NationStates Jolt Archive

New fertility legislation will make it illegal to use embryos with a known genetic abnormality in IVF treatment when ones without the same defect are available.

Seems uncontroversial enough; if you have two embryos, you use the one without a genetic abnormality. No one would have a problem with that, would they?

Now a deaf couple have turned this on its head: far from wanting a flawless child they actively want a baby which suffers the same hearing difficulties as they themselves.

In short, the argument is as follows: the couple don't believe that being deaf is a disability. Rather, it is:
the key to a rich culture which has its own language, history and traditions: a world deaf parents would naturally want to share with any offspring.

Moreover, they argue that to prefer a hearing embryo over a deaf one is tantamount to discrimination.

But to others - both those who can hear and those who cannot - deliberately bringing a child with a disability into the world when one without could be born verges on the morally repugnant.

So, what are your thoughts on the matter? Is it wrong to deliberately bring a disabled child into the world, or, alternatively, is it wrong to say that the chance to have such disabled children is a choice we shouldn't have?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7287508.stm

Lack of hearing is a disability, no matter how you look at it. It's the loss of a sense, the lack of which is very problematic without proper aid.

In short? Those parents are fucking bonkers. I suppose that if somebody was born missing a testicle, he'd want his son to be born without one as well? Ugh.

He could hear and still share their culture...that's probably what happens in almost every other case.

In my mind, having a baby is not buying a car. You're talking about creating a human being here, not an automaton that will meet your every expectation. While I understand (and agree with) attempts to ensure that a child will not be physically or mentally disadvantaged, trying to design your child based on personal preference is not something I can condone.

Now, should it be legal? My instinct is to say yes, however disturbing I might find it. But, then again, I don't live in a country where the IVF or the medical treatment for the child would be paid for by the state.

If you think it's wrong, how can you say that you think it should be legal?

"But the fact that they cannot give the deaf child preference over the hearing, Mr Lichy contends, suggests that his life as a deaf person is not one worth living."

Interesting. Wouldn't it also follow, then, that giving the deaf child preference over the hearing suggests that life as a hearing person is not one worth living?

Let's say we accept the idea that deafness is a cultural trait and not a defect. At that point, isn't choosing an embryo based upon the fact that the child will be deaf essentially equivalent to picking and choosing blue eyes and blonde hair? Or choosing one with genetics that could make the child more athletic? Or more intelligent?

In my mind, having a baby is not buying a car. You're talking about creating a human being here, not an automaton that will meet your every expectation. While I understand (and agree with) attempts to ensure that a child will not be physically or mentally disadvantaged, trying to design your child based on personal preference is not something I can condone.

Now, should it be legal? My instinct is to say yes, however disturbing I might find it. But, then again, I don't live in a country where the IVF or the medical treatment for the child would be paid for by the state.

why don't they just deafen the baby when its born :confused:

I think the police tend to frown on that sort of thing... :p

From what I've come to know of people who have been fully inculcated into "deaf culture", they've heavily internalized their identity as deaf people. They've turned their disability as the single most defining element of their personalities, and they view any attempts to change or leave the deaf society, either through surgery or other means, as veritably a form of treason. It's like the Amish...refusing to enter the same world as everyone else for some illogical reason or another.

I think all sorts of things are wrong but should still be legal.

Do you think that everything you personally believe is wrong should be illegal?

Nope, but I'm also not a slave to this line of thought that states "well, I think it's wrong, but wrong is relative so I'm not going to ban it".

Perhaps there are some things that are 'relative' wrongs, but there are also things that are just wrong, full stop. When something falls into that category, we shouldn't be afraid to say it.

I frankly have a lot more of a problem with a law mandating which embryos must be selected than with any family's preferences, especially when that law uses terminology like "genetic abnormality." Who decides how "abnormal" the embryo gets to be? Red hair could be called a "genetic abnormality," but somehow I doubt we intend to exclude embryos based on future hair color. Lethal conditions might also be "genetic abnormalities," and should almost certainly be excluded...but in between hair color and death, there's a great big grey area where if anyone gets a say, it ought to be the potential parents, not the government.

why don't they just deafen the baby when its born :confused:

also this is stupid, they seem to want a deaf baby so it will fit their standards when thats not really what children do (maybe we should have the baby born and then arrest them for child abuse?)

They are not fit to be parents. Mr. and Mrs. Lichy, we need you to leave a couple body parts at the door.

There certainly is a form of this "deaf culture" in Britain. Deaf people have thier own "See/Hear" program and magazine produced by the BBC, for instance. On the program, there is occasionally political discussion centering around deaf issues brought up in Parliament, amongst other things.

There are Deaf Cultural Centres in a number of cities. The Bishop of Birmingham recently opened a "Deaf Church" in the cities DCC.

If you think it's wrong, how can you say that you think it should be legal?

I think all sorts of things are wrong but should still be legal.

Do you think that everything you personally believe is wrong should be illegal?

If the kid wants to be deaf, he or she should be free to handicap him/herself thusly at an appropiate age.

However, I do not see why that should be the parents decision. It is going to be his/her life.

i dont know what embrionic test tests for deafness but id suggest to the couple that they DONT test for it and take what they get.

Nope, but I'm also not a slave to this line of thought that states "well, I think it's wrong, but wrong is relative so I'm not going to ban it".

Perhaps there are some things that are 'relative' wrongs, but there are also things that are just wrong, full stop. When something falls into that category, we shouldn't be afraid to say it.

Agreed. While we should be willing to take a degree of relativism into consideration when discussing appropriate policies, we must also admit that there are some things that are entirely unacceptable to such a vast bulk of society, that it cannot be overruled.

So, what are your thoughts on the matter? Is it wrong to deliberately bring a disabled child into the world, or, alternatively, is it wrong to say that the chance to have such disabled children is a choice we shouldn't have?

You have it all wrong. The parents aren't doing this because they want a deaf child, they are doing this because they believe in Lamarckian Evolution!

You have it all wrong. The parents aren't doing this because they want a deaf child, they are doing this because they believe in Lamarckian Evolution!

W00T Lamarckian Evolution! Let's bust out the Lysenko, too!

Seems uncontroversial enough; if you have two embryos, you use the one without a genetic abnormality. No one would have a problem with that, would they?



In short, the argument is as follows: the couple don't believe that being deaf is a disability. Rather, it is:


So, what are your thoughts on the matter? Is it wrong to deliberately bring a disabled child into the world, or, alternatively, is it wrong to say that the chance to have such disabled children is a choice we shouldn't have?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7287508.stm

I think it's wrong to pick and choose either way.

Designer fetuses reek of dystopia.

Lethal conditions might also be "genetic abnormalities," and should almost certainly be excluded...but in between hair color and death, there's a great big grey area where if anyone gets a say, it ought to be the potential parents, not the government.

1) the government (well the NHS) has so far been very strict on what it does and does not allow when it comes to embryo selection

2) because all parents can be trusted?

Perhaps there are some things that are 'relative' wrongs, but there are also things that are just wrong, full stop. When something falls into that category, we shouldn't be afraid to say it.

sadly it would be a bit strange then to ban this and still allow female genital mutilation?

1) the government (well the NHS) has so far been very strict on what it does and does not allow when it comes to embryo selection

I'm afraid I'm really not well-informed on what the NHS does and doesn't allow in this regard, so I can't really comment on that. I do object very strongly to the potential law mentioned in the OP, though, as it appears to require doctors to select for certain traits whether the parents like it or not.

2) because all parents can be trusted?

Of course not. Hence my use of the words "if anyone." I am not a big fan of the idea of screening embryos for anything beyond life-threatening issues, to be honest. Seeing as deafness is hardly a life-threatening illness, I don't see any reason for those embryos to be selected for OR against - but if anyone gets to make that selection, I'd rather it be the parents.

W00T Lamarckian Evolution! Let's bust out the Lysenko, too!

Da comrade!

Would you like to help me perform some large-scale agricultural programs as well?

