Couple has deaf baby by choice

[PosTMOd]

"A lesbian couple in the US have attracted fierce criticism by deliberately having a deaf baby. The four-month-old boy is profoundly deaf in his left ear and has only residual hearing in his right. Sharon Ducheneau and Candy McCullough, both in their 30s, turned to a friend with five generations of deafness in his family after being turned away by a sperm bank that told them that donors with disabilities are screened out. In an interview with the Washington Post, the women claim they would make better parents to a deaf child. They believe they would be able to understand the child’s development more thoroughly and offer better guidance, and say the choice is no different from opting for a specific sex." The Guardian 08/04/02

Kind of strange...

When people think of cloning, and reproductive technology, they don't generally think of being able to do shit like this...

But, if you can choose your kid's eye colour, why not deafness?

 

[Rosey]

i don't like that. hmmm
are the women deaf themselves?

 

[PosTMOd]

Don't need a separate thread for this now:

"The controversial scientist Dr Severino Antinori is reported to have said that the world’s first cloned pregnancy will produce the son of a rich Arab. He told a conference in the United Arab Emirates on Friday (05/04/02) that a woman is eight weeks pregnant with a cloned baby, but did not comment further. An Italian science journalist and friend of the doctor says the clone belongs to an important figure and that Dr Antinori has unlimited funding for his experiments. However, a leading Arab specialist, Samir Abbas, says the Islamic authorities ruled against cloning a long time ago and that anyone involved would face heavy penalties." Ananova 08/04/02

 

[LoopeD]

I was spitting nails when I read this.

Yes, the women in question are hearing-impaired, and belong to a rather unique clique of people who believe deafness is not a handicap but a personality type - I cant remember the exact term they used. Which is all fine and good, but to purposely bring a child into the world who has no choice and impose such a handicap is the height of selfishness.

What about music?






d

 

[PosTMOd]

I wouldn't necessarily call it selfish, but it is rather moronic.

If you had never, ever heard a sound before, what can you compare it to? That is to say, they don't understand what it is like to hear, so they don't think much of it.

Perhaps they should be blindfolded and told to go around blind for a few weeks, and at least get an idea of what it's like to have something, and then lose it.

But, if the kid has never heard before, what's the point of doing that?

 

[echo]

Originally posted by LoopeD
I was spitting nails when I read this.

Yes, the women in question are hearing-impaired, and belong to a rather unique clique of people who believe deafness is not a handicap but a personality type

In fact they are not really a unique clique.....and it's called "deaf culture".

This is NOT uncommon in the deaf culture. Some individuals who are deaf would actually prefer to have deaf children. As was stated previously...they don't see deafness as a handicap. It is a part of their life. Just because they do not "hear" like you and I does not mean they understand any less.

echo

 

[Bass-Invader]

profoundly deaf?
is that like, so deaf it's amazing?

 

[PosTMOd]

profound is a synonym for absolute, as well as that other stuff.

 

[Bass-Invader]

Originally posted by PosTMOd
profound is a synonym for absolute, as well as that other stuff.

Well, I was thinking the same thing, but then i checked because i was curious and
it doesn't say so in the thesaurus
Entry Word: profound
Function: adjective
Text: 1
Synonyms RECONDITE, abstruse, acroamatic, deep, esoteric, heavy, hermetic, occult, orphic, secret
2
Synonyms DEEP 1, abysmal
3
Synonyms INTENSIVE, blood-and-guts, deep, hard, intense

or in the dictionary

Main Entry: 1pro·found
Pronunciation: pr&-'faund, prO-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French profond deep, from Latin profundus, from pro- before + fundus bottom -- more at PRO-, BOTTOM
Date: 14th century
1 a : having intellectual depth and insight b : difficult to fathom or understand
2 a : extending far below the surface b : coming from, reaching to, or situated at a depth : DEEP-SEATED <a profound sigh>
3 a : characterized by intensity of feeling or quality b : all encompassing : COMPLETE <profound sleep>

- pro·found·ly /-'faun(d)-lE/ adverb
- pro·found·ness /-'faun(d)-n&s/ noun

nevermind, here it is. I still think there are better words suited to that context.

 

[kyfe]

WHAT?

