Buck - I saw that show. Good watch when the Rockets aren't on. I usually can see another's point even if I don't agree, but I not on this one.
i don't understand what the big deal is. It's not like the baby wasn't deaf and then they did something to make it deaf.
The big deal, IMHO, is that they intentionally increased the odds of making the baby deaf. If they just took normal sperm it would have been a 25% chance instead of a 50% chance of being deaf. Why can't the kid still learn the deaf culture if he/she still has some hearing? I mean he/she will need to learn sign language to communicate with his/her parents with or without a hearing disability. I'm flat-footed, and if I could avoid my children from being flat-footed, I'm much rather to that then make them have to suffer also. I thought the point of doing something like this was so your children could live a better life, and not have to suffer with the same defects as the parents. I try to be objective 90% of the time, but this just seems incredibly inane to me. B
This is one of the saddest things I've heard in awhile. It's one thing to help a baby out with a disability, and to commit to raising a child with special needs. But to bring a child into the world hoping to handicap it? And to revel in its intentionally-inflicted birth defect? There's no excuse for someone that selfish and cruel.
but they don't view their deafness as a disability. Should male/female deaf couples not be allowed to have kids?
outlaw -- of course they should be allowed to have kids!! this isn't a gay rights issue. the point is, these folks are celebrating their success in their efforts to make sure their kid was deaf!!! how is that not a problem??? instead of either taking no steps at all one way or another...or intentionally making sure the child had a better chance of not being deaf...these folks specifically worked it so their child would be deaf. they set out to make it so. that's the problem. there's something disturbing about people genetically engineering their children in the first place..it's even more disturbing when they engineer to make sure the kid won't be able to hear.
Why? The results are the same and I'm sure there have been straight deaf couples who wanted deaf kids.
Did those idiots ever think that their kids could provide more of a service (and even make good money, I imagine) as a sign language translator? I mean, to be able to hear and also sign has to be a great talent and one that many people don't have. However, out of incredibly insensitive and selfish reasons, these *parents* have denied these 2 kids that opportunity. It's like someone else said...I always thought that parents wanted their kids to have things and do better than them. I wish that the State would come in and take those 2 kids away from those freaks (freaks for wanting an unborn child to be deaf, not because they are handicapped) and give them to some responsible parents. Unfuc*ingbelievable...
No, I actually agree with the lesbians on this one. Seriously though, this is one of the most ****ed up things I've ever seen. Damn, those crazy ass b****es need to be shot. I hope the kids do grow up and sue them.
Why? Because of the reasons Max stated. Specifically, intent. The straight couple in your hypothetical probably didn't get together for the purpose of having a deaf baby. They fell in love and decided to have a child, with no consideration as to deafness. Presumably they wanted what was best for the child, including the ability to hear. Here, the couple wanted to have a deaf kid, so they engineered a situation so they could do so. They were happy to see that the kid (actually, 2 kids now) were deaf. That is deplorable.
The issue at hand isn't exclusive to deaf couples. That a straight deaf couple may have wanted to alter their child's genetic makeup so that they were deaf too is inane. It wouldn't change the fact that what they'd be doing was wrong. I don't have to look to religion, etc., to justify this claim either.......the natural set of ethics present in every person should provide enough of a conclusion.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. These days, deafness in some children can be reversed with a cochlear implant. However, if a couple has a deaf child, the radical members of the "deaf culture" will pressure them not to get the implant, even if it would help. They talk like being born deaf is a part of the child's identity and you would be taking it away. Some of these parents struggle with the problem for years before they finally wise up and get the @#%#!! implant already. I don't mind deaf couples having a child because they love each other and want to start the family; however, they should be able to accept either a deaf or hearing child - and, for goodness' sake, if there is technology that would enable that child to enjoy the hearing world, please take advantage of it.
I just wish that if these women really wanted a child to share the experience of being deaf with them that they had just adopted instead of physically bringing a deaf child into this world. I could be open to the claim that being deaf is a unique experience, but not to the extent that I'd try to have a deaf child. It will be interesting to see what happens in twenty or so years as I'm certain someone will run another story on this child when it's older.
I'm sure these 2 women got together strictly for this purpose. No consideration? Wouldn't that innocent straight couple know about the same risks?