Really? I always thought that they smelled of amniotic fluid and reeked of Gouchi :p.

Instead of a placenta, they're born in a Prada bag. :p

I think it's wrong to pick and choose either way.

Designer fetuses reek of dystopia.

Really? I always thought that they smelled of amniotic fluid and reeked of Gouchi :p.

I think that it's people like this who will be the death of the human gene pool.

Instead of a placenta, they're born in a Prada bag. :p

Prada is so last season. The new craze is Louis Vuitton.

sadly it would be a bit strange then to ban this and still allow female genital mutilation?

Who allows female genital mutilation, the NHS? :confused:

Just to throw my 2cents in - I fully support this couple. There is NOTHING wrong with being Deaf, I have many Deaf friends and trust me they DO NOT feel handicapped in anyway. I would be delighted to have a Deaf Child so I can share the beautiful language of Sign Language with it and introduce it to Deaf Culture.

Assume they get a hearing baby. Do you support their right to make it deaf ?

What did you say? Eh?

He could hear and still share their culture...that's probably what happens in almost every other case.


Nah, not really. Being Deaf is a major part of Deaf culture - he could be on the fringes but never fully accepted.

Are whites accepted into black culture? I mean, fully accepted, as in 'we cant do this thing without Steve' not just as in 'hey, Steve, lets hang out some time'

Just to throw my 2cents in - I fully support this couple. There is NOTHING wrong with being Deaf, I have many Deaf friends and trust me they DO NOT feel handicapped in anyway. I would be delighted to have a Deaf Child so I can share the beautiful language of Sign Language with it and introduce it to Deaf Culture.

The Deaf Community is so tight-knit that everyone knows everyone else, its basically like having a huge extended family which reaches into every city in the UK (if we talk solely about the UK Deaf Community). Just imagine moving to a new city and already knowing people - having a place to hang out with people who are like you and share your goals, hopes, fears, experiences and difficulties. Free support group ftw! Who wouldn't want their child to be a part of that? It can be a huge benefit - being connected to so many people. I know it sounds weird but when it comes down to it - Deaf people want to make friends with other deaf people, so if you're a deaf person you can walk into a Deaf Club and have a room full of people who actively want to befriend you, its not like walking into a hearing pub where people will look at you like you're mad if you say 'hi' to them at the bar. Basically, you just have a source of friends for life, and so being Deaf is much less isolating than people think, theres always a Deaf club around for people to meet up in.

Besides its been said that Deafness is just a social disability anyway so, yeah, I support this couple. They should be allowed to have whatever baby they want.

Just to throw my 2cents in - I fully support this couple. There is NOTHING wrong with being Deaf, I have many Deaf friends and trust me they DO NOT feel handicapped in anyway. I would be delighted to have a Deaf Child so I can share the beautiful language of Sign Language with it and introduce it to Deaf Culture.

And being able to hear means you cannot learn sign language? Or understand your parents' culture?

Clearly this means that deaf children raised by hearing parents never understand their parents or their culture?

The Deaf Community is so tight-knit that everyone knows everyone else, its basically like having a huge extended family which reaches into every city in the UK (if we talk solely about the UK Deaf Community).

And....they avoid hearing people like the plague or something?

You can learn and understand but thats not what I said - theres a difference between understanding a culture and being a part of it.

Since my question timewarped to the previous page you probably did not see it - so I will ask again here:

Assume the parents get a hearing child. Do they have the right to make it deaf ?

And being able to hear means you cannot learn sign language? Or understand your parents' culture?

Clearly this means that deaf children raised by hearing parents never understand their parents or their culture?



And....they avoid hearing people like the plague or something?

I'm still waiting for the blind to chime in and say, "I want the doctor to poke my newborn's eyes out, because I want my child to be blind, too..."

And being able to hear means you cannot learn sign language? Or understand your parents' culture?

Clearly this means that deaf children raised by hearing parents never understand their parents or their culture?

You can learn and understand but thats not what I said - theres a difference between understanding a culture and being a part of it.


And....they avoid hearing people like the plague or something?

Well, not like the plague, but like some sort of weird vicious flesh-eating bacteria lol. Obviously all Deaf people have to come into contact with hearing regularly but as for becoming friends? It depends, you get some hardcore Deaf people who would rather chew their own arms off than associate with Hearing people for longer than they have to and then you get quite a few who are willing to intermix and even intermarry, then you have the majority who are willing to intermix and have hearing friends but feel closer and more connected to their Deaf friends. Its all about shared experiences and culture really.

Da comrade!

Would you like to help me perform some large-scale agricultural programs as well?

Certainly! I know the appropriate methodology quite well! Let us tend to the fields...for socialism!

...and send any foolish enough to disagree with us to the gulag...

You can learn and understand but thats not what I said - theres a difference between understanding a culture and being a part of it.

So deaf people are part of their own culture, rather than part of the larger culture?

Well, not like the plague, but like some sort of weird vicious flesh-eating bacteria lol. Obviously all Deaf people have to come into contact with hearing regularly but as for becoming friends? It depends, you get some hardcore Deaf people who would rather chew their own arms off than associate with Hearing people for longer than they have to and then you get quite a few who are willing to intermix and even intermarry, then you have the majority who are willing to intermix and have hearing friends but feel closer and more connected to their Deaf friends. Its all about shared experiences and culture really.

Sounds like bigotry and isolationism to me.

Replace "deaf" with a given ethnicity in that paragraph and what do you get?

The parents seem selfish - surely if you had a child you would want it to have equal opportunities as every other child?

I should point out I am talking about Deaf people here - not those people with hearing aids who talk and lipread, they're 'deaf, not 'Deaf'. The distinction is small but very important to Deaf people.

So deaf people are part of their own culture, rather than part of the larger culture?

Perhaps a sub-culture more than anything. Certainly they don't regard themselves as part of Hearing culture and most of them say they are "Deaf First, [Nationality] Second"



Sounds like bigotry and isolationism to me.

Replace "deaf" with a given ethnicity in that paragraph and what do you get?

Beleive me I am on your side with this one - I hate this 'Anti-Hearing' prejudice in the Deaf Community! lol The term 'Hearing' is used by Deaf children as an insult, they call each other Hearing to try and wind each other up, a few adults do it too but you can generally steer clear of them.

But for every rabidly-anti-hearing Deaf person there is at least one who is willing to tolerate Hearing people. Maybe not like but certainly tolerate. So we are getting there just slowly.

The parents seem selfish - surely if you had a child you would want it to have equal opportunities as every other child?

That is one of the issues, yes. The child will be a person, not a plaything for the parents.

Of course - if you say you can not "damage" a child it gets pretty hard to forbid "enhancing" it.

And I am stil waiting for Tapaos response to my question :p

They should be allowed to have whatever baby they want.

Erm, this may seem a little weird, but lets just say you were an embryo, and your parents were both deaf - would you want to be born deaf just becuase you'd have a better social life? The baby would miss out on so much in life.
I don't think parents should have the right to deicde - it would be like having a baby catalogue, with a deaf, blind, blue eyed sections.

The parents seem selfish - surely if you had a child you would want it to have equal opportunities as every other child?

I don't know - these days you have 'Text-Talk' so Deaf people can use the phone, Interpreters so Deaf people can attend school and University and get as much out of it as other students, Mobile phones so deaf people can text their friends, vibrating alarm clocks so deaf people can be woken up, flashing doorbells so deaf people can answer the door, flashing fire alarms so deaf people know when theres a fire, vibrating pagers so deaf people can know if their baby is crying or if someones trying to get in touch with them. And of course - theres no law against deaf people going into pubs and you dont need to be able to hear the music to go out and get completely wrecked and make a tit of yourself on the dancefloor lol

Deaf people don't miss out on as many opportunities as people think!

lol and in answer to your question no they dont. Once a baby is born its completely immoral to make it deaf OR hearing lol. Its one thing to tamper with a hypothetical baby in a pre-implantation stage and quite another to take a baby from its mother and deafen it (or make it hearing, though I dont know how you would do that after birth lol)

Intruiging. So basicly in your view the situation for the Deaf couple is:
"Either we get a Deaf child or no child at all".
Which would mean the child cannot complain, since it would not exist at all if it would not have been Deaf. This reasoning is not entirely solid and has some problems, but can be expanded and improved.