Kyfe

 

[SE7EN]

selective breeding is not that ethically different than any other form of genetic engineering. so long as the intent is to improve quality of life of the offspring, we should accept these processes.

in this case the result will not improve the quality of life by reasonable standards, so it should not be allowed.

-7-

 

[Jeffsus]

Is being deaf still considered a disability?

-jM
A&D

 

[PosTMOd]

Originally posted by Jeffsus
Is being deaf still considered a disability?

Let's see... is hearing an ability? If yes, then not hearing is a dis-ability.

 

[Jeffsus]

I am no longer able to autofellate myself.

Am I disabled?

Do I need Dr. Laura to answer this question?

-jM
A&D

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally posted by Jeffsus
I am no longer able to autofellate myself.

isn't that one of Dante's levels of hell?

 

[lazy]

Originally posted by Jeffsus
I am no longer able to autofellate myself.

they're making you wear the gloves again? how can you type?

 

[echo]

Originally posted by SE7EN
in this case the result will not improve the quality of life
-7-

But how do you know this for certain?? If both parents are deaf....then a deaf child may in fact have a better quality of life with them than a hearing child.

As I said before.....many who are deaf do not consider it a disability....so why should we? How is it our right to decide whether they are disabled or not?

I mean...many woman out there would consider a man with a small dick to be disabled.....what do you think?

echo

 

[roo]

Originally posted by echo


In fact they are not really a unique clique.....and it's called "deaf culture".

This is NOT uncommon in the deaf culture. Some individuals who are deaf would actually prefer to have deaf children. As was stated previously...they don't see deafness as a handicap. It is a part of their life. Just because they do not "hear" like you and I does not mean they understand any less.

echo

say!! didn't i murder you like 7 times?

isn't the fbi nuts????

did we free rats from a treadmill that was running the subway? were we each on the cover of time magazine?

 

[Pyrovitae]

Originally posted by echo

I mean...many woman out there would consider a man with a small dick to be disabled.....what do you think?

echo

i wouldn't...but i would consider him to be "penile deficient".

"don't want no short dick man"

in regards to the original topic, i think it's kind of odd that a couple would choose to have a child that is deaf but i suppose it's their perogative? unfortunate for the child perhaps, but at the same time he'll grow up not knowing any other reality.

*muah*
~N

 

[Aphrodite]

I doubt they wanted the kid to be deaf. Their friend was willing to help them when other options were exhausted.

and what is so bad about deciding to have a deaf child? let's get with the times here people.

 

[vench]

couldn't they have just taught the child sign language? Apparently, they went to a few different sperm banks and requested a deaf donor. They feel, as stated above, that being deaf is not a handicapp, but it makes them culturally diverse - like being black or Spanish.

I completely disagree with these woman and I thkn what they did was selfish and for their own motives. I really don't see the harm in a deaf couple having a child that can hear, and as I said above, they could easliy have taught the child sign language.

Of course, these are my opinions and I don't expect anyone to agree with them, but I just feel that what they did was wrong. There is nothing wrong with being deaf, but these women didn't even give their child the chance to hear music and to hear the souds of nature.

vench

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by echo


But how do you know this for certain?? If both parents are deaf....then a deaf child may in fact have a better quality of life with them than a hearing child.

As I said before.....many who are deaf do not consider it a disability....so why should we? How is it our right to decide whether they are disabled or not?

I mean...many woman out there would consider a man with a small dick to be disabled.....what do you think?

echo

Sorry I think I disagree,

The child would still be able to communicate with there deaf parents and culture. Removing your childs capability to better match your own seems soemwhat selfish.

 

[Bass-Invader]

the worst thing is that the child is not totally deaf, and will probably hear enough to long for the clarity non-deaf people have.

If this bunch of idiots needed a prerequisite filled(in this case, deafness) to properly love a child, they should not be having a child at all.

 

[Bass-Invader]

i keep reading the title of this thread wrong, and it made me wonder;

Can you think it wrong to tailor your unborn child's genetics to your liking as in this case, and still think abortion acceptable?

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by Bass-Invader
i keep reading the title of this thread wrong, and it made me wonder;

Can you think it wrong to tailor your unborn child's genetics to your liking as in this case, and still think abortion acceptable?

yeah, why can't you see the difference?