huh?? outlaw, seriously, where are you on this?? how does the fact that people used to commit deaf kids to asylums in any way justify what these people did to their child??? that's unintelligible to me... i sympathize with the fact these people are deaf...i do not understand choosing deafness for a child. for someone who reveres choice as much as you seem to given the tenor of some of your previous posts, i can't imagine you'd support these people making that choice for their child when they could have minimized that risk.
outlaw - not sure what you mean by your last statement. The fact that these 2 people decided to try and alter their childs physical attributes is the most self centered, selfish thing I have ever heard of. I can only imagine what the child will think when he/she finds out that his/her parents purposely went out of their way to make sure their baby was deaf. I thought parents were susposed to try and make a better life for their children.
According to that PBS show on deaf kids where they can have surgery to repair their kid's hearing and most deaf parents refused to have it done - they see deaf people like a race or origin. To them - to get rid of deafness is to get rid of their race or origin. And to correct deafness of a child would be the same as changing it's race or origin. Some deaf grandparents and relatives got very angry at the thought of the parents even thinking about getting their kids hearing repaired. Very unusual outlook - like I said before - I can't see it.
Actually, if they hadn't used their deaf male friend, these two kids would not have even been born. They denied two other kids that don't exist the possibility of hearing. outlaw, Keep in mind that there are objections to straight deaf people trying to have kids in some circles. The difference here is probably that the straight couple is seen as more innocent - they just love each other and want to have a kid, etc. With this couple, they have a more direct choice since they have to go outside of themselves. So that is why you will get more objection for this situation. You would probably get similar reaction if an infertile deaf hetero couple did the same thing through a clinic or something...
Eh, rimmy, getting literal on me, I see. However, I can see where my statement was nebulous. I should have said that if they really wanted a kid, deaf or not, then I think it would be better to find their donor and have the child. Let the kid turn out deaf naturally - not some genetic engineering ****. If the kid could hear, then I think it would be a great asset for he or she to have the ability to sign as well as communicating by mouth. But due to warped thinking on their part, they felt that it would be better for their kids to have it as bad or worse than them...which is really selfish, sad, and fu*ked up.
RR, earlier I said why I don't think losing an arm is equivalent. There are no communities, distinct languages and networks of 1-armed people. This is not to defend the parents choices, but it is more complicated than may want to make it. I don't support what the couple did at all. After all, even being able to hear I would expect the baby's first language would be sign langauge (so that he/she can communicate with their parents). The above said, to say this is "the worse thing ever" or similar santimonious langauge is way overboard. Worse thing ever, really? Worse than Dahlmer, worse than sexual abusing parents which we have plenty of in our society, worse than female genital mutilation so the women will never fully enjoy sex, worse than parents who won't allow life saving surgeries of children with otherwise good prognosis because they believe their god is against it. BTW-yesterday I ordered a Carribean Chicken wrap from a deaf--opps, hearing impaired--fellow. I know zero sign lanaguge but he got the order just fine. Not that this particularly relevant to the above case--but it does show some amazing functionality even with non hearing imparied non sign lanaguge knowing persons. I too think the above situation (to ensure your child is deaf) is quite selfish, misguided and sad--it is just far from the worse things we hear about every day in every part of the world.
Honestly, when I first read this I was pretty pissed off, but after reading rimmy's post I'm less annoyed with what happened. I mean it's not like they took a healthy baby and played loud horrible music in it's ears during it's first few months of life. The baby was naturally deaf, and had they not searched for a deaf baby, then this kid wouldn't even exist because they would have just gone with a regular donor. If I had a choice between existing and being deaf, or not existing at all, I'd more than likely choose to live without being able to hear. I'm more interested to see how they treat both of their children, if they tend to ignore the one that has partial hearing and spend more time with the deaf baby...