However.. the "not being allowed to make it hear" part would not be accepted by most people I think.

Since my question timewarped to the previous page you probably did not see it - so I will ask again here:

Assume the parents get a hearing child. Do they have the right to make it deaf ?

Sorry, I didnt see this. I noticed it said on teh front page you were the last person to post on this thread and I spent several confused minutes staring at my post on the screen going "but thats my post! Stupid Jolt!!"


lol and in answer to your question no they dont. Once a baby is born its completely immoral to make it deaf OR hearing lol. Its one thing to tamper with a hypothetical baby in a pre-implantation stage and quite another to take a baby from its mother and deafen it (or make it hearing, though I dont know how you would do that after birth lol)

Erm, this may seem a little weird, but lets just say you were an embryo, and your parents were both deaf - would you want to be born deaf just becuase you'd have a better social life? The baby would miss out on so much in life.
I don't think parents should have the right to deicde - it would be like having a baby catalogue, with a deaf, blind, blue eyed sections.

Well I dunno really - I mean, I think babies would benefit enormously from sharing a culture with their parents but then being born hearing hasn't wrecked any of our lives! lol. It just all depends, Deafness has its advantages and disadvantages and so does being Hearing. Personally, I dont think we should be tampering with nature but IF there were two embryons, one deaf and one hearing then it is perfectly acceptable (IMO) to either say 'we'll try the deaf one' or 'we'll try the hearing one'. I would never advocate deafening a hearing embryo or vice versa.

lol and in answer to your question no they dont. Once a baby is born its completely immoral to make it deaf OR hearing lol. Its one thing to tamper with a hypothetical baby in a pre-implantation stage and quite another to take a baby from its mother and deafen it (or make it hearing, though I dont know how you would do that after birth lol)

There are cochlear, I think thats the spelling, implants can let deaf children hear.

Why is it immoral to give them the ability to hear?

This all sounds great and maybe in a few years time deaf people will have exactly the same opportunities as other people, but I've never seen any of these things.

I have seen all of them - Im guessing you just havent had much exposure to Deaf people IRL?

There are cochlear, I think thats the spelling, implants can let deaf children hear.

Why is it immoral to give them the ability to hear?

Your spelling was correct sir! :)

And Cochlear Implants (or CI's as I will from now on be calling them as I cant be bothered typing those words out over and over again) are nice in their way.

But they are NOT a magic wand. They only enhance what hearing is already there. They CANNOT make a profoundly deaf child able to hear. They can make a hearing-impaired child slightly less hearing impaired but thats it. And have you ever tried listening through a CI? Everything sounds the bloomin' same.

Doctors speak very highly of CI's but the people who actually have them and have to use them everyday are actually very negative about them.

So I personally am very against CIs purely because they don't work AS WELL as doctors like to tell us and to be honest - imagine being told as a child 'you're defective and you need this CI to make you normal', very damaging to the psyche I would imagine.

The long list of dangerous potential side-effects from the operation and the fact there is not even any guarantee that the operation will be a success anyway mean that to me CI's just arent worth the risk and expense.

"But the fact that they cannot give the deaf child preference over the hearing, Mr Lichy contends, suggests that his life as a deaf person is not one worth living."
It suggests nothing of the sort. It might suggest that the deaf life is less worth living, but not that it isn't worth living. Alternately, you could look at this as society stating that deaf lives are inefficient, or create an undue burden on society in its attempts to accomodate them (look at blind people - because of them we now have beeping pedestrian crossings).

Deaf history and traditions: Deaf people managed to overcome diversity in order to be.. deaf! Hurray. They achieve nothing. A hearing child of deaf parents will be perfectly capable and integrated into the "deaf community" just as a deaf child would and still actually be able to live in the hearing world with the rest of the people without a problem. One would think this would amount to child abuse. I don't think people are allowed to go around surgically removing their kid's ability to hear are they?

I wanna know what happens when a child grows up and learned their parents pretty much made them deaf. I would be fucking pissed. Being estranged by their only child would teach them.

NO! no no no....NO!! Just f***ing NO! And please, none of the usual relativist bullsh!t. Not with something like this.


Nope, but I'm also not a slave to this line of thought that states "well, I think it's wrong, but wrong is relative so I'm not going to ban it".

Perhaps there are some things that are 'relative' wrongs, but there are also things that are just wrong, full stop. When something falls into that category, we shouldn't be afraid to say it.
That sums up my views on it and many other things. blah!

Deaf history and traditions: Deaf people managed to overcome diversity in order to be.. deaf! Hurray. They achieve nothing. A hearing child of deaf parents will be perfectly capable and integrated into the "deaf community" just as a deaf child would and still actually be able to live in the hearing world with the rest of the people without a problem.
Oh yes, no problems what-so-ever! :rolleyes: It's damn hard to be integrated into something that you cannot experience.

couldn't they have a normal baby and just make the kid wear earmuffs?

Oh yes, no problems what-so-ever! :rolleyes: It's damn hard to be integrated into something that you cannot experience.

I dunno. Ear plugs and ear muffs can pretty much deafen any person able to hear, just like if you put a blindfold over the eyes of someone perfectly able to see, they're technically blind.

On the other hand, a deaf person can't truly experience everything the hearing world has to offer, such as music or radio or having a conversation with a blind person who is able to hear. Hearing can easily be loss by using something long, thin, and pointy in your ear. Deafness is permanent and exluding someone from a culture because he or she has the benefit of being able to hear what goes on behind him or her is like excluding a guy because he can climb a rope or exlcluding a woman because she knows Chinese, which would come in handy in China if she ever goes there.

I dunno. Ear plugs and ear muffs can pretty much deafen any person able to hear, just like if you put a blindfold over the eyes of someone perfectly able to see, they're technically blind.
Ah, no. See, the difference between you with an ear plug and me is that you can remove that ear plug at any time, you don't HAVE to live with it 24/7. You also know, through previous experience know what things sound like, that is something for certain things that I cannot say.

Deafness is permanent and exluding someone from a culture because he or she has the benefit of being able to hear what goes on behind him or her is like excluding a guy because he can climb a rope or exlcluding a woman because she knows Chinese, which would come in handy in China if she ever goes there.
Again though, you cannot know what it is really like to be deaf unless you are deaf. I am half deaf, I have no hearing at all in my left ear due to nerve damage. In many cases it's the other way around, I am excluded from things because I cannot hear, or am inconvenienced (Such as having to wear headphones the wrong way around due to stereo sound).

regulation of "Known genetic abnormalities" = ground-work for mandated Gattaca-style Eugenics. Has nobody in Great Britain's government consumed any science fiction?

Having said that, what's to stop the couple from having the normal baby and then having an "accident" whereby the baby somehow ends up in front of the mains at a Def Lepard concert?

It suggests nothing of the sort. It might suggest that the deaf life is less worth living, but not that it isn't worth living. Alternately, you could look at this as society stating that deaf lives are inefficient, or create an undue burden on society in its attempts to accomodate them (look at blind people - because of them we now have beeping pedestrian crossings).


I don't think being Deaf makes a person's life any less worthy than anothers. It's really the start of a slippery slope to say that.

And what do you have against ensuring blind people aren't hit by cars? ;):D

Again though, you cannot know what it is really like to be deaf unless you are deaf. I am half deaf, I have no hearing at all in my left ear due to nerve damage. In many cases it's the other way around, I am excluded from things because I cannot hear, or am inconvenienced (Such as having to wear headphones the wrong way around due to stereo sound).

Exactly, thank you Nervun. This is one of the reasons why there is a Deaf Community. Deaf people want to be around people who know what they are going through and who wont judge them based on the stupid stereotypes society has of people who are unable to hear.

