries to consider in detail what the harm is, when the children don't know what they're missing, and could very well lead perfectly happy lives. Was an injustice performed on the children by choosing a sperm donor with a genetic predisposition? The alternative was to choose a normal donor, but then the current children wouldn't have been born, we'd have two completely different children.
Still, I can't think of a more selfish act on the part of the parents. Shouldn't they want the very best life for their children?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 13:47:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=545846&in_review_text_id=511810
Thoughts? Comments?
(on a side note, it's a bit curious why they seem to emphasize the fact that they are lesbians.)
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
With all the special needs children in the world, why didn't they adopt? (Does not apply in Florida.) While strange, well within their rights. I can kinda see their point. These are the children they wanted. The children are loved and the parents are in a position to understand what the children are going through. The FRC needs to get a real complaint. What is the real objection to the births? That a donor was selected to match some want they had? (Like this doesn't happen in hearing couples.) In this case, deafness was a desired trait. Couples want specific eye colors, hair colors, facial structures, and other traits. How is this different than a preference on hearing? They made a conscious effort to get what they wanted.
Or is the real reason that lesbians would be able to produce children and further "contaminate" society? How much of an outrage would the FRC have if this was a hetrosexual couple?
Interesting questions. Only the FRC knows the answers.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
(edited for spelling issues)
Edited by - VALIANT DANCER on 04/08/2002 13:49:41 |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 14:47:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=545846&in_review_text_id=511810
Thoughts? Comments?
I think the decision of this couple shows and odd prejudice. <a href="http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/">Lon Cheney</a> was a tremendous talent. He could hear. His parents (who were completely deaf) had no problem raising a hearing child, and harbored no prejudice against him. Knowing how to sign, Lon Cheney could function equally well in both the deaf and hearing worlds.
That's my opinion anyway.
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 14:49:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In this case, deafness was a desired trait. Couples want specific eye colors, hair colors, facial structures, and other traits. How is this different than a preference on hearing?
Because deafness puts the child at a horrible disadvantage (in general), and doesn't compare at all to trivialities such as eye and hair color.
Even if the child learns to cope and lead a successful, happy life, purposefully depriving them of one of the five major senses because the parents feel like it seems indefensible to me.
I'm all for genetic choice, but I think it's reasonable to be able to define positive traits (which are ok) versus negative ones (which shouldn't be allowed), and I can't see how this could possibly considered in any way positive.
The thought of the parents choosing this for a kid strikes me as one of the most profound cases of injustice imaginable. I'm slightly irritated that I was circumsized, without any say in the matter. Can you imagine how I'd feel if my parents had cut my eyes out when I was born?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Hook
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 15:53:00 [Permalink]
|
I am not advocating what this couple did, but I think it is important to illuminate the thinking behind it. Since about 1980 (it dates before, but really became a serious movement after 1980) there has been an emerging perspective in the deaf community that they are not people with a disability but rather a cohesive, minority and oppressed culture with their own language and social norms.
Here are two sources of this idea, the first one a bit calmer and informative, the second a more radical version. You can dig up similar material at most deaf websites.
http://www.signmedia.com/info/adc.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/SCarter11/gdc.htm
It may not change your mind about what the couple did, but I think it is important to see what perspective led them to their decision. To them, deafness is NOT a disability.
I'm not sure where I stand. My instinct is to be appalled, but I dunno. Would I feel the same way if the mother was hetero and married to the deaf man. Is this really any different?
I need to think about this a bit more.
(P-)>
"I don't care whether my neighbor believes in zero gods or 20 gods, I care whether my neighbor believes in democracy."
--Bill Moyers
Edited by - Hook on 04/08/2002 15:55:07 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2002 : 17:33:06 [Permalink]
|
This has got to be the most twisted piece of s##t that I've seen on the web in a long time.  "cultural identity"?! My A** it is! That's taking any interpretation of identity too far! This is maybe the downside of finding out that homosexuality is genetic and having them preserve their identity. The genes in homosexuality don't actually hinder you, it just alters your emotional outlook in a way that's relatively non-disadvantageous. What they've done to their kid was different. They've deliberately went and actually physically disadvantaged them! That's rather different. What humanism and common sense are about is the improving of people' lot in life; the parents responsiblitly is to try to make their children's lives better than their own. To hell with whether they are homosexual, if they don't intend to make their children's lives better than their own, then NO ONE regardless of orientation should have children.
I'm not saying, by the way, that I endorse genetic engineering; that gets into too much subjective stuff and risky procedures!!! I just think that it's not too much to ask that parents do NOT deliberately saddle their kids with a disadvantage!!
I hope like HELL that the judiciary gets those kids the _____ out of that place!! 
If this was not actually deliberate as if a couple fell in love, and had kids naturally, then I could maybe live with this!
I should note that before any religious nut gets a hold of this, that they should read what "Hook" has to say on this. This is a school of thought independent of homesexuality.
It is interesting that the lesbianism was emphasized; is there a chance that this is some kind of twisted april fool's joke?
