So, fuckface, you are claiming that somehow the risk is maximized, that is, greater than it would be if the lesbian and the donor were a straight couple, because they’re wishing really hard? Are you able to tie your own shoes without help, with a brain that useless?
Oh, they can’t, huh? There’s no fucking way to have kids if you’re straight aside from biologically? **It wasn’t necessary in either case, dipshit. **
Here’s some more to add to the list:
Rightwing nutjobs to send “Merry Christmas” cards to ACLU, apparently under the delusion that the ACLU is against private citizens expressing religious conviction.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005874.php
Right wing organization spends thousands of dollars renting apartments that face the Supreme Court so that they can recruit young interns to hop about pray and generally try to send magical psychic signals to God and the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
http://jhop.org/
I am still being respectful of you. But your argument is babbling. I will show no respect to an absurd argument.
And if deaf people are asserting that they aren’t disabled, they better damn well re-write the ADA, right? A little hole in your theory.
Who am I attacking? Fluffy-Bunnies? Cry me a river if that’s what you’re worried about. And again your argument is bass ackwards. I don’t need to convince anybody that a well recognized objective disability is one, you need to convince folks that it isn’t.
Again this is absurd postmodern fluffy-bunnyism. Who the heck needs to be deaf to understand that you can’t hear things? You may not fully appreciate it, but it doesn’t change the objective nature of the facts.
Bingo.
You can say, all day long, that not being able to be safe while driving a car is not a disadvantage, but you’d be wrong. Personal experiences won’t let a deaf person hear.
Because they are stupid, and your argument is moronic fluffy-bunnyism? You seem strangely unable to grasp the fact that personal prefrence can’t make you hear, and personal experiences can’t make you hear, and personal evaluations can’t make you hear.
I understand that some people feel talked down to and the PC phrase “differently abled” has to a degree replaced “disabled”. That too is stupid. There is nothing wrong with being a quadrapalegic, but to claim that it isn’t a disability is lunacy.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus: that being deaf is a terrible, terrible thing, and that there’s something morally wrong with these women because they don’t agree.
I don’t think these women think being deaf is better than being able to hear, only that it’s not worse. They seem to think that there is something to be gained from being deaf that is equal in value to what is lost from not being able to hear. I’m not sure what precisely, they think they’re gaining, because we’re not really getting their side of the argument. And, yeah, maybe it is really, really stupid or crazy. I’d like to at least hear their side of it first-hand before I go condemning them.
I don’t know that it’s accurate to draw parrallels between these disabilities and deafness. Obviously, not all handicaps are equal. At what point do we draw the line between a debilitating handicap and a simple physical difference? You could argue that have pale skin is a “handicap” because it puts you at increased risk of skin cancer, but no one argues that white people shouldn’t want to have white babies. Obviously, deafness has far more severe drawbacks than crackerness, but not nearly as severe as not having any limbs. These women, who again, have lived with deafness for their entire lives, and know firsthand how difficult being deaf is better than anyone in here, feel that it is not a significant disability.
I certainly don’t think that’s okay, and I admit I can’t formulate a reason why I see a difference between that, and these women’s efforts to have a deaf kid. I’ll have to think about it.
You are probably one of our stupidest Dopers. I wish I’d known we had some as fucking dense as you, you’d have given new iskander and updike a run for their money, that’s for sure.
~shivers~ Ooooh. Fuckface. ~shivers~
Fucking advanced-syphilitic shitlicker.
The risk is maximized in terms of the pool of semen donors you fucking moron! Again, you fucking lying moron, you are indeed using an analogy, and a straight couple who are both fertile is a piss poor analogy.
You’re shifting the goals posts again you fucking braindead schmuck.
And I’ve already said, several times, that if we’re to use our magic lesbians[sup]tm[/sup] then there isn’t a problem. It’s that they had the deliberate and methodical intention to, essentially, maim their child.
God you’re a fucking waste of space.