It's also why I (and the Deaf Community as a whole) maintain that deafness is a social disability, and not a physical one. Society disables Deaf people by not accommodating their needs (such as flashing fire alarms etc) and not learning how to communicate with them (Sign language etc), and its not a physical disability as such but more of an alternative way of living.

It's also why I (and the Deaf Community as a whole) maintain that deafness is a social disability, and not a physical one. Society disables Deaf people by not accommodating their needs (such as flashing fire alarms etc) and not learning how to communicate with them (Sign language etc), and its not a physical disability as such but more of an alternative way of living.

How do you feel about blindness?

How do you feel about blindness?

I feel pretty good about it, actually. :D I'm certainly not going to hop onto a bandwagon and say that because someone can't see they are less worthy or less deserving of life.

Oh, I don't know. Suppose tomorrow I invent something that can make certain no baby will ever be born deaf (or blind, or whatever you pick) again, without any sideeffects.

Would that be a blessing to humanity or not ?

Most people would say yes, I'm not sure however. Sends out a pretty negative message to the already existing blind/deaf/etc people though doesnt it? In my personal opinion, I wouldn't want such an invention for deafness. If your machine could zap away cancer or, I don't know, severe mental retardation I would use it, but not for removing deafness. I know thats a huge doublestandard but its how I feel. :)

I don't think being Deaf makes a person's life any less worthy than anothers. It's really the start of a slippery slope to say that.

Oh, I don't know. Suppose tomorrow I invent something that can make certain no baby will ever be born deaf (or blind, or whatever you pick) again, without any sideeffects.

Would that be a blessing to humanity or not ?

I feel pretty good about it, actually. :D I'm certainly not going to hop onto a bandwagon and say that because someone can't see they are less worthy or less deserving of life.

Seems to be a strawman. Apart from maybe a couple in this thread, people don't generally suggest that deaf people are somehow inferior. For example, I see nothing wrong with those with cancer or any other illness forming their own culture, worldviews etc. and they're certainly not less deserving of life than the healthy. This does not prevent me from considering cancer a negative condition. Now, do you consider blindess a physical disability?

Seems to be a strawman. Apart from maybe a couple in this thread, people don't generally suggest that deaf people are somehow inferior. For example, I see nothing wrong with those with cancer or any other illness forming their own culture, worldviews etc. and they're certainly not less deserving of life than the healthy. This does not prevent me from considering cancer a negative condition. Now, do you consider blindess a physical disability?

I do consider it a physical disability, yes, and I'm aware theres probably a post coming quite soon about how I seem a bit hypocritical in considering blindness a physical disability and deafness only a social one. But I can't help how I feel, really. I can see the wisdom in both sides of the argument but I happen to believe one more, lol.


The idea of a Cancer Community is intriguing, I must admit, but I believe the difference between the Deaf Community and the 'Cancer Community' is that noone has died of deafness, AFAIK. I consider Cancer a negative condition too, because it can kill people but Deafness doesn't therefore I don't believe the two are comparable.

Sends out a pretty negative message to the already existing blind/deaf/etc people though doesnt it?

Hmm, no, not really. Or perhaps I miss it.
What negative message were you thinking about ?

I do consider it a physical disability, yes, and I'm aware theres probably a post coming quite soon about how I seem a bit hypocritical in considering blindness a physical disability and deafness only a social one. But I can't help how I feel, really. I can see the wisdom in both sides of the argument but I happen to believe one more, lol.

Well, okay, at least you're honest.

The idea of a Cancer Community is intriguing, I must admit, but I believe the difference between the Deaf Community and the 'Cancer Community' is that noone has died of deafness, AFAIK. I consider Cancer a negative condition too, because it can kill people but Deafness doesn't therefore I don't believe the two are comparable.

Not the best criteria for whether something is a negative condition. Paraplegia, Parkinson's or even the flu (well, sometimes) won't kill, but you don't exactly want them.

Hmm, no, not really. Or perhaps I miss it.
What negative message were you thinking about ?

That they are so defective that science has had to devote time to finding a way to eradicate people like them (and I'm aware you weren't advocating killing deaf/blind or even deaf-blind people lol). That they are a burden on society and therefore must be removed. That they have nothing to contribute to society and so science has invented a way to get rid of them.

I know that removing someones blindness/deafness won't take away their intelligence and therefore their ability to contribute to society, but the vast majority of people's contributions to society - their art, poetry, writings, comedy etc etc etc - are based or have their roots in their life experiences and culture. To take away deafness is to remove Deaf Culture and for science to take away Deaf Culture by removing deafness sends out a message that Deaf Culture has nothing of value to contribute to society. And to say that Deaf Culture has no value is to devalue the people who produce artwork, theatre, novels etc all subtly influenced by their culture ie Deaf Culture.

I'm really sorry about the above paragraph, for some reason I can't make my thoughts turn into coherent sentences on the page, but I hope you see what I mean. Basically by taking away deafness you're saying that Deaf Culture itself is worthless (no Deaf Culture without Deaf people) and therefore that anyone who is Deaf (Big D, remember) has nothing to contribute to society because their culture is worthless, that is, if you accept the premise that people are shaped by their culture.

Does that make sense? It makes sense to me but that could just be because I'm the one who's writing it lol

Well, okay, at least you're honest.



Not the best criteria for whether something is a negative condition. Paraplegia, Parkinson's or even the flu (well, sometimes) won't kill, but you don't exactly want them.

Sorry, yes, my phrasing was a little off there. What I meant was that Cancer can kill which is why I consider it a negative condition, I didn't mean to imply that I consider only potentially fatal illnesses etc as negative conditions.

Does that make sense? It makes sense to me but that could just be because I'm the one who's writing it lol

It makes some sense but I don't really think it's a good argument.
I'm glad that you see your deafness as something positive (well, judging from your last posts), but I don't think it really is. There are many artists who have been influenced by their disability. For example: A distant relative of mine has CFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome)and wrote books about it, which she wouldn't have done if she didn't have this disability. Lately she has decided to be euthanized because she "was tired of her life". Her addition to culture wouldn't be there without her disability, but that didn't make her disability good. Other examples would be people with depression etc. Art and culture is often inspired by the 'disabilities' (I use this in a very broad sense of the word) of the people making it.
Another example would be the culture of slaves (art and languages inspired by slavery), I don't think it was bad to abolish slavery even though it kind of stopped the culture.

I'm not saying that deafness is comparable to CFS, depression or slavery, but I think they're all good examples of bad things contributing to society and culture. Finding a solution for these problems would be a good thing imo, as would finding a solution to deafness (although I agree that finding a cure for other disabilities probably has higher priority).

I personally think that almost everyone who has never experienced hearing or deafness (I know this is impossible, but try to imagine someone like that) and who could choose to be born with or without hearing (if not all) would choose to be able to hear. I think deafness is a negative condition, it's harder to communicate with a majority of people who don't know sign language, you can't hear music or other enjoyable sounds etc. There might be some positive aspects (deaf culture for instance). But I don't think they outweigh the negative aspects. (otherwise it would be stupid not to deafen myself, wouldn't it?)

Also what is your position on hearing aids? And if being deaf wasn't negative wouldn't it be silly to wear one?

I hope I haven't insulted you or something, I don't think deaf people are inferior, I just think 'removing' deaf culture is an acceptable loss when removing deafness.

It makes some sense but I don't really think it's a good argument.
I'm glad that you see your deafness as something positive (well, judging from your last posts), but I don't think it really is. There are many artists who have been influenced by their disability. For example: A distant relative of mine has CFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome)and wrote books about it, which she wouldn't have done if she didn't have this disability. Lately she has decided to be euthanized because she "was tired of her life". Her addition to culture wouldn't be there without her disability, but that didn't make her disability good. Other examples would be people with depression etc. Art and culture is often inspired by the 'disabilities' (I use this in a very broad sense of the word) of the people making it.
Another example would be the culture of slaves (art and languages inspired by slavery), I don't think it was bad to abolish slavery even though it kind of stopped the culture.

