Stupid people that should be put across the knees and spanked with the broom handle

The BBQ Pit
41

But is it the same as saying “I know my child will probably be handicapped, and I’m going to have it anyway”?

They have to “go out of their way” to have any kind of baby. For some reason, it is terrible if they go out of their way to have the same kind of baby they would have if they were not lesbians. If you want to say well, they have a special chance to avoid the problem: again, the straight couple has exactly the same chance. Why are they also not monstrous and disgusting if they fail to take it? Why can’t anyone answer that question?

I swear I am trying to see your point. I’m squinting at it and spinning it 'round. But no matter which way I turn it, I find another point juts out from its other end: deaf people should not have babies they know will be deaf.

I considered the possibility that it was just a personality vs practicality thing: you all just think they’re bad people for wanting that, not that it’s bad to have a deaf child. But I can’t see how a straight couple who wants their ‘own’ baby so much they have a deaf baby wouldn’t be the same kind of bad. Their own ‘selfish’ reasons are leading them to bringing a deaf child into the world. Why is embracing that fact worse than wringing one’s hands in despair over it?

42

One more post, then I’ll take a break, lest I go from “hysterical” to “psychotic”. :wink:

*In Silence: Growing Up Hearing in a Deaf World * by Ruth Sidransky is one of many autobiographical books on its topic. While hearing children are glad to be hearing (just as some deaf children are glad to be deaf), they also often feel left out of their parents’ worlds and distrusted by Deaf society. Whether it’s ‘better’ for deaf parents to have deaf children I can’t say, but I do know the issue is much more complicated than it seems, and certainly that these women have the same rights as a straight couple to make that decision, and that straight deaf couples make that decision all the time.

Many Deaf people do not think there is anything wrong with them. This is simply the ultimate extension of that. They’re not secretly mourning their lack of hearing. They’re not grudgingly accepting their condition and getting on with life. They are actively embracing their nature as part of what defines them as people, not as a disability. If these things are true, it logically follows that for them, having a deaf child is not a Bad Thing.

This mindset is hard for us hearing folks (and some deaf folks) to understand, and some of us react to it with revulsion. Many people give lip service to the idea that some ‘disabled’ people are merely different, not broken, but they seem unable to align their gut reactions with their ideals.

43

The question has been answered but you’re refusing to listen.

44

Can you quote me where it has been answered? I’ve read everything, but I don’t see it.

45

Take your pick:

The bottom line is that your hypothetical hetro couple simply want a baby whereas these women want a specific baby, which borders on that whole designer baby thing.

46

I know I said one more post, but really one more…

I responded to all of those quotes with reasons why they are not answers to the question. (Guess you’re the one who isn’t listening. See, we could play that game all night! :rolleyes: ) Not a single one of them explains how the deliberate choice to have a handicapped child is any different from the deliberate choice to have a child you know will be handicapped. Not one.

The closest thing to an answer is that you all don’t like their attitiude, which is not the question I’m asking. Oh, and I guess ‘straight people have the right to have biobabies if they want to’ from Revenant Threshold is kind of an answer too, but nobody seems to want to cop to the fact that that is what they’re answering, or explain why they think that.

47

I understand why people react so strongly to the deaf baby issue, but I can see the parent’s point. They’ve both been deaf all their lives. To them, it’s not a significant disadvantage. They’ve also, one assumes, been part of the deaf community for their entire lives. They see being part of this community as a significant advantage.

Culture is a huge deal, here, and deaf culture is every bit as valid as any other. And it’s entirely natural to want to raise your kid in your own culture. Which, in this case, requires that the kid be deaf. I don’t think it’s possible to be part of the deaf culture without being deaf. I don’t think its possible to be part of Jewish culture without being Jewish, or black culture without being black, or gay culture without being gay. You can be close to it, have lots of friends in it, work for its advancement, but on a very fundamental level, I don’t think you can ever be a part of it. These women evidently place a great amount of value on being part of that culture, and want to share it with their children. I don’t have a problem with that, myself. As someone who has never had any problem with his hearing, being deaf seems like a huge disadvantage to me. But by that same token, as someone who’s never had any problem with his hearing, I don’t know how big a disadvantage it is. It’s clearly something these women know more about than I do. I’m willing to defer to their expertise in the matter.

Honestly, I can see a lot of parrallels to gay rights, which should come as no surprise to anyone who’s read more than three of my posts. Being gay is a pretty big disadvantage in this country, and a lot of people view being gay as some sort of terrible disability. If it were possible to influence the sexual orientation of a child by choosing who to conceive with, would it really be all that different if these women had decided to try and have a gay kid, instead of a deaf kid?

And I agree with cthiax, that there’s no functional difference between these women choosing a deaf sperm donor, and a deaf hetero couple choosing to have a deaf kid the old fashioned way. Yes, there is another option for them: they can adopt, or they can get a sperm/ova donor who does not share their genetic disability. Of course, they’d rather have their own genetic offspring, even if it happens to be deaf. How is this different than these women prefering to have a deaf kid? In both cases, the parent is handicapping their child to fulfil their own desire.

48

I’m not sure where you’re getting this “basic assumption”, but my take on this matter would be the same if the case involved a “straight” deaf couple with infertility issues who sought out a particular sperm donor, in order to maximize the odds of having a deaf baby.

