Francesca: Hmm, it seemed like you were saying that. Perhaps I misread then. I don’t think sign language is less of a language than spoken. I just don’t feel that it is better. I do feel that it is like a disease though, and should be cured. Perhaps I am being short sighted, but I cannot bring myself to see deafness and blindness as equally… valid I guess. I am not meaning to sound like a bigot, even though I am perfectly aware that it comes out like that. 100% it seems to me that having no hearing is like somebody missing a leg or an arm. They may be able to have a full, healthy and fun life, but they are still missing something everybody else is. (if you were missing an arm, wouldn’t you take a new one if it were available?)
Smashed Ice Cream: Fascinating that you are a musician. How deaf are you? (didn’t mozart go deaf and continue to write?)
Of course, being deaf since birth, a person does not know what they are missing out on, but that does not make it right. At the same time your situation inspires and amazes me, your idea of deliberately having a deaf child appalls and disgusts me. Of course I care. Do you care that people in Isreal are dying, that babies are born with crack addiction, that people here in america are killing their children just so that they can get on with their lifes? Why should I care, huh? It doesnt effect me any.
It is absolutely amazing that people think they have to deliberately have a baby with defects just to validate to themselves that their disability is OK. Being deaf does not mean you are less of a person, but deliberately making babies that are does.
Personally I am short, balding, with a high risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and a predisposition towards being fat. Perhaps I will make sure my babies are going to be the same. That way they can bond with me and help ease the pain I sufer because of them.
Nahh, I think I work towards my children (if I ever have any) being better than me. Having opportunities I never have, if they want, and hopefully they never have to suffer through the things I did. Of course If I make them like me, they will never know what it is without them, right?
Yes, I think deaf people should be able to have a child. I know it is a thin line between knowing that your children will most likely be deaf and going to a clinic and trying to make your children deaf. There is a distinction there though. The genetically deaf couple that wants to have kids is just wanting what everybody else can have; children. They shouldn’t be stopped from having kids, that is wrong. Going out and sayin “I am going to make damn sure my kids are going to be deaf” is wrong.
You don’t think deaf people should be cured? Why, should people in wheelchairs not be cured? Blind people? How about simpler things, like baldness? Bald people aren’t condemed to a life a misery. Some of them prefer it that way. However, many lucrative businesses cater to the majority that want it fixed. They have balding support groups, message boards, people that are bald tend to bond quicker than a baldy and a guy with hair. I am bald, started at 22 years old. Sure, my life is just a rich, and full, having hair is not a major thing, but I sure would like it. I am not my baldness. :rolleyes:
Yes, I think deafness should be cured. To those that want it. It is silly IMO to not want to be better, but that is just me I guess. I just think it is silly all around to tout a disability as being equal to not having a disability. I understand the need to feel good about yourself, to not let your disability define or limit a person, but when a person takes it so far as to say “I don’t want that cure” when it comes available, it has gone to far.
Not too many words are being spelled out because they don’t need to be. I can’t see a word in that quote that would need spelling out. Often sign language is quicker than spoken word, just because a lot of definite and indefinite articles are left out, and ideas that require several words are expressed in a single sign. Nothing needs to be left out or simplified. Of course, sometimes it works the other way and it does take longer to sign something than to say it. Just like in translating any language, really.
As for them finishing signing and speaking at the same time, that’s where the skills of the interpreter comes in. I’m fluent in BSL and have done a fair bit of interpreting and I couldn’t do it. That’s why they’re on the news and I’m not
In what sense do you feel it is like a disease? It’s not catching. I’m having a difficult time understanding why you don’t equate blindness and deafness as equally “valid” - they’re both just the loss of one sense. For you, the loss of your hearing may mean more to you than the loss of your sight. It’s okay to have a preference. But here’s the thing - it’s just your preference. Deafness is not better or worse than blindness intrinsically.
And of course, if you lost your hearing, or your sight, or an arm or a leg you’d want it back. So would I. But if you were born with no left arm and lived your life with one arm, would you suddenly want another one? It may seem obvious to you to say “Yes! I’d want another arm just like everyone else!” but I assure you a great many disabled people would say otherwise. Not all, of course. I’m in full support of medical research into “curing” disabilities for those that want it and I’d never, ever want to stop someone from seeking a cure if they wanted it. But not everyone does, and I don’t see why they should. I don’t see anything wrong with having disabled people in the world. Why do we need to eradicate blindness or deafness? Why are you appalled that some people don’t want a cure?
