A heterosexual deaf couple who had a child have no other option, if they want to procreate naturally, than to risk the chance of having a deaf child. These two are actively seeking out a deaf sperm donor, in order to INCREASE the chance that they have a deaf child. I agree with Guin, it’s just disgusting.
P.S. it’d be the same for a heterosexual deaf couple if they were unable to conceive naturally - deliberatly seeking out a deaf donor is sick.
The situations are totally different. The hypothetical heterosexual deaf couple wants to have a baby. They didn’t get together with the intention of creating a deaf baby; they got together because they love each other. The lesbian couple, on the other hand, also want to have a baby, but they are intentionally trying to create a deaf baby.
Classifying Guinastasia’s post as some kind of slam on deaf people is disgusting. She never said that she had any problem with deaf people, only that it would be preferable if there were fewer deaf people in the world. Would there be something wrong with me saying that I wish that all deaf people could be given their hearing?
What if they really wanted to use a particular donor and the donor happened to be deaf? Would that be disgusting? The result would be IDENTICAL, except possibly that the parents would suffer more if the child was deaf. That the parents mourn the child’s deafness seems to be very important to those arguing for ‘digusting’.
The first heterosexual couple could adopt a hearing child, of course. But somehow the desire to have a child ‘naturally’ excuses them from your disgust at the idea of happily having a deaf child. Why is this?
By the way, how is it ‘increasing’ the chance they will have a deaf child from what would happen if they had their own biological child?
Well, a lot of deaf people would be pissed at you. Some deaf people- including people who lost their hearing in adulthood- prefer deafness. It’s a kind of complicated subject, but basically there is a strong culture surrounding it and many people do not consider it to be a disability.
The lesbian couple got together because they love each other too. The straight couple have the same chance to have a deaf baby as the lesbian couple. They have the same ability (through adoption or a donor) that the lesbian couple do to avoid having a deaf baby. If your opinion is that one must avoid having a deaf baby if one can, why is the straight couple exempt?
I know Guin didn’t mean to slam deaf people. My response was an attempt to expose the assumptions underlying her position, which certainly do include the idea that celebrating deafness is disgusting.
There is a large Deaf community which does indeed celebrate, not mourn, its condition, and which has its own language and cuture. There are many serious problems faced by the hearing children of deaf parents, so it’s not just a situation where being able to hear is automatically a ticket to a better life. And if deaf couples have the right to have babies they know will be deaf, then this lesbian couple has the same right.
Nor is it a situation where parents should deliberately make a decision aimed at handicapping a child, who has no choice in the matter.
There are people who celebrate the personalities of children with Down’s syndrome. Would it be alright for a couple in their later childbearing years to “try” for a Down’s syndrome baby?
[QUOTE=Jackmannii
There are people who celebrate the personalities of children with Down’s syndrome. Would it be alright for a couple in their later childbearing years to “try” for a Down’s syndrome baby?[/QUOTE]
Once again: Is it all right for them to have a baby anyway knowing that it might have Down’s? If it is, what’s the functional difference? Their attitude that it’s not a bad thing if the baby has Down’s? Why is that a problem? It’s not a practical, functional problem, since (once again again) the results are identical except they (possibly including their child, who would never have to worry that its parents were disappointed in its nature) suffer less.
I simply see no way to make this argument coherent unless you are also willing to argue that people who might pass on their disabilities are disgusting if they have children. Trying to say it’s okay as long as they’re sufficiently upset about it is puerile. Trying to say it’s okay and they don’t have to be exactly upset about it, but they should at least accept it only grudgingly, is even sillier.
You beat me to it. Evidently there are some deaf people, who when offered Cochlear implants, prefer to remain deaf. They prefer signing to speaking and resent the hearing majority pressing them in any way to conform. You’re right. It’s very complicated.
The problem is that they want a designer baby, albeit a “disabled” one instead of a “healthy” one.
They’re not doing anything like that as far as I know. If they are, please do cite it. They’re doing exactly what the straight couple is doing: producing a baby with two deaf parents.
Rune, do you still have that broom handle ready? :rolleyes:
Not exactly like that but close enough for people to be uncomfortable.
What is your point? What’s invalid about my statement that the couple is not engaging in genetic engineering? In what *functional * way is what they’re doing the same as genetic engineering and different from a straight deaf couple having a baby?
I don’t want to get involved in this discussion. I don’t know anything about the lives of deaf people, although I do know there are some out there without the desire to become hearing people.
But I think you’re getting increasingly hysterical about this. Of course they are participating in a crude form of genetic selection. I also think it’s wrong, but as I said, not knowing much about deaf people I can’t say. I’m not saying that being deaf is so horribly wrong but to deliberately try to bring a new baby into the world with the same abnormality* as you strikes me as the height of egoism.
Of course genetic engineering is not always bad, certainly. When it’s used to *avoid * a disease/abnormality/defect it’s one thing.
And now that the calm rational portion of my post is over, I’ll add my opinion. I work in an organization that tries to prevent birth defects. I think it’s monstrous to deliberately try to give your child one. I know existing deaf people may be happy with what they have, do we have to deny new babies a sense to make us feel like they’re “ours”?
