I think it's fantastic that deaf people can view their deafness not as a disability, as in they feel they can lead a fulfilling life with it. But it is so selfish to impose that on their child.
What if the child found it difficult to cope with schooling etc. how resentful would it feel towards it's parents?
Surely they could raise the child to communicate in sign language at home, but it could speak outside the home. It's like my cousins have an English father,but live in Spain. At home they speak English, at school Spanish. It'd be stupid if they're Dad insisted they only learn't English.
But, I don't want to judge/interefer in something I cannot comprehend (being deaf) but in my opinion it IS a disability, like being blind, or having asthma, or whatever.
This is how I see it as well.
Quote:
Surely they could raise the child to communicate in sign language at home, but it could speak outside the home.
Agreed.
I'd mentioned this to a friend of mine and one of her friend's tennants are deaf, but their child is hearing. Because being deaf can cause problems with talking (not being able to hear how words are pronnounced) social services were going to take that child away from her parents and put her with a family who are hearing.
Quote:
The Deaf don't see being deaf as a handicap, or a disability. So comparing it to someone wanting their child to be blind, or have asthma, or depression isn't really the same thing.
This doesn't make sense to me, as having a visual or hearing impairment is a disability. (or difficulty as I prefer to call it)
In my opinion, anyone willing to “genetically modify” their child in ANY way doesn’t deserve to have a child in the first place, but to purposely inflict a disability..There are no words to describe how wrong that is.
In my opinion, anyone willing to “genetically modify” their child in ANY way doesn’t deserve to have a child in the first place
They're not talking about "genetically modifying" children - as far as I know, the technology to do that in humans isn't there yet anyway - it's a matter of creating embryos in vitro, and selectively implanting embryos with a particular genotype. The same procedure can be used to select against a genetic disorder that both parents carry. If you know that you and your spouse are both carriers of something like Tay-Sachs, I don't think it's wrong to use such a procedure to have a child without having a 1-in-4 chance that your child is going to progressively loss neurological function for its first few years of life and die before the age of 5...
I also think that in a hypothetical world in which we did have the ability to genetically modify children, refusing to do so would put your child at a disadvantage relative to their peers, and in my opinion, anyone who would choose to give their child a significant disadvantage isn't fit to be a parent.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
The Deaf don't see being deaf as a handicap, or a disability. So comparing it to someone wanting their child to be blind, or have asthma, or depression isn't really the same thing.
That's what I was trying to say before.
I just don't see how 'designer deaf babies' are worse than 'designer babies' of any sort. Choosing how a child is born is just, weird. I don't think we can judge which traits are desireable, as that's just what society (or us personally) wants. Who's to say what's 'best'?
I don't think we can judge which traits are desireable, as that's just what society (or us personally) wants. Who's to say what's 'best'?
But we do judge as a society what's desirable. And the ability hear is considered a desirable trait. It's standard practice to give children hearing aids or preform surgical procedures that will improve impaired hearing, but to force a healthy, normally-abled child to wear ear plugs 24/7, or to intentionally deafen them would be considered child abuse.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but i thought i'd bring in this point: what if a child's parent had refused vaccinations (which they can do)? Then, as a result the child contracted an illness (meningitis, german measles, mups etc) and the consequences of that were the child became deaf? The child may then resent what could've been avoided (ie they could've had the vaccination).
Just another point on how the parents decisions affect the child; whether it be at conception or after birth.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but i thought i'd bring in this point: what if a child's parent had refused vaccinations (which they can do)? Then, as a result the child contracted an illness (meningitis, german measles, mups etc) and the consequences of that were the child became deaf? The child may then resent what could've been avoided (ie they could've had the vaccination).
That's a good point, but it's a "what if", even if the child did catch one of those illnesses they might not become deaf. And what if their parents decided against vaccination because of the controvery surrounding autism at the time.
These children would be definately be born deaf, with no "if's", "buts" regarding serious side effects to what are otherwise normally straight forward illnesses (with the exception of the meningitus, but then I've not heard anyone advocating not giving children that one).
Surely the resentment would grow from a deliberate disablement more, as opposed to the parents taking a chance that went wrong.
Would a 'hearing' child be subject to slower aural development because of having deaf parents?
If you don't actually hear a lot of language as a baby you aren't likely to be able to speak it.
I'm not saying that makes it right for deaf parents to demand deaf babies but I thought that was interesting.
If you'd had to go through having a difficult life because of being deaf would you really want to then insist your child suffers this too?
Selecting a deaf baby- any mother who chooses for her child to be at a disadvantage is not fit to be a mother, kids who can hear can still sign so IMO there is no possible reason to even want this.
Then I get onto the senario of 10-15 years later...
'mum why did you make me deaf, I dont have the same footing as other people and you made me disabled, do you love me, why did you want me to be like this?' so that parent IMO could be f*cking with her childs emotions as well as their health.
DOUBLE NO NO.
L_M_G is my mummy :) inkerman and razorbladedarling are my two non-identical twin sprogs (concieved on same day) Scabette< cos she has the cutest puppy dog eyes and i cant resist!feeling-afraid< my bottle of glitter!! which i just have to have :Pmidnight stars< my gorgeous sister, whom i love to bits ;) Dance With The Fairy< *star*gazing*buddie :] Broken-Fairy is my partner in crime ;) little_miss is my real life saviour PaperClip is my stationary queen
Dreadful.
They can communicate with their parents whether they are deaf or not. Why cut out their ability to talk to others as well as their parents?
Bleh.
Sarchasm, the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it
I can't even bear to read this thread, just urgh. I agree with the majority of the opinions here, but I'm not sure how many of you have a clear understand how life is for fully deaf people.
Pluus those who are deaf, just not prfoundly deaf....that's hard too.
Bit sick really. The whole concept of designer babies is once again people trying to play god. If you really wanted a child surely you wouldnt care what it did(not) have, just that you had that child? And as for imposing ... god I hate this term ... disabilities onto a child that will effect not just the psyical body but surely the emotional state of the child?
Edit : Who are parents to choose the life of another? Just because you create it doesn't mean it's your toy to play with. Children, even in embryo state are not toys!