You’re equating deaf people producing deaf babies naturally with people dying in Isreal and crack babies? Surlely you don’t think they’re the same magnitude of tradgedy? No one’s saying you shouldn’t care, but you’re disgusted that Smashed would like a deaf baby? Why? She’s not going out to actively engineer one, it’ll just be her baby that happens to be deaf. And with any luck it’ll grow up in a world even more accepting of disability.
And to say that the reason disabled people are having babies with defects just to validate to themselves that their disability is okay - what are you talking about? You’re operating on the assumption that people with disabilities spend their time wishing they were able-bodied and lamenting the fact that they’re “defective”. Sorry to break it to you, but most aren’t. A lot are just fine with having a disability. It appears to be you that has the problem with it.
Ease the pain? Is that why you think disabled people have babies? Because their poor, terrible lives are so bereft of comfort they need a baby to validate themselves? My parents tried for ten years to have children before I came along and they would’ve been thrilled if I was deaf. They were also thrilled than I am hearing. Their deafness was not a factor in deciding to have a baby. The fact that they were in love and wanted a family was.
As I said, we agree on that one.
I think the problem here lies in the fact that we’re confusing “cure” with “eradicate”. I’m in full support of medical reseach into a cure for deafness, blindess, baldness even, for those that want it. But not everybody wants a cure. I don’t think it’s necessary to eradicate deafness or blindness or any other disability. Like I keep asking- why would it be? People are different. Alongside medical research into cures should be awareness of disability, respect for a community and a culture and respect for those that find their disability part of their identity and would not want it taken away.
Why is silly to say “I don’t want a cure” if you don’t consider yourself in need of one? I’m short - I don’t want to be tall, even if you consider being taller to be better. I’m happy how I am. So are many people with disabilities. As much as you’re trying to avoid it, you’re saying someone would have to be mad not to want to be physically perfect. I don’t think it’s mad at all to want to keep being who you are, imperfections and all.
Your right. My bias shows through. I guess it is hard for me to understand that a person born deaf does not want to enjoy the wonders of sound. It is damn near impossible for me to realistically imagine a world like that.
No, that isn’t what I meant. I didn’t mean it to sound like that. What I meant was that people that are excluded from areas of society tend to group together and form their own. That is given. Having a child that shares my flaws, makes my flaws stand out less, a child that is better or more perfect than me, could (though not definately) make me feel inferior, causing pain of sorts. (though maybe not even consiously) That is not to say everybody is like this, but I would imagine that it happens more often than not. (I have identity problems and self esteem issues just like alot of other people, that may cloud my judgement, I admit it)
For those that like being deaf, or blind, or bald, and don’t want a cure, well:
I give my respect then. Liking who you are is important, and many people go through life trying to find peace with themselves. It is an accomplishment worth merit to achieve this harmony with yourself. Deaf, blind or anything.
" Yes. But unfortunately its a language that only a tiny fraction of the world can understand. Which is why ‘deaf culture’ exists more on a parallel with hearing culture rather than significantly intertwined with it. "
I think that it’s the 4th most common language. That’s not quite a fraction of the world… There is a nice book at amazon.com that I bought once, its not even very expensive, SIGNING IN FOURTEEN LANGUAGES… it’s pretty cool too. But even in the US, there are regional changes for signs from city to city & state to state. It’s complicated. In sign class the other week the teacher was reading from the Padden book the word ‘early’ & it’s signed like ‘naked’ in most books. This could be interesting should they use it that way some day.
" Since the person doing the sign language usually finishes up around the same time the speaking person does, its obvious that not too many words are being spelled out, so I wonder what is being left out or simplified."
You can read them? The terp (interpreter) is usually tiny on my screen. But they are certified terps so they do the best they can with the situation & probably like most languages translators get things a little ‘creative’.
I used to be a hearing person, even today I’m not completely deaf, I’m more like a zeebra & it’s a rather isolating place sometimes, but gives an interesting perspective on life.
I would have to concur with this statement in answer to your question, Francesca. I can see how it’s a tough line though. Should we allow people to inbreed? Should we let brother and sister have kids? Why or why not? I’m not calling deaf people inbreeders, just pointing out that they are a group likely to produce disabled children as well. I believe there are laws against inbreeding. Out of curiosity, how often is deafness genetic? Is it a guarantee that two people born deaf will have deaf children? Is it likely?
The other tough question is if they have a deaf kid and science can cure the kid, should they be forced to give the child the proper medical attention or be allowed to choose for their child whether or not they can hear until they are 18? To be honest, I would lean towards fixing the kid’s hearing.