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 05:40:59 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if these two children will still respect their parents in about twenty years. I think I might be a little bitter after I realized that a lifetime extra challenges was unneccesarily planned for me. The world can be tough enough for a kid trying to compete, and to fit in.
And, if I hear one more person mention the sexual orientation of this couple, I will happily put my boot up their...well, you know. The fact that they are not straight has nothing to do with this case.
Now, if you will excuse me, I must remove my boot from my....well, you know.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 06:37:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
In this case, deafness was a desired trait. Couples want specific eye colors, hair colors, facial structures, and other traits. How is this different than a preference on hearing?
Because deafness puts the child at a horrible disadvantage (in general), and doesn't compare at all to trivialities such as eye and hair color.
Even if the child learns to cope and lead a successful, happy life, purposefully depriving them of one of the five major senses because the parents feel like it seems indefensible to me.
I'm all for genetic choice, but I think it's reasonable to be able to define positive traits (which are ok) versus negative ones (which shouldn't be allowed), and I can't see how this could possibly considered in any way positive.
The thought of the parents choosing this for a kid strikes me as one of the most profound cases of injustice imaginable. I'm slightly irritated that I was circumsized, without any say in the matter. Can you imagine how I'd feel if my parents had cut my eyes out when I was born?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
If the parents had taken a pencil and poked out the eardrums of the child, I could agree with you. The fact was that they selected a sperm donor with the traits they wanted in a child. There was a chance they wouldn't get what they wanted. Chippewa's example of Lon Cheney proves that.
The point is, it was their right. If you even suggest that it approaches child abuse, I will be very disappointed with you. People bring handicapped children into the world every day. Is the child at a disadvantage? Yes. Is it our business? No. What's next? Governmental genetic screening for prospective parents? The parents here are within their rights. If it were me, I wouldn't be trying for a deaf child. The point here is, it's not me. I won't be raising this child. These parents will.
Oh, the ignored, what basis would the judiciary have for removing the children from the home? There is no accusation of child abuse. They are providing food, shelter, and a loving home. From where I'm sitting, they have a lot of societal advantages that quite a few children don't have. Since both parents are deaf, they can still make their children's lives better than their own. But they are doing it through society. The motivation for having deaf children is a little twisted. But no more twisted than people having children to "save" their marriage.
Bottom line. This is America. As long as the children are not abused physically, sexually, or emotionally (calling the act of birth of a deaf person emotional abuse is disingenuous), it is none of my business what the parents do with their children or their motivations to have children.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 11:10:12 [Permalink]
|
Whether or not it was their right legally, in my opinion it's twisted, cruel, and selfish.
Idle speculation time:
I wonder what they would have done if the child wasn't hearing impaired? Put it up for adoption? Would their disappointment at it's being able to hear been reflected in how they treated it? I wonder if they older deaf child would have been the pride of the family, while the younger one who turned out being able to hear was resented and treated like shit?
[ a side note: I hate using the word "selfish" without qualifier, as I believe that selfishness is not always bad. In this case, I think the parents were selfish in a very negative sense. Any suggestions on how to express that in the sentence above?]
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 04/09/2002 11:13:47 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 11:17:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If the parents had taken a pencil and poked out the eardrums of the child, I could agree with you.
Let's try to explore this hypothetically. If the child were just born, given proper medical procedures so that the child didn't experience one iota of discomfort, and had their hearing permanently disabled, how would this be different?
Why is this not a parent's right, if pain is not involved?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 12:09:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Whether or not it was their right legally, in my opinion it's twisted, cruel, and selfish.
Idle speculation time:
I wonder what they would have done if the child wasn't hearing impaired? Put it up for adoption? Would their disappointment at it's being able to hear been reflected in how they treated it? I wonder if they older deaf child would have been the pride of the family, while the younger one who turned out being able to hear was resented and treated like shit?
[ a side note: I hate using the word "selfish" without qualifier, as I believe that selfishness is not always bad. In this case, I think the parents were selfish in a very negative sense. Any suggestions on how to express that in the sentence above?]
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 04/09/2002 11:13:47
Twisted and selfish, I'll agree with. Cruel? No.
I answer to your hypotheticals:
1) If the child had been born with normal hearing. (a 50% chance)
One must look at the individuals and how normal people treat handicapped children. I believe that these individuals would react similarly to solid family units who get handicapped children. That is, they are happy to have a healthy child and raise it with all the love they have. No different than if the child was born deaf. (Their preference) Likewise for a hearing and deaf child in the same family.
2) Medical procedure to induce deafness:
The pencil analogy was inclusive of any post-partum procedure to disable hearing. There is a big difference between a genetic roll of the dice and medical tampering. Popping the eardrums of a normally hearing child is cruel. One that, I would guess, that no competent physician would ever perform. Neither would loving parents. As a parent you play the hand you're dealt.
In answer to your bracketed question. "putting known social and physical impediments in front of their children for the selfish reason of preference." I think that nicely sums up what I think you object to.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
