Deaf Lesbians Criticized For Efforts to Create Deaf Child

[Tannhauser]

Ha! Phil, you actually called me moronic? It's good to laugh once in a while.

Other than that, it is far too late to actually think. I'll edit something into this post tomorrow, after some rest.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Na, i meant that trying to make sure that the child you will have is born disabled is moronic.

 

[Big T]

I would never stop deaf people from having children, but I would tell them, it is a terrible mistake.

I made a post with a similar idea, but people reinterpreted it as advocating eugenics. I think that it's inhumanly cruel to expose a child to a (known) genetic deficiency, whether that be something as (comparitively) minor such as deafness, or something life threatening such as haemophilia or cystic fibrosis.
On topic, this lesbian couple are extremely selfish. Regardless of the lesbian aspect, in any situation where you know you may pass on a genetic disease to your child you should think long and hard about whether it's morally acceptable to expose your child to that risk. To intentionally do it is horrible and bizarre.
I believe adoption is the answer here. Whilst not without it's problems, you are helping a child with a problem, not creating a new one.

 

[WaterGirl]

It's not an issue of "genetic engineering" at all. It's selective breeding, and it happens all the time in the US. How many of you have purebred animals? They're all selectively bred, and most of them have a predisposition to some type of abnormality. Dachshunds have problems in their backs. German Shepards and Laborador Retrievers have problems with hip dysplasia. Persians and Himalayans are flat-faced, and therefore have problems with their teeth and nasal passages.
These problems are usually crippling, and in some breeds, the genetic disposition can be life-threatening. We breed these animals because they have a good disposition, or because they can run really fast, or because they're visually pleasing, but isn't it all in selfishness?
Even we as humans try to selectively breed. We are attracted to people sexually because of particular traits they have. I'm attracted to Dove because some of the physical traits he has - he's tall, he has really pretty eyes, and he's well put together. I never want to have children with him, but subconsciously I chose him because I would want my children to have those same traits. It's human nature want the next generation to have particualar traits, no matter what the traits may be.

 

[Bradylama]

It's not an issue of "genetic engineering" at all. It's selective breeding, and it happens all the time in the US. How many of you have purebred animals? They're all selectively bred, and most of them have a predisposition to some type of abnormality. Dachshunds have problems in their backs. German Shepards and Laborador Retrievers have problems with hip dysplasia. Persians and Himalayans are flat-faced, and therefore have problems with their teeth and nasal passages.

Yes, that would be genetic engineering. Manipulating genes to get the most desirable result is the very purpose of genetic engineering. Selective Breeding is no different.

Even we as humans try to selectively breed. We are attracted to people sexually because of particular traits they have. I'm attracted to Dove because some of the physical traits he has - he's tall, he has really pretty eyes, and he's well put together. I never want to have children with him, but subconsciously I chose him because I would want my children to have those same traits. It's human nature want the next generation to have particualar traits, no matter what the traits may be.

*cue Master of the Obvious*

 

[Ozrat]

I was just wondering. Do we have any deaf people on this board?

Right here. Well, almost deaf, I fall under the "severely hard of hearing" ranking category, which is just a hop and a skip away.

More or less the same here, but that's one thing. Accepting 'defectiveness' to a mild or moderate degree is one thing, deliberately creating it because you want it for some perverse reason is completely another.

What is the perverse reason here for prefering a child born deaf through naturally occuring genetic traits? They want to have a common cultural bond with their child, not to torture it or whatever you have in mind.

And what if the child turns out to not be deaf? Then what? Are they going to wait a few years to see if it loses its hearing? This is setting a child up for an awful lot of rejection issues.

If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed this: "A hearing baby would be a blessing," Duchesneau said. "A deaf baby would be a special blessing." Just because the baby can hear doesn't mean that the parents are going to feel spiteful towards it. They are not going to prevent it from speaking, unlike how some hearing parents with a deaf or hard of hearing child will prevent him or her from learning sign language because they are afraid that they won't ever talk again. They may not share some certain cultural bond with the child, but then again are there any parents who DO have a total cultural bond with their children?

I wonder if being able to walk is more important than higher education. I know I wouldn't give my legs for a college degree.

I think what they did wasn't just stupid, it was trying to cripple their child, and it makes little difference to me that it wasn't even concieved yet.

A hearing loss is not a physical disability, or even a mental one. Its simply a lack of being able to sense sounds of certain frequencies or decible levels. And I'd rather be a successful deaf person rather than the one flipping my burgers.

To really empathize with their situation, I would need to find someone who went deaf at a young age, to explain this 'deep and meaningful understanding'. They similarly have to acknowledge my position (although I am biased as a music fanatic), that music is just one example of the wonders and abilities which children have a right to experience. If the parents can't, I'm sorry, but that's just their misfortune.

Is music your main concern? Because if it is, worry no more. I know a lot of deaf people who still enjoy music. Sure they can't hear the lyrics, but they can at least feel the beat and melody of it. Just a couple of nights ago I was riding with a deaf driver who turned on the music because she enjoys "listening" to it while driving. Sure, the bass and volume were cranked up a bit, but its all the same. A lot of deaf people will also purchase good quality headphones or put subwoofers on their floor in order to feel music every once in a while.

It's not an issue of "genetic engineering" at all. It's selective breeding, and it happens all the time in the US.