I'm not saying that deafness is comparable to CFS, depression or slavery, but I think they're all good examples of bad things contributing to society and culture. Finding a solution for these problems would be a good thing imo, as would finding a solution to deafness (although I agree that finding a cure for other disabilities probably has higher priority).

Those are good examples. :) And I respect your opinion on deafness, its always good to get differing opinions. On the one hand I agree but emotionally I just can't make myself get on board with the idea of eradicating deafness.

I personally think that almost everyone who has never experienced hearing or deafness (I know this is impossible, but try to imagine someone like that) and who could choose to be born with or without hearing (if not all) would choose to be able to hear. I think deafness is a negative condition, it's harder to communicate with a majority of people who don't know sign language,

Again, thats a social disability thing. Society has disabled the deaf people by not learning Sign Language, or even attempting to learn it. Deaf people can communicate perfectly well by themselves, its Society's attitude (in not learning sign) that makes communication a barrier. The Deaf community (well most of them) believe that Sign Language should be taught in schools so that these communication barriers will come crashing down.

you can't hear music or other enjoyable sounds etc.

How can you miss (or feel your life would be enriched by) something you never heard or experienced? Deaf Culture is rich and varied enough to more than make up for whatever Deaf people 'miss out on' by not being able to, I dont know, listen to rappers talking about shooting each other! :)

There might be some positive aspects (deaf culture for instance). But I don't think they outweigh the negative aspects. (otherwise it would be stupid not to deafen myself, wouldn't it?)

Deaf people have the opposite view (and thats not meant to be an aggressive stance or tone, just a statement). They seem to think that hearing culture isn't worth making themselves hearing for. Differing viewpoints I guess lol. Though noone is advocating that all hearing people deafen themselves.

Also what is your position on hearing aids? And if being deaf wasn't negative wouldn't it be silly to wear one?

I'm not entirely sure I understand that last question, I'm afraid. But Ill try to answer it anyway, so if my answer seems a bit 'off' its probably because I misunderstood you so I'm sorry!

My personal position is that I wouldn't wear them. They're silly and uncomfortable. They amplify everything, not just the persons voice so they can create a lot of unnecessary distraction, especially to someone not used to that level of noise.

And the answer to your second question (the one I'm not sure I understood) is a tad more complicated. It all depends on a variety of factors.

94%approx of deaf people are born to hearing parents. Of course hearing parents (with some gentle prodding from their doctors) will all have the same opinion that you do; that deafness is a bad thing and the hearing loss needs to be minimised. So, if they can, they will all have their children fitted with hearing aids. The children that grow up with hearing aids either get used to them and feel they are a 'part of them' like the deafness is a part of them or they will become deaf ('little d' deaf) and feel they need them to communicate using speech and lipreading.

So wearing hearing aids doesnt necessarily mean that the person wearing them thinks being deaf is a bad thing, it could just be that the person has become accustomed to his Hearing Aids and doesn't want to take them off, despite being Deaf, or it could be that they need to wear hearing aids in order to be able to use their chosen communication method (speech and lipreading).

You cant really read too much into it - some Deaf people love to wera Hearing Aids because it is a visual representation of their status as Deaf.


I hope I haven't insulted you or something, I don't think deaf people are inferior, I just think 'removing' deaf culture is an acceptable loss when removing deafness.

If deafness is eradicated who will be around to miss Deaf Culture, eh? :) And no you havent offended me, seems I have this conversation at least once a week lol

How does the deaf community wish to remedy the problem of other sound based forms of communication like e.g. sirens ? Or radio ?

lol the Deaf Community cares as much about not being able to listen to the radio as you do about not being able to understand Lithuanian Parliamentary debates. It all comes back to the 'How can you miss something you've never experienced?' argument.

Sirens, as in Ambulance sirens and the like? Well noone can really miss flashing blue lights and the other cars etc pulling to the side of the road can they? Its not really much of a problem for them.

Again, thats a social disability thing. Society has disabled the deaf people by not learning Sign Language, or even attempting to learn it. Deaf people can communicate perfectly well by themselves, its Society's attitude (in not learning sign) that makes communication a barrier. The Deaf community (well most of them) believe that Sign Language should be taught in schools so that these communication barriers will come crashing down.

How does the deaf community wish to remedy the problem of other sound based forms of communication like e.g. sirens ? Or radio ?

On the one hand I agree but emotionally I just can't make myself get on board with the idea of eradicating deafness.

I can understand that.

Again, thats a social disability thing. Society has disabled the deaf people by not learning Sign Language, or even attempting to learn it. Deaf people can communicate perfectly well by themselves, its Society's attitude (in not learning sign) that makes communication a barrier. The Deaf community (well most of them) believe that Sign Language should be taught in schools so that these communication barriers will come crashing down.

I agree that there are many things that could be done to help disabled people. Learning sign language, improving pavements for people in wheelchairs etc are all good examples. I think there could be done more to accommodate to the disabled, but eradicating deafness on the other hand seems the best solution possible. Like letting the cripple walk again would probably be the best solution for those in wheelchairs. Of course it would be bad for the people who care a lot about wheelchair-rugby (or other forms of culture for those in a wheelchair) for instance, but I think overall the benefits would outweigh the costs.

How can you miss (or feel your life would be enriched by) something you never heard or experienced? Deaf Culture is rich and varied enough to more than make up for whatever Deaf people 'miss out on' by not being able to, I dont know, listen to rappers talking about shooting each other! :)

I agree that you can't miss it, but it isn't really about people that are already deaf, it's about the people who aren't yet born. I think the experience of sound would be preferable to deafness to those who haven't experienced either one.

Deaf people have the opposite view (and thats not meant to be an aggressive stance or tone, just a statement). They seem to think that hearing culture isn't worth making themselves hearing for. Differing viewpoints I guess lol. Though noone is advocating that all hearing people deafen themselves.

well, again, this is about prevention. I'm not in the position to say which culture is more enjoyable, but overall I think most people would prefer to be born hearing, even if it's just for the fact that it would make life easier (being able to ask the route to random persons on the street for instance).

My personal position is that I wouldn't wear them. They're silly and uncomfortable. They amplify everything, not just the persons voice so they can create a lot of unnecessary distraction, especially to someone not used to that level of noise.

Well, I have no experience with them but I heard that modern hearing aids can be finetuned to amplify the frequencies someone with bad hearing can't hear or those regions which are used for speech.

And the answer to your second question (the one I'm not sure I understood) is a tad more complicated. It all depends on a variety of factors.

94%approx of deaf people are born to hearing parents. Of course hearing parents (with some gentle prodding from their doctors) will all have the same opinion that you do; that deafness is a bad thing and the hearing loss needs to be minimised. So, if they can, they will all have their children fitted with hearing aids. The children that grow up with hearing aids either get used to them and feel they are a 'part of them' like the deafness is a part of them or they will become deaf ('little d' deaf) and feel they need them to communicate using speech and lipreading.

So wearing hearing aids doesnt necessarily mean that the person wearing them thinks being deaf is a bad thing, it could just be that the person has become accustomed to his Hearing Aids and doesn't want to take them off, despite being Deaf, or it could be that they need to wear hearing aids in order to be able to use their chosen communication method (speech and lipreading).

You cant really read too much into it - some Deaf people love to wera Hearing Aids because it is a visual representation of their status as Deaf.

Well, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I agree that you can't miss it, but it isn't really about people that are already deaf, it's about the people who aren't yet born. I think the experience of sound would be preferable to deafness to those who haven't experienced either one.

I agree with this - sorry, I thought you were talking about Deaf people who were already born, not pre-birth, sorry I should learn to read lol! Though I should point out also that I think tampering with a baby in a womb is morally wrong too.



well, again, this is about prevention. I'm not in the position to say which culture is more enjoyable, but overall I think most people would prefer to be born hearing, even if it's just for the fact that it would make life easier (being able to ask the route to random persons on the street for instance).

