http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch
Should they be allowed? I don't think so. They should definititely adopt or foster. Most hearing couples don't know sign language or ways of communicating with a deaf child so they wouldn't adopt one, therefore I'm sure there are many deaf children sitting in children's homes who would like to be adopted. It's bizarre that they would deliberately choose to limit their childs life experience by making sure that it cannot hear.
Would it be any worse morally than someone wanting a child with its limbs removed?
this story is falling on **** ears
sorry, what??
Hmmmm
Pretty dangerous to assume the deaf child wants to be part of the "Deaf community".
They should either adopt or ask the kid at 16, then cut it's ears off if it answers in the affirmative.
That's awful
Why are so many people parents who shouldn't be?
"'We celebrated when we found out about Molly's deafness"
Urgh.
all you people are making the assumption
that the life of a hearing person is 'normal'and inherently better than the life of a deaf person, im sure many deaf people would be offended at that
I suppose you're right
deaf people never have to hear new morrissey records.
I don't care whether they'd be offended or not
Intentionally disabling someone, and making their life difficult is inherently wrong. Sick, even.
Not REAAAAAAAAAAALy
if they were to have a deaf child it would obviously be taken brilliant care of (in a "taking care of deaf children" context) as it's parents are both deaf, have a deaf child already, are fully participant in this deaf "community" etc
It's just a bit arrogant to deny the kid it's right to hearing.
It's more than arrogant
It's selfish and disgusting. Using genetic engineering for anything other than improving conditions is sick. And I'm perfectly aware there are happy deaf people leading 'normal' lives or whatever. It doesn't mean that anybody should be allowed to disable a child. Ever.
Like somebody said, I'm sure there are deaf children in need of foster care or adoption.... if you want a deaf child, then take that route.
again that is priviliging able bodied people over disabled people
which is what disabled people have a problem with often more than there actual disability. There is a famous example, im not sure if it is true or just illustrative but a hospital offered midget screening to see whether their unborn children would be midgets or not so it could inform their decision of whether to go through with the prgnancy, the hospital was surprised that they were more likely to abort if the unborn child wasnt a midget and so they stopped the program in horror, implying it was ok to abort midgets but not 'normal' embryos, the conclusion would be that 'normal' people are of more worth than midgets.
I havent actually read this article but assume it isnt genetic enginering as that is illegal, but selecting an embryo with deaf genes, im sure in the future they will just be glad they exist rather than wishing a different hearing person existed in their place
Whether they'd be glad they existed or not is a complete non-issue
It doesn't make it acceptable to purposefully choose to create a disabled person. And I don't see the point of the argument that you presented.
Personally
I'm not a fan of purposefully choosing to create a disabled person either, with reference to my post on genetic engineering below.
The point of my argument is really to present the kind of thought that many profoundly deaf people have on the issue to try and hopefully make people understand WHY they'd choose to do this. It doesn't make sense to us people who live without deafness you see, but there IS logic behind their thought and there is a reason why they want to do this. Whether or not you agree with their reasoning is another matter, but to call them "sick" or whatever kind of fails to understand why this debate has come up in the first place and the human beings involved... It's kind of the same reasoning as labelling terrorists "monsters" and making no attempt to understand WHY they think the way that they do...
I can understand why terrorists think the way they do
a lot more than these people.
Heh
Which is why I'm debating your posts so frequently! I'm not attacking you personally of course, just trying to inject some 'their point of view' into it because your views on the issue are rather extreme...
I don't see that they're extreme
I'm sure I'm in the majority on this one.
why?
you are saying that creating a disabled person is unacceptable, how offensive do you think disabled people would find that, it borders on eugenics arguments, and it is not creating them it is just chosing them over able bodied.
The point of my argument is we assume that disabled people share the beliefs that to be 'normal' is better when they don't share that belief
I mean creating in the same way that anything involving ivf is creating
And if disabled people find it offensive then I really couldn't care less. I found the article shocking, and my opinion isn't going to be swayed on hurting peoples feelings.
I'm not saying that disabled people share those beliefs. They might think that their lives are better. It doesn't change the fact that medical intervention should only be used for improvement.
