By the way, I assume that this was your analogy?
Just want to make sure that we’re on the same page.
In a way, though, this gets back to the “supergenius” example. Supergeniuses are a minority. Society assumes all sorts of things about when a kid will start reading or doing calculus or setting off small thermonuclear devices in the basement.
So I don’t think it’s consistent to be against one minority customization (deafness) and for another (supergenius), especially given that a deaf parent will at least share in the minority group. An average parent with a supergenius child? Potentially very dangerous stuff for the child.
If there were statistics that showed that a child of two deaf parents tends to be better off as deaf himself, then I think I would be okay with that. Not in favor, because I think that means that parents of hearing children should just be working harder to socialize their kids properly, but okay.
I never said anything for or against the supergenius child issue. I really don’t know how I stand on that - my gut response would be that I would be against it. It seems somewhat irrelevant to the issue at hand, in that seeking to create a deaf child is deliberately depriving that child of an ability that most people are born with. Seeking to create a supergenius child, however, is deliberately giving said child an ability that most people don’t have. Whether this ability will end up causing more problems than it’s worth is another debate altogether, imo.
I’m sorry, but I really can’t see deafness as a “minority customization.” It’s not like red hair, or brown eyes, or dark skin. It’s deliberately depriving the child of an ability that a human being is suppose to have. I don’t mean to pity or patronize deaf people; I am certainly not suggesting they are any less because they can’t hear. But why would you deliberately deprive your child of something that they are supposed to have?
If, rationally and objectively, it improves the kid’s chances for a happy life, maybe.
The problem is that I don’t think these women know if that’s true. They have an opinion on it and I sincerely hope it’s something of an informed opinion. But I’m sure that they are also making (or have made) an emotional decision rather than an objective one. And I don’t think that’s good enough when a child’s well-being is at stake.
Some citeage:
Pdf. on difficulty learning to read:
[
](http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~guion/644readings/Goldin-Meadow&Mayberry%20LDR&P%202001.pdf)
Another pdf.
[
](http://www.hospicefoundation.org/hfaPublications/books/lwg1998/zieziula.pdf)
I’ll find more if necessary.
The first cite is very useful, at least at first glance (haven’t had a chance to look it over yet).
The second cite, because it seems to be dealing with the way the deaf interact with the hearing world, doesn’t address the issue as directly as the first. We’d all agree that a deaf child would probably have problems dealing directly with the hearing without extensive training. But if a child is going to have deaf parents, is it better for the child to be deaf or hearing? Certainly if the child’s parents can hear, I can’t see any reason the child would be better off deaf. But I can conceive of ways a hearing child might be worse off in a deaf household and culture than a deaf child. Might. Maybe. Could. Not good enough, in my opinion, to create a deaf child over.
So, as I said earlier, I disagree with what they did unless there is objective proof that a deaf child is better off than a hearing child if both parents are deaf–and even so, it’s a little scary.
Many mentally retarded people have happy lives. Depression rates among the retarded are very low. Would it be okay to solicit sperm from a man with Down Syndrome just so the kid will be happy? After all, it’s not like the kid will know what he’s missing. He’ll be even less aware than the deaf kid of what he’s been deprived of.
It’s somewhat dense, but it’s by some rather well respected linguists. My acrobat program has a gremlin in it right now, but I’ll switch to my desktop later and maybe that’ll streamline things. I’ll see if I can pull some more quotes.
This is of couse true, but I’m proceeding from the axiom that if one is limited to a town/village for their entire life that such a limitation is a disadvantage.
Definitely an intersting question, I’m not quite sure how to answer it. I haven’t been able to find any research on that topic as of yet.
I do know that from my linguistics work a hearing child born to deaf parents will learn ASL easily and without effort, and if exposed to spoken English, will learn that as well.
I’ll try to track down something more substantive.
Even if that’s true, I think we need to balance home life with the rest of a child’s life. We do of course need more data, but if a child has a rough time dealing with parents but is more able to deal with the outside world, I’d say that the benefit to the person’s adult life will outweigh problems with their childhood. But yes, we definitely need more data. I’ll keep searching. My GF teaches at Cornell, I’ll see if I can’t use her account to get access to some peer reviewed journals which I’d otherwise have to pay to read.
Indeed.
And from the articles I’ve read on these specific parents, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that they had such data either. There was a bunch about community and such, but if there was any hard data, I missed it.