Several posters here are still saying that a child born deaf would be at a disadvantage in the hearing world, which he would. However, the couple in question don’t intend to raise their child in the hearing world. They live in a deaf community, and ASL is commonly used there. They don’t intend for the child to lip read or to need to interact with the hearing world. They see their community as a separate community with a different language, akin to raising a child in a Spanish-speaking home and sending him to a private school where only Spanish is taught.
Where I have a problem is in removing future choice for the child; a Spanish speaker can learn English, although he will never be as proficient as if he had grown up speaking the language. A deaf child cannot transition easily to the hearing world, though. The parents’ position is that there is no need for the child ever to interact with the hearing world.
If you had read the thread, which some of your other posts make it quite clear you have not (the post-birth mutilation thing was already brought up, for one), you would know that I’m not shifting anything. My point all along has been that a couple who knows their child will be deaf has the same options to avoid it. You have yet to demonstrate how they do not, or why their right to have a bio-baby of their own cancels out the horridness of intentionally (with full knowledge of the consequences ahead of time) having a deaf baby.
Actually, I’m surprised. You’re so opposed to “fluffy-bunnyism”, why don’t you just come out and say you don’t think people who will pass on birth defects should have children? What about that statement do you disagree with? My point from the beginning has been that if it’s okay to have kids knowing that they will have defects, then it’s okay regardless of what’s in the parents’ minds.
Do you believe that people who know they will pass on birth defects should not have children?
Let me start with this:
Thank you very much! I don’t expect rote agreement, but I really appreciate that you’re willing to question your judgements. I do think that the analogy I used is a fairly tight one, as well.
I think you’re reading too much into it. Being deaf is not a terrible, terrible thing. It probably would be for many people who are used to hearing and lose it, but in and of itself, especially as a congential condition, it isn’t any more ‘terrible’ than any other physical damage.
What is morally wrong with the women is not that they don’t agree, but that they are doing something that is, functionally, the same as ripping out a child’s eardrums.
There might be a number of subjective issues. Maybe it makes you pay more attention to colors, and sunsets look that much better, or what have you. But the objective factual disabilities still remain.
I’d say that the difference is when it stop you from engaging in a ‘normal’ range of physical activities. Or we could go by the ADA’s guidelines.
It’s not quite the same, but there is a rough parallel. But if, for instance, a woman had a condition that guaranteed that she’d get skin cancer, and deliberately tried to find a sperm doner with the same disease so that her children would have it too, that’d be wrong.
And yet, they’re entitled to protection under the ADA and there are objective facts which contradict them. While the mothers may very well say “Oh, being able to drive a car safely isn’t such a big deal.” or “So somtimes things hit me because I can’t hear people warning me.” or “Yeah, it’s annoying being unable to communicate with some people but I’ve gotten used to it.” or “Yeah, it’s pretty much impossible for me to use a phone in an emergency where I have to be asked questions, but I don’t mind.” Those’re a personal choice they’ve come to for themselves. To attempt to force that on a child is wrong.
I once read a short story by the author John Varley called The Persistence of Vision in which the protagonist stays for a time at a self-sufficient colony of deaf-mute-blind people. Are there similar self-sufficient colonies here and now that I have not heard about? If so, that is pretty neat. If not, well I guess that I am back to thinking that these people are tools.
Heh, you want stupid?
Then they picked the wrong planet.
As you point out, someone who is raised speaking Spanish can learn English later. Someone who is deaf can never learn to hear.
The parents may say that the child has no need to ever interact with the ‘hearing world’, but how revolting is it that they’ve taken that choice away from the child?
Hey, moron? I wouldn’t take your apraisal of a sitaution as proof of anything. I read the thread. You’re stupidity does not, I’m happy to say, change that fact.
You are, indeed, shifting the goalposts because you’re an irrational incoherent illogical fool. You draw bullshit analogies and then try to draw conclusions from them that are not warranted.