I'm disabled.
I'm massively anti able-bodied people aborting their disabled babies. Massively. At best they assume that all disabled people are going to have terrible lives, which is wrong. At worst they're eugenicists.
And I don't see why disabled people should be allowed to abort able-bodied babies. At best they're assuming that a hearing child won't be able to bond with them as well as a deaf child, which is wrong. At worst, they're also eugenicists, privileging deafness over all else.
The equivalent thing, in my case, would be for me to deliberately strangle my kid at birth so it would be starved of oxygen and develop cerebral palsy, which is not inherited but developed after injury. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
*change
implicit assumption that all disabled people are deaf?! not intended.
'At best they're assuming that a hearing child won't be able to bond with them as well as a deaf child, which is wrong' should read
'In this case, at best they're assuming that a hearing child won't be able to bond with them as well as a deaf child, which is wrong'.
I was talking yesterday to a father of two who has Aspergers' syndrome, though, and he does get on better with his son who has Aspergers than he does with the able-bodied one, who he says is embarrassed by him. It is an interesting one.
All disabled people are different, have different disabilities in different degrees and different attitudes to their disabilities. For example, I said up there that I believed that a hearing child has exactly the same chance of bonding with its deaf parents as a deaf child. But I'm not deaf, so this is purely my opinion, really. One disabled person can't speak for all disabled people.
I've just read down the thread and realise
that my point above doesn't address the actual change in the law that's being campaigned for, a change in the law with which I wholly agree.
It doesn't make it an unfair assumption
^ Spot on
And they would DEFINITELY be offended by that.
The BSL community is, for instance, militantly against cochlear implants. For those who don't know cochlear implants are kind of the next step up from hearing aids in that they allow profoundly deaf people to hear, using a hearing aid and an implant in the brain which bypasses the cause of deafness and allows the brain to "hear" sound. They are wonderful things and have bought hearing to many profoundly deaf people and have improved their lives dramatically.
However the BSL community are against them because of ThingsThatFly's very point that it implies deafness is something to be shirked from. They take a hell of a lot of pride in being deaf and communicating through sign language so please bear that in mind when thinking about whether the parents in question here are "sick" or not...
I don't necessarily think they are sick.
I think they are incredibly selfish fucking idiots though.
Beared it in mind, rejected it
The pride issue is stupid. So if people are proud of having one leg, and militantly against prosphetics, they should be able to create one-legged people.
Okay, that was a stupid example, butI don't care if there's a thriving deaf community / culture or whatever. Deliberately creating a disabled person is completely wrong. No amount of 'pride' changes that.
The pride issue is NOT stupid
It's how a lot of deaf people think. You can't write it off as stupid just because you don't agree/haven't experienced it.
And plus whether or not you think it's stupid. This is how a lot of deaf people choose to conduct their affairs, underneath this pattern of thought around being proud of being deaf and constructing an identity around it. Even if you don't agree with it, please at least try and accept it...
I accept it, sure
But it doesn't change my views on the issue.
'You can't write it off as stupid just because you don't agree/haven't experienced it'
Uurgh. This is really shoddy logic. It's quite evident that to suggest aggreeing with something/experiencing something is a necessary precursor to rationally considering it stupid is utterly, utterly absurd. If we agreed to just accept those things we disagreed with it'd be a fucking disaster.
Maybe
But my point was motivated by human understanding (as in, look, stop calling the behaviour of a group of people whose a) motivations you don't understand and b) motications you are making no EFFORT to understand as "sick" etc.) rather than making some grand phenomenological point about experience vs. ability to formulate an opinion.
That's unfair
I haven't made 'no effort' to understand where they're coming from. I've considered their views, and I still think they're wrong.
The assertion of a group identity...
...when it's good it can lead to community cohesion, achievement, etc.
...when it's bad it can lead to racism and rejecting others unnecessarily.
This applies to BSL speakers as much as it does to any other group of people who self-determine as a community. There is a line to be drawn here. If I were a profoundly deaf BSL speaker and my use of a cochlear implant led to my wholesale rejection by other members of the BSL community, I'd rightly think they were shits. Wouldn't you?