Why would a deaf person actively wish not to hear? I ask this in simple confusion. All of the wonderful things that deaf people have to replace music, the ability to talk when backs are turned, and the like - these things don’t actually require deafness, do they? If a person who couldn’t hear suddenly became hearing (or did so as the result of a medical intervention), he or she would still know sign language, right? And still be able to do all of those wonderful things, but now he or she would also have music and the ability to hear if someone shouts a warning, and so on and so forth.
I mean, look. Three years ago, my friend Laura had never had Lobster Cantonese. Now, I love lobster cantonese, but she’d never been exposed to it. Given that it was possible to expose her to it, why wouldn’t I? Sure, she didn’t know what she was missing, having never tried the dish. But once she had it, she was glad to have had the opportunity.
I guess what I’m saying/asking is this. Life, it seems to me, is all about experiencing as many wonderful, exciting, beautiful things as one can. Why anyone would voluntarily refuse the chance to experience a few extras is honestly beyond me. If I had the time and opportunity to learn sign language, or Chinese, or the like, I would certainly do so. Why not? In the same way, why not hear if the option is open to you?
dalovindj - As I said, I agree with epimetheus’s view that you quoted too.
I’m not really sure what your point is with this analogy. Although you say you’re not calling deaf people inbreeders, it does seem like you’re saying that potentially the laws that apply to inbreeding could also apply to deaf people breeding because they both produce disabled children. Would you support that?
According to The Harvard Medical School Centre For Hereditary Deafness (a very informative site, btw), about half of all cases of deafness are due to hereditary causes, although it’s more complicated than that. In my experience, most children of deaf parents (CODAs) are hearing and hereditary deafness is comparatively rare. For example, although my parents are both profoundly deaf (ie, you can scream in their ear and they won’t hear you), I am hearing because it is not genetic deafness - my mother had meningitis when she was three and my father was born deaf through unknown causes (I suspect because my grandmother smoked throughout pregnancy and had him late in life).
I do know a few big deaf families but generally the CODAs I know are hearing.
I agree that it’s a tough question. I don’t think a parent should be forced to have their children have implants. But I do think it depends on the extent of the child’s deafness. For example, a slightly hard of hearing child would benefit from hearing aids. No body’s going to argue with that. You can take a hearing aid on and off, no problem.
A child with a more profound hearing loss is more tricky. The best medical treatments that exist at the moment are cochlear implants and while they have come on leaps and bounds in recent years, they are not beneficial to all children and they are certainly not a “cure” for deafness. The hearing obtained via an implant is not hearing as you or I know it. And you can’t just take off an implant. For a child raised in a supportive deaf family I can see a situation in which a child would be happier being deaf, rather than go through surgery and the major adjustment that implants entail, until such time as he or she can choose for themselves if they want to be deaf or hearing.
Here is information about cochlear implants and a positive story of a deafened man regaining a percentage of his hearing. But note that only 10% of those implanted are able to communicate without lipreading and that there are still many problems with intereference between sound stimuli - a confusing and frustrating situation for a child. While I’m completely supportive of an adult’s right to choose implants, I’m not so sure it should be forced on a child.
No. The laws against inbreeding do not apply to deaf people. The motivation for making inbreeding illegal, however, is that it is likely to produce disabled children. That is the similarity (and thus the analogy): Both situations result in disabled children and only one is illegal. Why?
There are some cases where laws against breeding conditions likely to produce disabled children are approporiate. I have some trouble seeing the difference in the case of a guaranteed deaf baby. I guess one difference is in the likelihood. It sounds like (assuming your cites are on point) there are very few situations where two deaf people are guaranteed to have a deaf child. If this is the case I guess we don’t need any new laws, but I can’t say I wouldn’t support such a law if it were to come into effect.
So you are saying that not only should parents not give children implants, they shouldn’t even be allowed to? Interesting. Would this position change if the fix were more sophisticated. Suppose a procedure is developed that will result in full hearing for the child, should the child be given the treatment? Are you for these fixes if they can be done without surgery? Assuming a non surgical procedure resulting in full hearing, should the parents now be forced to give the child treatment? Should they be forced to wait until the kid is 18?
I say in the end if deaf people are in love let em have kids. Do not allow them to actively aim for a deaf child other than the old fashioned way (sex is OK, genetic tampering or mutilation is not). If they have a deaf child the child should be cured if the opportunity arises. I would feel the same way about a paralyzed kid. Just because there is a culture around something does not give them a free pass to injure children, nor to keep children from being given the best possible chance. Whether people like it or not a child who can not hear is at a deficit in this world compared to one who can. That’s not to say that they can’t have a beautiful and wonderful life, only that it will be harder and their opportunities in life will be less.