You hit that nail right on the head.

And for those who would argue that a deaf gene would only lower the gene pool, what about white cats with the deaf gene?

Deaf people perceive the world in very different ways and value their view no less than that of others. They communicate and empathize with each other uniquely and with great depth.

Seems like you're familiar with deaf culture somewhat. Yes, there is one, and yes, its just as valid as any other out there since it has its own language, members and even heirarchy.

Now look at the resources that this couple have. They live in Washington D.C., which as I already mentioned has one of the US's largest deaf communities. Not only do they have Gallaudet University, but they also have deaf elementary, middle and high schools in the city as well. Most, if not all, states have a school for the deaf. Education and social elements are not an issue here.

Deafness and being hard of hearing is considered a disability, but many people would say that it is not a disability. As I said before, it does not in any way affect your health, physical abilities, mental cognition, or even emotional function aside from what language barriers and social environments one may be in.

For those interested in reading more about genetic deafness, you may be interested in looking at the high deaf population and how it has sustained over the last few generations over at Martha's Vineyard.
Martha's Vineyard - Where It was Normal to be Deaf
Martha's Vineyard Deaf Community
The Deaf of Martha's Vineyard (15 page PDF article)

Also consider who would be better using the sperm donor with the deaf gene; the deaf couple or a hearing couple?

 

[Murdoch]

So Ozrat, you feel that hearing loss is not a disability, yet you still receive aid from the state to cover your special needs. The Wisconsin DVR homepage states that it exists to help people with disabilities; how do you rectify this disparity between what you define as not a disabilty, yet receiving aid for your (state-defined) disability?

I'm not picking on you or anything, just curious.

 

[Ozrat]

I'm not saying that deaf/hoh isn't a disability of some sort, I'm just stating that there are people who would argue otherwise, or at least that it is a very mild one compared to other conditions out there. Personally I consider it to be a very mild disability.

Despite how people define deafness, I'm recieveing financial aid that saves me thousands of dollars every year that I would otherwise have to pay back in student loans in the future. How can I pass that up?

 

[Big T]

Deafness is ovbiously a disability by definition. Deaf people do not have the ability to hear. Therefore they have a disability.
As to how much this disability affects their life, that would be a different question. Denying it's a disability because of the unpleasant connotations of the word "disabled" (ie. that someone who is disable is completely unable to do anything) is stupid. I know you aren't saying that, but some people do think/say that.

"A hearing baby would be a blessing," Duchesneau said. "A deaf baby would be a special blessing." Just because the baby can hear doesn't mean that the parents are going to feel spiteful towards it.

Compared to what they would feel for a deaf child, they would be somewhat spiteful towards it. Perhaps not in any obvious ways, but it seems likely to me that it would manifest itsself in some way. Just think about how many parents act shitty towards their children for being not quite what they expected - now consider that those children were not specifically engineered (whether socially of genetically) to be like that. If a child conceived normally is sometimes mistreated for being different to thier parents ideals, surely the chance of a child made to be those ideals stands a much larger chance of this.
I'm not saying that the parents would love the child any less, but that there is more chance of it.
This could be further exaggerated if they try for another child, which then turns out to be deaf.

Seems like you're familiar with deaf culture somewhat. Yes, there is one, and yes, its just as valid as any other out there since it has its own language, members and even heirarchy.

Creating a child to fit well into one cultural niche (such as the deaf subculture) at the risk of damaging their integration into the larger super-culture seems cruel to me. That's not to belittle deaf culture, or the deaf's ability to fit into "normal" culture, but there would be some stumbling blocks there.

It's not an issue of "genetic engineering" at all. It's selective breeding, and it happens all the time in the US.

You hit that nail right on the head.
And for those who would argue that a deaf gene would only lower the gene pool, what about white cats with the deaf gene?

|I think Watergirl already proved that breeding animals with birth defects (of various levels of seriousness) is inherently cruel. In fact there are several movements trying to ban the breeding of pure breed animals (particularly dogs) on that basis. Why is it any different for people?

 

[eom]

did it mention in the article if they were also trying to ensure that their child grew up as a lesbian?

trying to breed your children for specific traits that you happen to like, like blonde hair and blue eyes, is despicable.
some of you nitwits could do your arguments a favor by not comparing people to dogs and cats.

although, as for deafness being a handicap, I think if the kid was growing up w/2 lesbian parents, being deaf would probably be a blessing.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

did it mention in the article if they were also trying to ensure that their child grew up as a lesbian?

trying to breed your children for specific traits that you happen to like, like blonde hair and blue eyes, is despicable.
some of you nitwits could do your arguments a favor by not comparing people to dogs and cats.

although, as for deafness being a handicap, I think if the kid was growing up w/2 lesbian parents, being deaf would probably be a blessing.

i agree with you, "breeding" using the comparison of people to animals is wrong. one of the major reasons i feal this way is that people that think in terms of "breeding" for desired effect, would most likely reject or even kill the "undesired" genetic "imperfection"
of having a child that isnt what they were "breeding" for.

 

[calculon000]

I think parents who are "shopping" for sperm should be able to choose sperm with certain traits that they would like thier child to have, but in this case the trait is something the child would not want, and therefore should not be forced on him/her. The child will not appreciate it.

Parents should strive to give thier children the best start in life and the inablility to hear would make life much harder.