Yes, your point is fucking stupid as are you.
You are ignoring, by being a wilfully ignorant schmuck, that it wasn’t a situation of the parents accepting what would happen if their DNA was combined, but of deliberately seeking out such DNA. Fool.
Again, please stop being stupid. Please, eh?
If the hetreo couple was going to use a sperm bank and they deliberately chose someone to maximize their chance of having a birth defect, that would be wrong.
But a couple who are deaf are not guaranteed in all cases to have deaf children. That’s why it’s important to realize that there is an issue of volitional maximization of risk. But you can’t realize that, because you’re a moron.
Fuck you you stupid piece of shit, how dare you suggest that I support eugenics? Fucking shitstain.
Yes, that is why you’re a fucking moron. You are ignoring that in one situation the thing on the parents’ minds is that they are intentionally trying to give their child a birth defect.
If a couple chose each other because of the chance of them having children with birth defects rather than falling in love and then having children, I’d condemn them too. But you wouldn’t, because you’re a moron without enough empathy to not want babies to be purposefully maimed.
The taboo being violated here (and which has provoked strong reaction) does not involve the concept that Deaf Lesbians Are Daring To Have Children.
Or even that Some Deaf People Don’t Feel Handicapped.
It’s a lot more basic, and goes to the heart of parenting (or at least what has always been accepted as parenting). The idea is that parents will sacrifice to the utmost to give their kids the best possible opportunities in life - whether this involves health, education or other basic needs. What the kids subsequently accomplish is a matter of individual capabilities, effort and circumstance.
That parents would deliberately seek to curtail those opportunities is what causes the outrage. I can’t put it any more clearly than that.
Where I come from, “What the fuck are you babbling about?” is not respectful. Perhaps I am stupid for thinking so.
You used the term “fluffy-bunny moron” to describe a deaf people who would disagree with you about the status of their disability. Again, if that is not an attack, I must be being stupid again.
I am trying to convince you that even if you disagree with me or with deaf people who think there’s nothing wrong with them, there is no need to be a jackass about it. I have no interest or need to convince anyone that it is not a disability, I am merely requesting that people who do make such an assertion are not insulted for it.
Strawman. As if it needs to be said, I fully agree that personal preference cannot make you hear, and personal experiences cannot make you hear, and that personal evaluations cannot make you hear. Your assertion that I seem unable to grasp this is a lie, because I have never said anything to the contrary.
What I am asserting is that if someone’s personal experience/preference/evaluation tells them that they are not disabled, then you are in no position to tell them that they are.
This ‘couple’ (donor and lesbian) are not guaranteed either. If a straight couple had the same high chances they do, would it be okay? Why can’t you answer that simple question?
And you’re a moron without enough empathy to not want babies to be purposefully maimed, except in one special case which is different in a way you can’t explain. Having a baby you know will be deaf is INTENTIONALLY and purposefully having a deaf baby. Thinking ‘oh I hope it’s not deaf’ means nothing if you know ahead of time it will be. What’s so fucking hard about this concept that you bang and froth at the keyboard rather than grasp it?
I understand all that. What I don’t understand is how it doesn’t then follow that parents should NOT have children if they know that the chances of a defect are very high, and if they can do nothing to alter those chances. How is the desire to have a biological child of one’s own regardless not just as selfish? Why are you all not condemning those who could seek other routes but don’t because they want a ‘bio’ baby badly enough to allow it to be born deaf?
How then shall I point out that your argument is logically bankrupt but not implicate you in that statement? “With all due respect, your argument is babbling?”
(ahem)
Actually, what I said was that such a belief was moronic fluffy-bunnyism. Although yes, if you’d prefer, they, themselves, are morons. Not having an ability is not having an ability no matter how you want to spin it. It’s objective.
They are deliberately maiming their baby.
I find no reason to put on kid gloves to discuss such an abhorent action.