Also, to suggest as some people have that deaf people can't live a 'full life' is silly, because what the hell is a 'full life' anyway?
the fact that a lot of deaf
people hold such an absurd viewpoint doesn't stop it being absurd. being deaf is worse than not being deaf. disagreeing with that is just stupid.
This person talks sensible things
but the life of a hearing person
is normal and is inherently better than the life of a deaf person.
This person talks sensible things
That's all very well and good
but there are a lot of people in the deaf community who do not see being deaf as a hinderance to a full life. Therefore a deaf child can live a life full of the joys that "hearing" people experience, they just can't hear... They can learn how to communicate through BSL and whatever else. They would rather have a deaf child because they're deaf themselves... It's not bizarre as such - it just doesn't make a great deal of sense to people like yourself who (I assume) are "hearing" meaning that your position naturally kind of goes "that's wrong". But it makes perfect sense to them and that should be respected.
I don't believe in genetic engineering itself, hence why I have an issue with it. Although it's a logical progression given that we are spoilt by choice in consumerist society meaning it blends into things such as childbirth perceived to be sacred. Having too much choice in this world, and assuming that choice in everything is a RIGHT, brings certain people to some rather disturbing patterns of behaviour if you ask me...
A deaf child cannot live a life full of the joys that hearing people experience.
Really?
If we take there to be a finite number of pleasures that can be experienced by a human being in its lifetime, then I fail to see why the times people with hearing spend listening to music can'd be replaced with a joy of similar intensity - say, reading a book, or watching the telly with subtitles on.
It's limiting the type of experiences they can have, though, but not reducing them.
Of course it's reducing them
What can deaf people do that hearing people can't??
Surely it massively reduces
the number of people they are able to communicate with.
It's all well and good that people can accept they're deafness and live a happy life, but to impose it on your child without there choice IS selfish.
Actually, to split hairs on a syntactic issue...
A deaf child CAN live a life full of the joys that hearing people experience.
It just can't live a live full of ALL the joys that hearing people experience. i.e. being able to hear.
But, still, they can live a rich, happy fulfilling life. Albeit a disadvantaged one, I agree. This is the point that profoundly deaf people would make - that they live their lives as much as possible unimpeded by deafness...
the kid will only be able to watch 'the hits' really late at night :(
I think they have every right to do what they want
However, it doesn't stop them being cruel.
Just buy the kid some earmuffs, for fuck's sake.
That doesn't make any sense
Why should they be allowed to do something that you say is "cruel"??
I'm thinking
that it depends upon your view of choosing a child.
It's not like they're deliberately damaging a child, but rather choosing to give birth to a child that would be deaf anyway.
If you were having a baby, and a scan of it in the womb showed that it was going to be born deaf, would you consider that grounds for an abortion? I don't think it would be, personally, as you can (as they've pointed out) live a pretty full life whilst deaf.
That doesn't stop them being pretty stupid and selfish, though.
exactly
the deaf child isn't going to grow up wishing that a hearing embryo had be chosen as it would mean they wouldnt exist and im sure most people overall are glad they exist
That's the stupidest point ever
It should have nothing to do with whether something is acceptable or not. I don't see how you can possibly argue that it should do. Of course most people would say "Yes, I'm glad I exist" whatever their disabilities / circumstances -- but it has nothing to do with the point.
it has everything to do with the point
specifically in this case there are probably deaf and hearing embryos that potentially could become people, you are saying that it is not ok to chose to have a deaf child over a hearing child and therfore implying that being deaf is worse than being hearing (which im sure hearing people do think but deaf people are likely to disagree), if it was a case of damaging an embryo so that it became deaf then of course that would be, but I see nothing wrong with chosing a deaf embryo over a hearing one.
Being deaf is worse than being hearing
That's the most obvious statement ever. And I completely disagree. Choosing to have a disabled child is wrong. Completely. There's not even a grey area.
it shouldn't be thought of in terms
of 'better' or 'worse' but just as different, there is a diverse range of human lived experience. I am absolutely certain deaf people experinces as much happiness in life as a hearing people, im sure they experience the visual realm in ways a hearing person can't concieve.