The current educational policies (at least in Britain) lean very much towards Oralism and Deaf children are forced to learn how to talk and lipread in school, and are taught with this method too (which explains the bad exam grades that many deaf people get). So you will find that many Deaf people who use Sign Language as their preferred mode of communication are also fairly proficient lipreaders, and therefore are able to communicate quite well with hearing people when they need to. Of course it varies from person to person, there are some that can't lipread at all and some who can do it very well and some who are in the middle. So its just as inaccurate to say 'deaf people are unable to ask for directions and understand the response' as it is to say 'deaf people dont need sign language, they can learn to speak and lipread and manage perfectly well like that.'

But I get what you're saying, it would be more convenient for everyone to remove deafness from the equation but who is to say that the more convenient option is automatically the best, eh?

The experience of not being able to hear? Absurd. They will be perfectly fluent in sign language and thus can integrate fine.

You'd think so - but for a lot of Deaf people it is more important to be Deaf than it is to be fluent in Sign Language. You will often find people being rejected by new friends when their friend discovers they can hear.

Oh yes, no problems what-so-ever! :rolleyes: It's damn hard to be integrated into something that you cannot experience.
The experience of not being able to hear? Absurd. They will be perfectly fluent in sign language and thus can integrate fine.

I can understand that.Well, I have no experience with them but I heard that modern hearing aids can be finetuned to amplify the frequencies someone with bad hearing can't hear or those regions which are used for speech.

The most common way to do that is by amplifying the frequencies that human speech occupies. You get speech clearer than most background noise, though it is still a bit fuzzy.

Exactly, thank you Nervun. This is one of the reasons why there is a Deaf Community. Deaf people want to be around people who know what they are going through and who wont judge them based on the stupid stereotypes society has of people who are unable to hear.
Because a hearing child of deaf parents totally won't get it :rolleyes:

It's also why I (and the Deaf Community as a whole) maintain that deafness is a social disability, and not a physical one.
Mass stupidity doesn't make it any less stupid.

Society disables Deaf people by not accommodating their needs (such as flashing fire alarms etc) and not learning how to communicate with them (Sign language etc),
Every fire alarm I have seen flashes. But because society can't realistically solve your disability does not mean it is a social disability. It is a physical disability, discussion over. And from the repeated attempts by you (and for the deaf community) to classify it as a social disability, I can only assume you have no intent of trying to help yourself and if you have no intention of helping yourself, and want to try and force your disability on your offspring, I have no respect for you.

And since deafness is a physical disability, deaf people have to be accommodated where ever they decide to work or live. However, if you want to argue that it isn't a physical disability, I'm sure all the greedy businesses would love to stop having to spend money to accommodate deaf people.

and its not a physical disability as such but more of an alternative way of living.
Being Amish is an alternate way of living. The deaf community, via you, appears intent upon refusing to acknowledge and address their own disability and transferring the blame onto others who can't do anything about it and then shunning any attempts to try and help them. You want deafness to be an alternative way of living? Then you can remove yourself from the standard way of living.

You'd think so - but for a lot of Deaf people it is more important to be Deaf than it is to be fluent in Sign Language. You will often find people being rejected by new friends when their friend discovers they can hear.
Then the deaf community are douchebags. A whole community of bitter people doesn't make them normal or mean we should play their game to hope they might be less bitter, it just makes them douchebags, and hypocrites. You are obviously so bitter as to reject people who can hear, but you assert you arn't bitter and want to force deafness on other people? Great. A vicious circle of stupidity.

Then the deaf community are douchebags. A whole community of bitter people doesn't make them normal or mean we should play their game to hope they might be less bitter, it just makes them douchebags, and hypocrites. You are obviously so bitter as to reject people who can hear, but you assert you arn't bitter and want to force deafness on other people? Great. A vicious circle of stupidity.

Noone said anything about forcing deafness on people, I just said that people should be allowed to choose whether to have a deaf child or not (which was the original topic of the thread). All I said was that people should (upon being presented with two embryos, one deaf, one hearing) be able to choose which one they are implanted with NOT that a deaf embryo should be created or a hearing embryo 'deafened'.

And I happen to agree that prejudice against hearies is douchebaggy (is that even a word). The problem is that a kind of 'mob mentality' is prevalent in the Deaf Community (as it is present in many other gatherings of similiarly-minded folk) - if you are dealing with the Deaf Community as a group then they can be very Anti-hearing but individually they don't often discriminate against Hearing people. Again though, it all comes down to the individual. You go into a Deaf club with an open mind and you'll find they can be very friendly, you go into a Deaf club with the view that all Deaf people are retards who should be eradicated and then, yeah, they probably won't be tremendously friendly. But who would be in those conditions?

Because a hearing child of deaf parents totally won't get it :rolleyes:

How can a hearing person know what it is like to be discriminated against because of what you are? How will they truly know what it feels like to be patronised and treated like a child because people seem to think theres a correlation between hearing ability and intellectual capacity? How will a hearing person know what it feels like to stand in a shop frantically trying to decipher the goldfish-like lip-flapping of the shop assistant whilst behind you a queue of people wait impatiently? How can a hearing person know what it feels like to have to work twice as hard to accomplish half as much? How can hearing people know what it feels like to see your education discarded by teachers in favour of pointless, frustrating and repetitive Oral exercises? How can a hearing person know what its like to leave school with no qualifications because Educational authorities decided learning to speak should take prority over being taught anything useful, like how to read and write and count? How can hearing people know what its like to be forced to work in a menial job for low pay that you are far too intelligent for because you have no qualifications? Empathy can only get you so far.


Mass stupidity doesn't make it any less stupid.
Agreed.

Which is, effectively, forcing deafness on their child. And, imo of course, that is child abuse. You arn't allowed to have a kid and purposefully cause hearing loss are you?

If you would read the rest of my post that is not what I said. I said if people are presented with a Deaf embryo and a hearing embryo they should be allowed to choose the already existing deaf embryo. They should NOT be allowed to create a deaf embryo merely use the one that is already in existence.

Noone said anything about forcing deafness on people, I just said that people should be allowed to choose whether to have a deaf child or not (which was the original topic of the thread).
Which is, effectively, forcing deafness on their child. And, imo of course, that is child abuse. You arn't allowed to have a kid and purposefully cause hearing loss are you?

And I happen to agree that prejudice against hearies is douchebaggy (is that even a word).
I've used it before. Though I think that increases the chance it is a made up word...

you go into a Deaf club with the view that all Deaf people are retards who should be eradicated and then, yeah, they probably won't be tremendously friendly. But who would be in those conditions?
Eradicating deaf people and eradicating the disability of deafness are two different things.

It's also why I (and the Deaf Community as a whole) maintain that deafness is a social disability, and not a physical one. Society disables Deaf people by not accommodating their needs (such as flashing fire alarms etc) and not learning how to communicate with them (Sign language etc), and its not a physical disability as such but more of an alternative way of living.

An "alternative way of living" is something you choose, not something that is thrust upon you by a physical defect.

The fact that deafness is a physical defect certainly doesn't make a deaf person less worthy or their lives not worth living, but it is a physical defect all the same.

An "alternative way of living" is something you choose, not something that is thrust upon you by a physical defect.

The fact that deafness is a physical defect certainly doesn't make a deaf person less worthy or their lives not worth living, but it is a physical defect all the same.

And people can choose to try and live like hearing people by making hearing friends, wearing hearing aids and lipreading and speaking to try and minimise their disability.


Or they can choose to embrace who they are, learn to sign and refuse (out of principle) to speak and lipread, and only befriend other members of their (Deaf) Community thus choosing an alternate way of life in the Deaf community

So I would say that living Deaf (Big D Deaf) is an alternate lifestyle, IMO, because they choose to reject trying to emulate hearing people by learning to speak and lipread.

Again, thats a social disability thing. Society has disabled the deaf people by not learning Sign Language, or even attempting to learn it.

This is a ridiculous statement. It's like saying, "Society has disabled paraplegics by leaving some surfaces unpaved," or "Society has disabled color blind persons by having red and green signals."

