Deaf demand right to designer deaf children

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Actually, you asked someone else, but i digress...

I don't think handicapped children are necessarly sad, but why on earth would you want to take AWAY an amazing quality like the sense of hearing? That child's ability to be moved by music, to play an instrument, to hear someone they love laugh....all that taken away because of selfishness on the parents part. If you want to teach them about the joys of simplicity, take away a kid's Playstation, not their sense of hearing.

Are you happy watching a movie on mute?

From their perspective you are not taking away anything. You are introducing them to "the deaf culture". As previously mentioned the child's best interest will be paramount here so I don't ever think it will go through. There will be some seriously pissed off deaf people though.

[Table 5]

Firefly, not once did i say i was for genetical engineering of any kind. You keep responding to things i've never said.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do you think handicapped children are sad? Do you think they don't enjoy life? What ever happened to receiving graciously what was given to you?

This has nothing to do with the quality of life of people with disabilities. Yes people can live happy and productive lives with a disability, that doesn't mean you should be able to make them disabled. Forget about designing through genetic engineering, just poke the damn kids eyes out then. Good grief.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

From their perspective you are not taking away anything. You are introducing them to "the deaf culture". As previously mentioned the child's best interest will be paramount here so I don't ever think it will go through. There will be some seriously pissed off deaf people though.

Oh please, you can introduce somebody to the deaf culture by putting cotton in their ears. By taking away hearing, you forcibly alienate from a hell of a lot more things.

Society really must have it so good when people are debating the positive and negative traits of hearing, and their inherent cliques.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by blankall

From their perspective you are not taking away anything. You are introducing them to "the deaf culture". As previously mentioned the child's best interest will be paramount here so I don't ever think it will go through. There will be some seriously pissed off deaf people though.

I would disagree. A proper working human body has the sense of smell. Changing that would be taking away something.

[Winsor_Pilates]

What a bad idea. Apparently these people are deaf and dumb.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Oh please, you can introduce somebody to the deaf culture by putting cotton in their ears. By taking away hearing, you forcibly alienate from a hell of a lot more things.

Society really must have it so good when people are debating the positive and negative traits of hearing, and their inherent cliques.

I agree, no one should have even thought about this.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Firefly, not once did i say i was for genetical engineering of any kind. You keep responding to things i've never said.

Pardon me, I misread.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Oh please, you can introduce somebody to the deaf culture by putting cotton in their ears. By taking away hearing, you forcibly alienate from a hell of a lot more things.

Society really must have it so good when people are debating the positive and negative traits of hearing, and their inherent cliques.

I agree w/ you 100% that it would be unethical to take away a child's sense of hearing. However, you are still looking at it from the perspective that deaf children are inferior to non-deaf children. A perspective many deaf people do not share.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I would disagree. A proper working human body has the sense of smell. Changing that would be taking away something.

Two things...

they're not 'changing' anything. They're just looking for a deaf baby out of viable embryos. Secondly, deafness is a natural state in many working humans. It is a natural state, and those who are deaf would not say they have a disability.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Oh please, you can introduce somebody to the deaf culture by putting cotton in their ears. By taking away hearing, you forcibly alienate from a hell of a lot more things.

Just thought I would respond to you as well...

According to the article, they aren't taking away anything. They're electing to choose embryos that have this defect to implant instead of choosing a baby that has it's hearing.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree w/ you 100% that it would be unethical to take away a child's sense of hearing. However, you are still looking at it from the perspective that deaf children are inferior to non-deaf children. A perspective many deaf people do not share.

I'm sorry, but from a physical stand-point they ARE inferior, just like I would be to, say, Superman. This does not mean a full and rich life cannot be lead deaf, but let's not get politically correct here.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by FireFly

According to the article, they aren't taking away anything. They're electing to choose embryos that have this defect to implant instead of choosing a baby that has it's hearing.

I think turning a blind eye to certain embryos is just the cheap version of genetical engineering. Whether done through fancy medical technology or just through pure selection, in the end the parents are still picking out a model off the lot.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think turning a blind eye to certain embryos is just the cheap version of genetical engineering. Whether done through fancy medical technology or just through pure selection, in the end the parents are still picking out a model off the lot.

Not saying it isn't, I'm saying that they aren't 'making' them deaf, or purposely ruining something.

What they're saying is if others can 'pick a model' off the lot, why can't they pick the one they want?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Two things...

they're not 'changing' anything. They're just looking for a deaf baby out of viable embryos.

Ok...they aren't changing anything....fair enough.

Secondly, deafness is a natural state in many working humans. It is a natural state, and those who are deaf would not say they have a disability.

Did I say it wasn't natural? Someone may say they don't have a disability because they are deaf, the fact is they do. It doesn't mean they are any less of a person than anyone else or they can't lead very successful lives.

Disability: anything that disables or puts one at a disadvantage: His mere six-foot height will be a disability in professional basketball.

I know you aren't supporting this idea, but to even suggest that you can see their point of view is, just really, I don't know what. It makes no sense what so ever.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Two things...

they're not 'changing' anything. They're just looking for a deaf baby out of viable embryos. Secondly, deafness is a natural state in many working humans. It is a natural state, and those who are deaf would not say they have a disability.