*I use abnormality only to mean - missing something that is usually considered normal, such as hearing.
Please show me which statements of mine you characterize as “hysterical”. All I’ve done is respond to points, in some cases with a little hyperbole, as this is, after all, the Pit, not GD.
More so than any couple who has a baby? Why? People choose their mates and partners in parenting for all kinds of reasons, many of which have to do with genes.
Do you think that a deaf couple whose child has a very good chance of being deaf are monstrous, then? It is a deliberate act. What they prefer is irrelevant to the outcome: a deaf baby. They even know going in that they odds are very good the baby will be deaf. So if you think the lesbians are bad, how can you not say the same thing about any deaf couple who choose to have biological children? That is what I can’t seem to get an answer to.
Three of my cousins have MD. Well, two, now: the third died at the ripe old age of 22, as the second is likely to soon. Their parents knew the boys would almost certainly have this incredibly debilitating condition, that they would not be able to walk before they were in double digits, suffer pain every day, and would die in their twenties if they were lucky enough to last that long. They kept having them anyway. I love my cousins, and I’m glad to know them, but I think it was wrong for their parents to keep having kids under those circumstances. Of course they didn’t want that to happen to their children, but they knew it would.
Being deaf is very different. It doesn’t limit lifespan or cause constant pain. It makes life a little harder, and it means a person misses out on some sensual pleasures, but it’s perfectly possible to live a long and happy life while deaf. Being black is hard too, but nobody says a black person is disgusting and monstrous if they don’t wish to have a white child. (Or accuses them of ‘genetic engineering’ if they mate with another black person). It is not a perfect analogy by any means, but many of the problems the Deaf face also come from societal conventions, not their own limitation.
Cthiax
look, man, I’m not gonna call you any names or threaten you with anything, merely point out two things.
-
In this day and age, being deaf is a definite disadvantage. Would you want your child to be born with the disadvantage of being deaf, just so you can tell them that it’s cool to be deaf?
-
If the child should, god forbid, be born with the ability to hear, would it then be okay to have his/her eardrums surgically removed because it’s cool to be deaf?
Maybe you can answer the question then: should people who know their children have a good chance of being deaf not have children? If the answer is ‘no, they may have children’, explain how the result is any different.
Of course not. That would also be fundamentally different from the example I’ve been nattering on about of the couple who knows the baby will probably be deaf but doesn’t specifically hope for it to be. Any condition which causes this case to differ from that one in a functional way is irrelevant to my point.
You need to read this again and comprehend what it means (I have bolded the most relevant parts):
*"Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, who have both been deaf since birth, were turned down by a series of sperm banks they approached looking for a donor suffering from congenital deafness.
The couple, who have been together for eight years, then approached a family friend who was totally deaf, and had five generations of deafness in his family.
He donated sperm which was used to impregnate Sharon Duchesneau…Baby Gauvin McCullough is now four-months-old, and has a slight amount of hearing in one ear…**The man has already donated sperm for the couple’s five-year-old daughter Johanne, who is profoundly deaf and can only communicate through sign language. **…While she was pregnant, Ms Duchesneau said: **"It would be nice to have a deaf child who is the same as us.
“I think that would be a wonderful experience.”**."*
Wonderful for a child to grow up profoundly deaf? How incredibly and revoltingly self-centered.
Like it or not, deafness is a significant physical disability, particularly for a child born deaf. (Being black is not a physical disability).
There are many who feel that making a special effort to impose that upon a baby, particularly when a major motive appears to be one’s own gratification, is abhorrent.
I promise you that my disagreement does not come from a lack of comprehension.
Which is why I limited my analogy to the social problems.
Do you have an answer to my analysis of the problems of deaf people vs those with serious physical disabilities, aside from pronouncing that you’re correct whether I like it or not? Does the fact that many deaf people do not feel that their lives are significantly physically limited matter? There were only so many social accomodations that could be made to increase my cousins’ comfort; aside from the experience of one type of sensual pleasure, nothing the deaf face cannot be remedied in social ways (use and acceptance of guide dogs, interpreters, etc).
Yet not quite abhorrent enough to mean that a straight couple should make a special effort to avoid it? They have the gratification of having a baby in mind, after all.
One of the basic assumptions in this thread is that a straight couple has the right to have babies no matter what, because somehow the ‘natural’ way is magically protected, but going to an outside source is not. I still don’t see the difference.
I understand there is a very vibrant deaf culture. I also understand there are problems with cochlear implants and if I had a deaf child, I would probably prefer to work with hearing aids and go from there (the implants, from what I gather, destroy any residual hearing present).
BUT…the fact that they deliberately wished to give their child a disability. It doesn’t matter that the results would be the same if it happened by chance. It matters that they went out of their way to ensure that the child would be at a disadvantage.
I want to know, if the child grew up hearing, would they somehow view him or her as inferior? Couldn’t a hearing child also celebrate their culture? He or she would have to learn sign language too.
Saying, “If my child turns out to be handicapped, I would be all right with that and love him or her the same” is NOT the same as saying, “I want my child to be disabled and will go out of my way to make sure that that happens.”
And no, it’s not the same as seeking to adopt a child with special needs. In that case, you’re looking to give a disabled child an advantage.