The fact that I do not know sign language does not disable you. Your non-functioning ears do. Learning sign language would be a way for me to accommodate your disability.

Deaf people can communicate perfectly well by themselves, its Society's attitude (in not learning sign) that makes communication a barrier. The Deaf community (well most of them) believe that Sign Language should be taught in schools so that these communication barriers will come crashing down.

Teaching sign language in school is not a bad idea. But it doesn't change the fact that your disability comes from non-function organs, rather than from those who do not go through the effort to accommodate you.

Noone said anything about forcing deafness on people, I just said that people should be allowed to choose whether to have a deaf child or not (which was the original topic of the thread). All I said was that people should (upon being presented with two embryos, one deaf, one hearing) be able to choose which one they are implanted with NOT that a deaf embryo should be created or a hearing embryo 'deafened'.

Out of curiosity:

Suppose I had two embryos and one carried a genetic form of deafness. I choose the hearing embryo over the deaf one. Does this decision bother you?

How can a hearing person know what it is like to be discriminated against because of what you are?

According to what you've said here, we just have to try and go hang out with deaf people.

*snip*

The rest of this sounds pretty awful (although much of it is probably interactions with jerks, and we all deal with jerks at some point in our lives). Why would you want to make your child go through all of that?

And people can choose to try and live like hearing people by making hearing friends, wearing hearing aids and lipreading and speaking to try and minimise their disability.

Certainly.

Or they can choose to embrace who they are, learn to sign and refuse (out of principle) to speak and lipread, and only befriend other members of their (Deaf) Community thus choosing an alternate way of life in the Deaf community

So I would say that living Deaf (Big D Deaf) is an alternate lifestyle, IMO, because they choose to reject trying to emulate hearing people by learning to speak and lipread.

Certainly. But they cannot then complain that others are creating a social disability that affects them. They have chosen to isolate themselves - to separate themselves from the rest of society and live in a way that rejects interaction with those who have functional hearing.

Meanwhile, I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. Can someone not "embrace who they are" without blaming the difficulties caused by their physical defects on those who do not have that particular defect? Does someone have to choose not to try and get past these difficulties to "embrace who they are"?

Well then, give the deaf parents what they want. If the kid isn't born deaf, I'm sure we can take a corkscrew and pull out the ear drum and cochlea pretty easily.

How can a hearing person know what it is like to be discriminated against because of what you are?

You're kidding, right?


How will they truly know what it feels like to be patronised and treated like a child because people seem to think theres a correlation between hearing ability and intellectual capacity?

You mean like how many people talk down to women because they assume that a female human being is mentally inferior? Or how racists often assume persons of some ethnicities to be inherently stupid? Hell, how about how people frequently treat me like a young child simply because I'm small of stature?


How will a hearing person know what it feels like to stand in a shop frantically trying to decipher the goldfish-like lip-flapping of the shop assistant whilst behind you a queue of people wait impatiently?

You mean like how it feels to be in a foreign country where you don't speak the language?


How can a hearing person know what it feels like to have to work twice as hard to accomplish half as much?

Kind of like how, say, women and minorities have ALWAYS had to do? When I started my career, my mentor flat-out told me, "You will have to work twice as hard to get half the credit. If you aren't prepared to do that, save yourself the trouble and quit now."


How can hearing people know what it feels like to see your education discarded by teachers in favour of pointless, frustrating and repetitive Oral exercises?

Because heaven knows that hearing people LOVE pointless, frustrating, repetitive exercises...


How can a hearing person know what its like to leave school with no qualifications because Educational authorities decided learning to speak should take prority over being taught anything useful, like how to read and write and count?

You're not seriously complaining that you were expected to learn to speak ONE LANGUAGE, are you? Because my school wouldn't let us graduate unless we were fluent in one language and could get by in a second.


How can hearing people know what its like to be forced to work in a menial job for low pay that you are far too intelligent for because you have no qualifications?

Gee, yeah, no hearing people are EVER in that situation...


Empathy can only get you so far.

How would you know? You clearly aren't even trying it.

The funny thing is, when I started reading this thread I was mostly leaning toward your side. But your attitude, your rudeness and ignorance and flat-out disrespect, completely turn me off. You are using your disability as an excuse to act like a douche.

I say we should be sensitive to the needs of deaf parents, and give them a corkscrew to deafen their own child.

Make them do it. If they want it so bad, they'll tear their own child's cochlea out.
I don't see why they can't leave it up to the child. Let your child be born with the ability to hear, and if they choose to become deaf when they're grown up then that's fine for them. They should be free to do so.

Of course, I think deaf parents know that their children won't choose that, and that's why they'd want to force the choice on the child before it has any ability to protest.

Out of curiosity:

Suppose I had two embryos and one carried a genetic form of deafness. I choose the hearing embryo over the deaf one. Does this decision bother you?

Well at my basest and most emotional level yes, but intellectually, no, because I can understand why people don't want deaf children and how hypocritical would it be of me to get pissy over the destruction of deaf embryos but then turn round and advocate the destruction of hearing?



According to what you've said here, we just have to try and go hang out with deaf people.

The majority of deaf people will be cool with you if you are a hearing signer, it all depends on your attitude. The reason so many Deaf people dislike hearing is because of the suffering they often go through at the hands of 'wellmeaning' hearing people trying to teach them to speak. For a non-Deaf example of experiences breeding prejudice; My Grandad is prejudiced against Japanese people (much to my shame) because in the Second world war he fought against them and saw what they did to their prisoners, but noone else in the family is prejudiced against Japanese people because we never went through what he did. Thats kind of what it is like for Deaf people, they were treated badly by Hearing people and so react by banding together and assume hearing people are all the same.

But I think it is by and large a dying prejudice because there tends to be less strict adherence to Oralist principles now in schools.



The rest of this sounds pretty awful (although much of it is probably interactions with jerks, and we all deal with jerks at some point in our lives). Why would you want to make your child go through all of that?

Well its not so much that Deaf people want their child to suffer, they want to raise a child who will have the same experiences as them because they feel more equipped to deal with them. At a basic oversimplified level, Deaf parents want deaf children because they will know what the child is going through and be able to offer them the benefit of their own experiences whereas they might not be familiar with problems that hearing children go through. Though I am going to state here and now that not all deaf parents want deaf children, some want hearing children purely because they remember their own childhood experiences

You go into a Deaf club with an open mind and you'll find they can be very friendly, you go into a Deaf club with the view that all Deaf people are retards who should be eradicated and then, yeah, they probably won't be tremendously friendly. But who would be in those conditions?
I haven't seen anybody arguing that deaf people are retards or that deaf people should be eradicated. What I see is people saying that DEAFNESS is a disability, and it would be great if we could eliminate all disabilities by finding ways to prevent or treat them.

You're kidding, right?


You mean like how many people talk down to women because they assume that a female human being is mentally inferior? Or how racists often assume persons of some ethnicities to be inherently stupid? Hell, how about how people frequently treat me like a young child simply because I'm small of stature?


You mean like how it feels to be in a foreign country where you don't speak the language?


Kind of like how, say, women and minorities have ALWAYS had to do? When I started my career, my mentor flat-out told me, "You will have to work twice as hard to get half the credit. If you aren't prepared to do that, save yourself the trouble and quit now."


Because heaven knows that hearing people LOVE pointless, frustrating, repetitive exercises...


You're not seriously complaining that you were expected to learn to speak ONE LANGUAGE, are you? Because my school wouldn't let us graduate unless we were fluent in one language and could get by in a second.


Gee, yeah, no hearing people are EVER in that situation...


How would you know? You clearly aren't even trying it.

The funny thing is, when I started reading this thread I was mostly leaning toward your side. But your attitude, your rudeness and ignorance and flat-out disrespect, completely turn me off. You are using your disability as an excuse to act like a douche.

Is it just me or is the word 'douche' a lot more common now than it was a few years ago? I dont remember seeing it until a few years ago and now its everywhere.