I think there’ s a basic parental responsibility when you know there’s a strong risk of bearing a child with a major birth defect, to do everything reasonably possible to minimize that risk - not to enhance it because you think the results would be personally gratifying.

49

Okay, but why would a straight deaf couple with the complete set of functioning reproductive organs get a pass of doing “everything reasonably possibe to minimize that risk”? Shouldn’t it be just as abhorrent if they have a bio-kid who’s likely to be deaf, instead of adopting one who can hear, or finding a donor who doesn’t share their genetic disability?

50

I’m not sure how I feel about this issue in genreal, but no, it’s not the same. Taking the risk of something happening is not the same as trying to make it happen, and even less like doing it on purpose. I don’t think that’s a difficult point.

51

Full quote:

So nobody “gets a pass”.

I find it marginally more repellent to go out seeking defective genetic material than it would be to make do with your own - in other words, “going the extra mile” to be selfishly irresponsible. It would be even worse to engage in molecular manipulation to design the optimal 100% guaranteed deaf baby. That’ll be next.

52

And while I don’t mean to put down deaf culture, these women admit they were deaf from birth, correct? Maybe this is insensitive of me, but I can’t help but feel for a child who will not be able to experience some of the things we hearing people take for granted.

Imagine never being able to hear a single note of music? To me, that’s tragic.

53

One wants a child, any child. The other wants a certain child. That’s your difference.

54

In most respects, being a culture that values logic, we accept the logical choice as having inherently greater worth than emotional or illogical choices. Your argument may make logical sense, cthiax, but this is one argument that you will never win with logic. This is an emotional choice plain and simple. These women want a deaf baby so they can have the emotional satisfaction of giving birth to someone “like them”. The rest of the world finds it abhorrent that these women would choose that, which is also an emotional response. You’re trying to use logic to answer a purely emotional debate. It won’t work, and is out of place in the current discussion. No matter how logical you are, most people are still going to have a strong emotional response to the subject at hand.

55

The disadvantages that gays encounter are due to bigotry on the parts of others. That can and will change over time. The disadvantages that a deaf person encounters can be worked around but they will not go away. I don’t see how the situations are analogous.

What would you say if some religous conservatives were trying to influence their children’s sexual orientation and have straight children?

56

The difference is that as a loving parent you want your child to have every advantage available. This does not mean that you may not have a child you think may be disabled, but you try to prevent that child from a known certain disablity

57

To deliberately increase the probability of your child never experiencing the beauty of a clearly-heard piece of music is abhorrent. (Yes, I do know who Evelyn Glennie is.)

I wish the child all the very best in seeking out a state-of-the-art cochlear implant when he or she is old enough to defy those selfish parents.

58

Okay, once more into the etc.

Let’s say the donor and one of the lesbians were a straight couple. They met, fell in love, and had a baby. That baby was profoundly deaf. They have been informed that any baby they have will likely be profoundly deaf.

Can they have another baby without being monstrous, disgusting, abhorrent, and so on?

Once again, they have exactly the same ability the lesbians do to avoid having a deaf child, and the same knowledge that if they have a child biologically, it **will be ** deaf. Are they obligated to adopt or use a hearing donor?

Funny, because I feel the same way: the point is very simple. What is in their minds is practically, functionally, rationally irrelevent to the outcome.

If I conceive a baby which genetics says will have red hair, the fact that I’m thinking ‘red hair red hair red hair’ really hard while doing so makes no difference at all.

As for the other aspects of your point, I would be interested to see your answer in particular to my hypothetical above. What difference in ‘risk’ is there between the two couples? Both have identical chances of having a deaf child. Yet somehow, the straight couple is just ‘taking a risk’, not ‘doing it on purpose but deluding themselves’.

And yes, I know some of you think being deaf is tragic. You mostly refuse to even acknowledge that some deaf people disagree with you; you refuse to respond to points made explaining why. Apparently you think ‘well, the poor souls just don’t know what they’re missing!’ You are why some of the Deaf distrust and often wish to separate themselves from the hearing: you look down on them, and you reject their opinion as invalid because of their disability. I’m a litte sorry to have to be so harsh about it, as I’m sure none of you mean to do that, but that is the result of your mindset.

59

Obviously the kid’s hearing will whatever it will be regardless of what anybody is thinking. That doesn’t change the fact that the donor was selected because he was very likely to given them a deaf child. The “thinking red hair really hard” doesn’t strike me as a good comparison. Maybe if you married someone because s/he had red hair, or if you used a redheaded sperm or egg donor, that would be comparable.

I understand that the practical difference could be slim; I’m not pretending otherwise.
If the straight deaf couple want to have a child together, the risk of the child being deaf or hearing impaired exists. They’re not doing anything to make it more likely their child will be deaf. The lesbians, as everybody’s said a bunch of times, wanted a deaf child and picked a donor accordingly. They did not need to choose the deaf donor; they did so based on their desire to have a particular kind of child.

60

This is where I just don’t understand. If it is so monstrous, disgusting and so on to intentionally have a deaf child, and there is no practical difference in what the couple is thinking when they know that will be the result, why aren’t the straight couple obligated to go out of their way to avoid it? They do not ‘need’ to have their own biological child either. They have the same options the lesbians do.