outlaw: You are stretching this into an issue it shouldn't be. Gay or straight, what happened here was that the parents of a child manipulated the genetic process and in doing so created a child with a disability on purpose. It doesn't matter if they were gay, straight, short, fat, bald, ugly, pretty, skinny, white, black, pink or blue. The fact that it was a lesbian couple won't make it easy on the gay community, but it is NOT a gay issue. I find this akin to Christian Scientists who refuse to take their sick children to doctors. The only difference here is that these parents deliberately manipulated the situation so their child would be born into a disadvantage.
The situation is this. I was born with one arm . . .so I cut my new born son's arm off. .. . so he can experience it. . . how is this so different from what they did AMAZING to me. . that if a child in the womb YOU CAN DO ANY AND EVERYTHING TO IT but once outside. . the same things are illegal Rocket River One day . . .Fetuses will have at least a few basic rights
You see no difference bewteen circumstance and intent? And why don't we drop the straight/lesbian issue. It's really irrelevant here. Two people conspired to intentionally deny someone the wonder of sound and music; that's heinous.
bottom line....these women had the ability to minimize the risk their child would be deaf...instead they chose to maximize that risk. do you really not see the problem here, or are you sort of just making a devil's advocate type argument. as for lawsuits -- hey, people sue all the time for stuff analagous to this. there's a couple that issued a do not resucitate order to a hospital for a baby born way premature with tons of disabilities...the hospital ignored the order...now they're suing the hospital. is that analogous?? there are people who've brought and won "wrongful life" suits...this daughter could one day argue that these parents are the proximate cause (not the sole proximate cause, though) of her disability...and then she could itemize what that's cost her. you can get in trouble for leaving a child with someone who has a questionable background...it's called negligence, and CPS latches on to that crap all the time. Here you have parents actively causing a child to be deaf due to their INTENTIONAL ACTS!!! It's arguable that's tortious behavior...that's all new law, though...this kind of stuff is presenting entirely new issues. Again...this is not the couple leaving it up to the chances of nature...this is actively seeking to engineer a child in a particular way. And that way will cost the child money one day when she grows up. That should be recoverable, in my opinion.
I don't understand why you added 'lesbians' in your statement. If they were straight, would you say '****ing r****ded hetersosexuals'? And while we are on the PC kick, I would imagine that mentally handicapped individuals would have more sense than these two.
No, of course not. But their pairing had no effect on the genetic makeup of the children. For that, they had to seek out a deaf man, for the purpose of having a deaf baby. No consideration meaning, they'd love the child either way, regardless of whether he was deaf. Either they wouldn't care if he was deaf or not, or (I'd hope) they would hope that he was born without being deaf.
I was thinking about this as well. I find someone withholding potential life-saving medical treatments to a child with a good prognosis because of religious beliefs every bet as nauseating as this case (actually more, because being deaf isn't a death sentence). Also in no way do I support what that couple did, but equating deafness with chopping off an arm isn't a good example IMO. People with 1 arm don't communicate differently or have their own networks/social support. Nor would I support taking away these seriously misguided parents children away unless there was a specific law against what they did. If you start taking away children because their parents are misguided idiots there would be a lot of children w/o parents--which is probably a worse "remedy" than the "problem".
well when the story uses the Family Research Council as an objective source and between Baquii's "Dikes" and Azadre's "lesibiens", it's hard for me not to view this as an attack on gay parents. but you are probably right jeff so i will drop it.
I wonder how they would have treated the child if he/she 'beat the odds' and could hear. It sounds like it would have been the 'black sheep' of the family probably would have grown up with some major issues like someone said some people should not have children. Rocket River
Do you do and say things just to be different and opposite? Or are you in it for the attention? Lesbian/Gay or whatever, they wanted the child to have a disability. And if its not a disablity, then they have no reason to claim any type of disabilitys. Just plain sick.
How do you know they are claiming any disability? I never said I agreed with what they did just that I can sorta understand their reasoning behind it. everyone's reactions here are sorta proving their point. that society-at-large thinks deafness is something horrific and abnormal and something that should be looked down upon. you automatically think deaf people lead miserable lives. they've likely faced a lifetime's worth of discrimination from "normal" people. maybe they are afraid their kids will turn out like those people and in turn resent them for being different? and they said a hearing child would be a blessing so don't make assumptions how they would treat the child if it were able to hear. If they did something like expose the baby to Celine Dion albums to cause the deafness then I could see the cruelty, but these babies are naturally this way.
I think whats really messed up about this is that the parents intentionally limited this childs ability to hear. they basicly made the decision for this child to not hear if at all possible. thats whats really messed up. the child had no choice in this, it was done by the parents for the parents
Azadre is 14 or so I think, so just keep that in mind when y'all read his posts. (this is not an attack Azadre...it's because many people might think you're an immature adult, which is not the case) As for the deaf issue, I understand what the "deaf culture radicalists" are saying, I just disagree. There wouldn't be a deaf culture if it wasn't for the support system of the United States. Formal education (deaf schools), volunteers, all that stuff wouldn't exist in most countries. So I guess this could be a byproduct of the basic needs and luxuries that deaf people can get in the US. It might not make much sense, but this is why to me, deafness is a handicap. Not as severe as say leaporacy, but still it is not something in which one can live a fully healthy life. All in all, I don't think this radical deaf thinking is that much of a stretch from how many adults feel. Many parents are very closed minded, and will not accept/be happy if their kids stray away from how the parents feel as being good/successful/whatever. Few parents are happy when their kids ideas of happiness are different from their own. It's just the big issue of close-mindedness and selfishness. In this case, the only difference is the parents want the kids to enjoy the benefits of a deaf life....so it's greatly criticized. Parents who push their kids into sports or force them into certain professions or make them stay in the family business; it's all the same...just to a lesser degree.
My question - what if a blind parent decided to make their child blind? parapelegic? epilectic? Is being Deaf now a Ethnic group instead of a disability by saying well one armed people don't have . . . what equates to a one armed 'culture' therefore is incompatible with this senario you are doing what you say we are doing MAKING A DISTINCTION If two one armed folx wanted to do it .. . how is it different than this Rocket River
That's terrible. I couldn't help but wonder what they would have done if their child had normal hearing. Really. Somebody that messed up in the head might try to cause the baby to loose it's hearing somehow. Horrible!