K, I might sound like an a-hole for saying this, but technically deafness is a generic defect. A natural state would be skin colour, eye colour, etc. The five senses are part of being human. To lose one would in fact be a generic defect.

As to why the deaf would not say they don't have a disability, its because they have no choice, and must live with the hand their dealt. If you have the ability to hear, you can choose not to. If you are deaf, you don't have a choice to hear.

There's no way a child who does not have the ability to choose should be subjected to that. That's why people who are born with generic defects have my utmost sympathy. To purposely choose generic defects so the parents can have a child similar to them is just selfish. If they were to do that, then they're not fit to be parents.

[deafbrutha]

As a Deaf person myself, I am in a better position to comment about the normality of being Deaf. That Sunday times article is a load of crap, to which uninformed people are responding to with yet uninformed comments and opinions! I've just had my Christmas spoilt having to read ignorant, uninformed and unmitigated prejudicial responses - too numerous to mention. But do yourselves a favour, go and read about Deafness from a Deaf person's point of view [and not the toss you get handed down by the media, the medical profession and other uninformed sources]. This is my blog response to that article: http://alltheyoungdudes.radio666fm.c...l-dont-get-it/ At the very least, go to this site: http://www.stopeugenics.org and find out what it's really about!

[photon]

Thanks for registering and posting.

I found your blog entry to be the most divisive thing I've read in a while actually, separating "Hearies" and "Deafies".

You entry pretty much confirmed my suspicions, the issue isn't about the child at all, it's nothing more than a political statement.

Most wouldn't say that deaf culture doesn't exist, and that it isn't valid and viable.

I think you missed the basic point of the issue though. Pretend there's a magic button that you can press to make an embryo deaf. Should it be ok to press that button? Yes or no, and why?

The answer shouldn't have anything to do with politics. Saying yes because deaf culture is marginalized (I have no idea if it really is or not, but it doesn't matter in this case) isn't the correct answer.

I also find it disingenuous that you accuse the article of sensationalism, yet whip out the Nazi card (not to mention all the odd capitalizations which further emphasizes the "us vs them" perspective).

"Eugenics" is directing of human evolution, and in and of itself cannot be good or bad. It's like saying a knife is evil. How it's used (or not used) is the issue.

In reality eugenics is already practiced by everyone (the old fashioned way by choosing your partner), but as technology advances we have to consider ethical issues such as this case.

In my personal opinion I think a parent that chooses to screen embryos looking for one that is hearing impaired above ones that aren't is doing something ethically wrong because they are doing so (I assume, correct me with the correct motivation if so) based on their personal desires and/or the desires of the deaf culture.

I realise it's a difficult issue, which is why I posed the question in the first place. Do I think that the freedom of an deaf individual should be limited in who they can procreate with? No, of course not.

But as a parent and as a person with my own challenges, I can say 100% that I do NOT want my child to have to deal with those same challenges. If I was a deaf parent, I would want my child to have the ability to hear and I would be happy they could hear.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by deafbrutha

As a Deaf person myself, I am in a better position to comment about the normality of being Deaf. That Sunday times article is a load of crap, to which uninformed people are responding to with yet uninformed comments and opinions! I've just had my Christmas spoilt having to read ignorant, uninformed and unmitigated prejudicial responses - too numerous to mention. But do yourselves a favour, go and read about Deafness from a Deaf person's point of view [and not the toss you get handed down by the media, the medical profession and other uninformed sources]. This is my blog response to that article: http://alltheyoungdudes.radio666fm.c...l-dont-get-it/ At the very least, go to this site: http://www.stopeugenics.org and find out what it's really about!

I appreciate the links.

You say your in a better position to comment yet you don't say anything other than denounce posters as uninformed, ignorant and prejudice. And did a few peoples remarks really spoil your Christmas?

My question is how are people being ignorant, uniformed and prejudice? The debate is about choosing a deaf embryo over a non deaf embryo regardless of who is making that decision, deaf or hearing. You direct us to your blog where you post "Deaf people are sidelined as a group of outsiders who are demanding the right to create children like themselves" No one on this site has singled out deaf people and labled them as outsiders.

You also post this in your blog.

Then there is the use of the word DELIBERATE, in reference the infamous case where an American couple CHOSE a sperm donor who came from a family with a lineage of Deafness. Well, brace yourselves, but it is a well known and well observed fact that Hearing people have been doing this for as long as there have been Hearing people. It’s called inbreeding! When they do it, it’s normal, when we do it, it’s condemning a child to a lifetime of misery!

Can you explain this to me please. This debate is not about the natural selection with regards to natural human breeding. This is about actively picking, choosing and sorting what embroys should be implanted. No one has ever suggested on this site that if a deaf person decideds to have a child naturally (which may be deaf, thats how it works) is condemning the child to a lifetime of misery.

Also this:

Sure, the words DESIGNER BABY/ BABIES makes for good, sensationalist copy. But it works against one group of people, in this case Deaf people, while ignoring that when Hearing people actively choose how, what and when, to make their babies, it’s normal. Deafies are demonised, Hearies aren’t!

What are you talking about? Has anyone on this site ever demonised deaf people for having kids? Like has been mentioned before, choosing the colour of your childs hair or eyes does not take away anything from the child, taking away their hearing, well, enough said.