Can you not see how dangerous the implications of your thinking is? Saying that one type of people are better than another type of people, saying that ideally one category of people shouldn't exist and the effect it has on people that have been labelled in certain ways
No.....
Honestly, I don't really care about being sensitive or whatever. Ideally, nobody should have disabilites. If people are offended by that then so be it.
that is your opinion
based on the belief that being deaf is worse than being hearing, a person who is deaf may disagree and have different belief and there actions and motives are going to be rooted in their own beliefs and entirely understandable. There is no damage being done to a child, it is the choice between a deaf child existing or not existing (which as ive said many times the child isn't going to wish another person was chosen to exist in their place), it isnt the same as deafening a child.
There is such a wide range of human existance, we see what is statistically most common and call that 'normal' and then everything else that exists in that range becomes abnormal. What would happen if disability was eliminated, we would only look at people more closely to see what works better and worse and define new things that are better and new things that are worse and start to value them seperately. Instead We should respect diversity and not only treat certain categories as 'normal' if it exists then it is normal.
I've probably taken my argument too far, i dont think it is true in all cases, if the disability is painfully and leads to an unhappy life then it is probably better that they arent knowingly chosen to exist, but in the case of deafness I dont see the problem.
I should stop now im only repeating myself.
Yeah, it's really not going to go anywhere
So basically I disagree with all that. And basically anything anyone's said who isn't me.
Personally, I would consider it grounds, yes
Anyone that wouldn't, great. But if someone who had a deaf child naturally said "Oh, I'm so glad my child is deaf", I'd think they were a fairly hideous person.
Well, I agree with that
I don't think it's right, at all, to actively seek to give birth to a disabled child.
But it's not wrong. It's just not as right as having a kid that isn't. If that makes any sense... It does to me.
Although, as somebody else suggested, the best thing they could do here was to adopt a deaf child.
If it's not 'right' why should it be allowed?
Why should anything that isn't right be okay to do?
Grrrrrr
Did you read the arcticle?
.....yes
It's only not 'right'
when compared to a child with hearing. However, neither of the choices are what I'd call wrong. It's just that I think a child with hearing would be preferable to one without, but obviously there's nothing wrong with having a kid that can't hear. And if there's nothing wrong with having a kid who can't hear, then I don't see why choosing to have one is wrong either.
Did anybody actually read the article
The couple said they'd be happy if the baby would be able to hear.
The point they're are contesting is a point of law. The woman is 40 so may need IVF to conceive again but according to clause 14/4/9 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill, the selection of a hearing child through IVF is permitted, but embryos found to have deafness genes will be automatically discarded.
This in their eyes, and many peoples I would suggest, is clear discrimination against deaf people. Basically the law is saying that deaf people have less of a right to live than hearing people.
Yeah you're spot on
I noted that in article but that wasn't the issue being debated by people but yes, spot on.
You're a fucking idiot
To elucidate
They're not discriminating against deaf people, they're discriminating against embryos carry the deafness gene.
Thanks for the ringing endorsement
You really brought a lot to the debate with that highly intelligent comment!
To be fair,
he kinda had a point there.....
This changes the entire issue.
Of course the law should be changed. I've been arguing against eugenics throughout this thread and that is eugenics, pure, simple and clear as day.
'They're not discriminating against deaf people, they're discriminating against embryos carry the deafness gene.'
For many people these two things are morally one and the same.
And most of those people are pretty stupid
Embryos are embryos for christs sake.....
Indeed so, otherwise we wouldn't be able to justify any abortion morally.
This issue is different, though. To discard an embryo based on its potential for deafness demonstrates that the discarder, for me, is of the view that being disabled is crapper than not being disabled. I imagine people who discriminate against deaf people are of the same view.
What I don't believe, and have never believed, is that embryos are the same as people.
Well, honestly, and watch everyone hate me
I feel fine saying 'being disabled is worse than not being disabled'.
So therefore I feel fine saying that when the option is presented, the healthiest, least disabled embryo should be used.