Max, I was just being facetious since everyone was assuming that they would throw a hearing-abled baby into the nearest dumpster. Like I said, I don't agree with what they did but I don't think what they did is the worst thing ever done by parents. The kids still had a 50% chance to hear. It wasn't guaranteed they'd be deaf. But then again I don't know what it's really like to be deaf. Maybe it's a wonderful experience? Maybe the deaf community is more compassionate and interesting than ours. Maybe deafness is a step in human evolution to us developing into a race of telepaths? Who knows? Out of curiousity, when or if science comes up with a way to pre-determine a fetus' sexual orientation, would you use it?
By that logic, rimmy and BGM, there'd be nothing wrong with genetically engineering a kid with Cerebral Palsy. Because, after all, if they didn't, that kid would never exist. The fact is, deafness is a handicap. There is alot that a person misses out on by not being able to hear. Call it a culture if you want to, but it is a culture of coping. There are plenty of blind people who function great without their eyesight, but that doesn't mean that they are better off without it. Likewise, the lack of hearing prevent someone from ever knowing Mozart or the Beatles, prevents them from hearing their baby crying when it needs something, and prevents them from hearing a car horn warning them to get out of the way. Just because deaf people are capable of coping without their hearing doesn't mean that deafness is an option that should be chosen for a child.
trick question, outlaw!! i'm not convinced sexual orientation is determined that way, and you know that!! nice try, though!! but in the event it is....no...i would not use it. i think life with all its unknown variables is amazing...I think things that are presented as challenges, often turn into blessings. I've seen it happen in my live and lives around me...so no...I wouldn't try to engineer my child into my definition of happiness.
Great post, Sammy. Ths is just another example of how good a poster you really are here....I'm wondering when I can quit calling you underrated.
But remember, they don't see being deaf as a handicap and probably not as a challenge. They probably would think it would be more of a challenge if their kids weren't deaf.
My comment was not a logical argument. I was merely being technical with Manny. I do not think they did a good thing, by the way, I am just talking. Likewise, the lack of hearing prevent someone from ever knowing Mozart or the Beatles, I had to address this because deaf people will tell you that they can hear music and understand differences in style, etc...and dance to it. I have interacted wit quite a few deaf kids and they all keep up with the latest music trends. Don't think this means I disagree with your main points or am arguing...I just had to say that.
oh yeah, just noticed at the bottom of the original article that the new baby has partial hearing and could be helped with a hearing aid, but they're not going to get him one. They'll "let him make that decision when he's older". Sounds good, until you look at it from a cognitive development standpoint. Those who acquire hearing later in life have trouble processing it. Most of us never think about how to sort out conversation from background music, traffic, and the air conditioner, but children whose hearing is restored later have trouble sorting out the sounds and making any sense of them. This is one of those things, like learning language, which are best accomplished in an early stage of development. They should go ahead and give the hearing aid, and let him remove it later if he wants instead. That way, he'll be used to it. Being in a deaf family, he'll turn to sign language as his first means of communication because that will be what he's used to. (not to mention: if allowed to hear, he could eventually not only interpret for the others, but could help warn of danger if he was the only one to hear it. sad that they won't share his blessing of partial hearing with him.)
but they chose this challenge for her, outlaw....quite different from what I'm talking about. this isn't just accepting the ups and downs of life...this is saying, "i want my child to be deaf...it shall be so." that, to me, is a problem.
Exactly! This is an artificial challenge to create an artificial blessing? I'm not one for genetic tampering... esp to destroy a primary sensing mechanism I dislike this as much as aborting a child because he is seen to be 'less than ideal' Rocket River
outlaw, I would like to preface this by saying that I am not being argumentative. This scenario just made an interesting parallel to me and I was curious about your thoughts. After seeing the challenges and stigma that many attach to homosexuality, as there are challenges and stigmas for the hearing impaired, would you try to engineer a situation where you're child would be gay in order to better relate to and understand each other sharing those experiences? Would you hope or try to insure that your child was not gay? Would you not care one way or the other?