If people merely make sure an assertion? Maybe, depends on how annoying they’re being. If they deliberately maim their baby because of it, yes, cause for insult.
Not a strawman. Either you agree that those are objective facts which personal prefrence does not change, or you disagree. It’s binary. I’ve pointed out a reason why your argument is flawed, not made a strawman.
Both your denial and your accustion that I’m lying are bullshit. You have, repeatedly, argued for deafness not being a disability due to personal views. Why you seek to deny it now is beyond me.
Wow. Does it really not bother you to call me a liar, and then do exactly what you claimed I was lying about a sentence later? Does it not bother you to deny doing something, and then do it right after you deny it?
Not hearing is a disability! Personal experiences cannot eliminate that fact. And you are, indeed, unable to grasp that it seems. No strawman.
I am tired of you, you fucking pro intentional baby-maiming waste of space. You can babble at a wall after this.
Nobody said it was you goalpost shifting shit muncher! The point is, as I have said and bolded many times, is that they are maximizing their risk.
Becuase your analogy is stupid, as I already pointed out you damn moron! If a straight couple used sperm donors and then deliberately tried to maximize the chance of having a child with birth defects then it would not be a good thing.
No you stupid piece of shit, I’ve explained it several times. You’re just too fucking stupid to understand.
In one case it isn’t on purpose and in one case it is! God, you are unbelievably stupid. Again, stick with a useful analogy instead of your goalshifting idiocy. Straight couple who uses a sperm bank and chooses to get DNA which has the highest chance of maiming their child.
You are a worthless waste of space pro-baby maiming idiot. Fuck you.
They do not know that you fucking moron. Read. Learn. Shut the fuck up!
That’s why the entire issues comes down to intent and purposefully trying to maim a baby.
God, you are one ignorant maggot. Deaf parents can have hearing children, moron.
That’s quite a statement coming from an ignorant loudmouthed pro intentional baby-maiming moron like yourself.
Yes, but these parents (the lesbian and the donor) cannot. If they were a straight couple, their children would be deaf. My question is, would it be okay for them to have children just because they wanted children, knowing that?
You are again being an ignorant fuck, and I already gave you a cite that evidently you haven’t read. Your stupid and ignorant bullshit about genetics and heritability is not worth my time. If you don’t understand that deaf parents can have their own biological offspring who can hear, I can’t help you. If you don’t understand what maximizing the risk means, I cannot help you.
In any case, as I said, you are a loathesome pro intentional-baby-maiming schmuck.
Go bother someone else.
It appears to me that you are being a bit disingenuous. Above, you said that
And now you are saying that electively producing a deaf child is “maiming” them.
You could indicate how my argument is bankrupt. You could start by addressing my argument. You do not appear to have understood what my argument is, which may be why you haven’t addressed it.
I am not arguing that they are not deaf. I am not arguing that they cannot hear. I am not arguing that they lack an ability that you have. I am not even arguing that they are not disabled. What I am doing is questioning your assertion that
because many people don’t consider being born deaf to be “maimed.”
I agree. What’s the problem? I am not arguing that they cannot hear. I am arguing that being deaf is not equivalent to being maimed.
You pointed out that my argument (remember, that being deaf != being maimed) is flawed by telling me that personal experience cannot make a deaf person hear, and furthermore that I do not agree that personal experience cannot make a deaf person hear. So it’s a two-fer: a strawman that, even if true, would still not address my argument.
My point is PRECISELY THAT being unable to hear does not necessarily mean being disabled. I am agreeing that personal experience is utterly irrelevant to being able to hear; it is no way inconsistent for me to then disagree that personal experience is irrelevant to being disabled because that is what my argument is.
Please get this straight: I am questioning your assumption that being deaf = a disability = being maimed. Can you repeat that back to me, in your own words, because I don’t think you understand what it means. (That would be much more productive than calling me names and cursing a lot.) If you cannot do that, then please just leave me be, because we have no shared basis from which to argue this point.