Agreed on both counts.
Agreed. I could see how being a deaf child might make it easier to grow up in a deaf household/culture. But like FinnAgain has pointed out, said child will probably not be able to live in said household/culture forever. Not even for the majority of his/her life.
And even if they could stay in that house forever, is that really something morally right to consign a child to? Purposefully limiting indepepdence and autonomy?
So, what I’m hearing here is that the desire to have your own personal crotch-spawn outweighs the moral transgression of “maiming” your child, but that the desire to have your child grow up in and share your culture does not. I guess we know where preventing “maiming” falls on the moral scale.
Deaf culture is geographically quite close. While a deaf child will probably not live with their parents forever, chances are they will stick to deaf schools (many deaf kids go to residential schools) and stay in communities where deaf people congregate. Said communities have many ammenities for the deaf and minimize any dangers. A hearing child probably would not be able to fit in to these communities and would miss out on a lot of community life.
Not to mention, hearing children of deaf parents might have advantages of both worlds-I believe Lon Chaney’s parents were deaf and that was why he was so good at acting in silent movies. Actress Louise Fletcher’s parents were deaf too.
I’m confused as to just what you’ve read which gives you that interpretation. Can you elaborate?
I’m cuirious, do you have a cite for these deaf communities? How many exist, what are their locations, size, etc?
And, by the way, why do you put the word maimed in quotes? I take it that you disagree? What about the examples in terms of when in the pregnancy the damage is done? Thalidomide taken before conception and through the pregnancy vs/ deliberate damage in utero vs destroying ear drums after birth? How would you classify those?
But is having a deaf child really the best way to deal with this? I would think that the answer to this problem would be to try your damndest to find ways to help them adjust and fit in. One could argue that deliberately having a deaf child for this reason is simply a copout - a way of avoiding the problem rather than dealing with it. You’re shortchanging the child for your own convenience.
Obviously there are no guarantees that you would be successful at helping the hearing child to adjust, but there are also no guarantees that a deaf child would be happy and emotionally adjusted. In fact (and I may get jumped on for saying this) IMHO the hearing child probably has a better overall chance of being happy and well-adjusted throughout their entire life. In fact, a hearing child raised by deaf parents (especially if they make an effort to also give him extensive exposure to hearing people and culture) may actually turn out to be a much more empathetic and accepting person than most of us are.
They may not always feel comfortable in every situation at every stage of their life, in fact they may feel more discomfort than most, but should avoiding that really be the sole goal in raising a child? Is it so important that it outweighs the value of being able to easily communicate with the vast majority of people they’ll encounter in life?
What kind of damage is done? From his conception, the baby is destined to be deaf. That is his genetic make-up.
You can argue that specifically trying to give birth to a disabled person is wrong, but not that this person has been “damaged”. He’s just what he is.
And what if that was accomplished not through deliberate genetic selection, but by deliberately taking thalidomide starting a week before conception? What are the substantive differences between the two, if you disagree that they’re not analogous?
D’oh! Make that “if you disagree that they’re analagous.”
Yes, it would be wrong because without the Thalidomide, the baby would be born fit. But in the case of this deaf baby, either he will be deaf, either he won’t exist at all. There’s no way for him to be born and not being deaf. The only thing that could happen is that another non-deaf, baby could be born instead of him.
If the mother was taking a pill, either before or after the conception, that would somehow makes the baby deaf, it would be harming him, since he could have been born without this disability. But the baby who’s deaf due to his genes isn’t harmed. He just happento be deaf.
I’m not arguing that counter-eugenism is a good idea, just that there’s no harm involved. You don’t “cause a baby to be deaf” when he’s going to be deaf regardless of what you do.
I find that argument disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that these are two totally different scenarios. There is no community of thalidomide sufferers where there is little communication with the outside world. There are no schools for thalidomide sufferers. Thalidomide sufferers do not have communication problems etc etc.
I still think, especially after doing a google search and reading a couple of articles from/about hearing children of deaf parents, that these women think that in THEIR community, they will do their best job bringing up a deaf child rather than a hearing one. The same way hearing parents would prefer to bring up a hearing child than a deaf one with all the trauma and difficulty that entails.
I’m sorry Finn, you will never convince me that these women are deliberately ‘maiming’ their child and that there is any difference between them seeking out a deaf donor and two natural parents who are deaf having a child. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.