Anyhoo - I never said that hearing people will never go through these experiences, just that they don't experience them as a matter of course and I'm sorry you think I've been rude or disrespectful. Ive tried to be as nice to people as possible and deal with their comments as fairly as I can. I would like to point out that I don't agree with everything I have said, I am just repeating the views of the Deaf Community, but I'm not putting them forwards as my own personal viewpoints, just as that of others. Hopefully that clears things up! :)

I haven't seen anybody arguing that deaf people are retards or that deaf people should be eradicated. What I see is people saying that DEAFNESS is a disability, and it would be great if we could eliminate all disabilities by finding ways to prevent or treat them.

I say we should be sensitive to the needs of deaf parents, and give them a corkscrew to deafen their own child.

Make them do it. If they want it so bad, they'll tear their own child's cochlea out.

I haven't seen anybody arguing that deaf people are retards or that deaf people should be eradicated. What I see is people saying that DEAFNESS is a disability, and it would be great if we could eliminate all disabilities by finding ways to prevent or treat them.

This was just a hypothetical viewpoint to illustrate my point that, depending on your attitude, people will have different reactions to you. :)

I say we should be sensitive to the needs of deaf parents, and give them a corkscrew to deafen their own child.

Make them do it. If they want it so bad, they'll tear their own child's cochlea out.

I also haven't seen anyone say anywhere that they want to deafen existing children, I certainly haven't said it. In fact I've said all through this thread that people should have the choice to have either a hearing child or a deaf child IF, and ONLY if they are presented with a choice between a deaf embryo and a hearing embryo.

I do not want hearing children deafened or deaf children made hearing.

Wait, no, I wouldn't "imagine" that...I KNOW it. A deaf coworker of mine has two young children (both hearing) and she doesn't appear to give a flying fuck about whether or not they are "hearies."

Exactly. Some Deaf people would like deaf children, some would like hearing and some dont care either way. My deaf aunt has one deaf child and one hearing and she loves them both the same, regardless of their hearing ability or otherwise. I'm sorry Im sounding so categorical, I wasnt meaning to suggest that it was an either/or situation.

If you would read the rest of my post that is not what I said. I said if people are presented with a Deaf embryo and a hearing embryo they should be allowed to choose the already existing deaf embryo. They should NOT be allowed to create a deaf embryo merely use the one that is already in existence.

I'd choose the one that matches the couch. :)

Well its not so much that Deaf people want their child to suffer, they want to raise a child who will have the same experiences as them because they feel more equipped to deal with them. At a basic oversimplified level, Deaf parents want deaf children because they will know what the child is going through and be able to offer them the benefit of their own experiences whereas they might not be familiar with problems that hearing children go through.

That is amazingly pathetic. I cannot imagine being so unbelievably selfish, lazy, and cruel, that I would intentionally handicap my own child just because I wanted to make my own job easier as a parent.

Your children will NOT have the same experiences as you. It is stupid to expect them to, and it is profoundly cruel to try to FORCE them to have those experiences.

Your children are individual human beings. They're going to have different lives and experiences than you have had. If you can't deal with that, don't make babies. Period.

Though I am going to state here and now that not all deaf parents want deaf children, some want hearing children purely because they remember their own childhood experiences
I would imagine that a good number of deaf parents are actually decent human beings who simply want to have happy, healthy children, regardless of whether those children can hear or not.

Wait, no, I wouldn't "imagine" that...I KNOW it. A deaf coworker of mine has two young children (both hearing) and she doesn't appear to give a flying fuck about whether or not they are "hearies."

This was just a hypothetical viewpoint to illustrate my point that, depending on your attitude, people will have different reactions to you. :)
You've mentioned the idea of "wiping out deaf people" over and over in this thread, yet I've never seen (or heard) a single person propose that.

Frankly, I don't think most deaf people are so stupid that they would equate "We'd like to eliminate disabilities" with "We want to wipe out all people with disabilities." I think you insult deaf people and the deaf community when you suggest that most deaf people have that attitude.

Anyhoo - I never said that hearing people will never go through these experiences, just that they don't experience them as a matter of course

Let me clue you in:

They do.

I do.

I'm a "hearing person," and I've experienced every single thing on your list. My experiences really aren't that unusual. I know plenty of other people who've had experiences like mine.


and I'm sorry you think I've been rude or disrespectful.

Before you tell hearing people that they can't possibly understand your situation, try actually checking to see if that's true.


Ive tried to be as nice to people as possible and deal with their comments as fairly as I can. I would like to point out that I don't agree with everything I have said, I am just repeating the views of the Deaf Community, but I'm not putting them forwards as my own personal viewpoints, just as that of others. Hopefully that clears things up! :)
I appreciate your effort to provide the Deaf Community standpoint. I'm not deaf, nor am I a member of the Deaf Community, so I'm pretty much taking your word on a lot of this stuff.

Frankly, if the Deaf Community really thinks and feels some of the stuff you are describing, then I think it's deeply messed up. It sounds basically no different than a racial separatist movement to me.

Let me clue you in:

They do.

I do.

I'm a "hearing person," and I've experienced every single thing on your list. My experiences really aren't that unusual. I know plenty of other people who've had experiences like mine.


Before you tell hearing people that they can't possibly understand your situation, try actually checking to see if that's true.


Sorry, I'm just the worst at actually putting my thoughts into words. I can't ever get what I put on the paper to correspond to what's in my head. I didn't mean to belittle your, or anyone else's experiences. I have to say that I didn't realise hearing people went through these things regularly as you do. I am happy to admit I was wrong, I think I was just having a little rant to myself there really!

I appreciate your effort to provide the Deaf Community standpoint. I'm not deaf, nor am I a member of the Deaf Community, so I'm pretty much taking your word on a lot of this stuff.

Frankly, if the Deaf Community really thinks and feels some of the stuff you are describing, then I think it's deeply messed up. It sounds basically no different than a racial separatist movement to me.

I agree wholeheartedly, its horribly messed up and it is like racial separatism but noone ever speaks out and says anything about it, either out of fear or simply that they don't think people will listen to them. I personally am vehemently against judging people based on their audiological status and I hope everybody here realises that its not my opinion I'm stating but opinions of the Deaf Community as a whole. And again, not every Deaf person feels the same way about hearing people. But there is a kind of 'mob mentality' that you get when a lot of deaf people gather and so you'll find that there are a lot more radical opinions being espoused in a Deaf Club, for example, than there are when you get them alone.

Hope that clears things up just a little bit and I'd like to apologise to anyone who got offended by me, I honestly wasn't meaning to come off as rude or disrespectful at all.

Then they are actively making their child deaf, in effect.


Yes, they are making the child they give birth to deaf by the simple measure of implanting themselves with only deaf embryos. Thats not the same as creating a deaf child, the deaf child was already in existence, albeit in embryo form.

Well, what if there was a way for you to tell that your fetus was going to grow up to be a gay child? I know a lot of shite happened to me because I'm non-hetero, so does that mean I should automatically want to "cure" my fetus of being gay so that they don't have to go through all that?

For that matter, I know a ton of crap happened to me because I'm female, and if I'd been male my life would have been much easier in many ways. Does that mean I should be sure to select only male fetuses to carry to term?

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to choose your child's biology based on how other people will treat your child.

Thank you - thats the point I was trying to make, except much better expressed. :)

People should be able to have the child they want to have and not the one society thinks they should have.

I also haven't seen anyone say anywhere that they want to deafen existing children, I certainly haven't said it. In fact I've said all through this thread that people should have the choice to have either a hearing child or a deaf child IF, and ONLY if they are presented with a choice between a deaf embryo and a hearing embryo.
Then they are actively making their child deaf, in effect.

deaf children made hearing.
Absurd. Based on everything you have said, why wouldn't you want you deaf child to be made able to hear? If you wouldn't want to take any action to let your child hear instead of making him go through all the crap you went through, you are a bad parent.

I also haven't seen anyone say anywhere that they want to deafen existing children, I certainly haven't said it. In fact I've said all through this thread that people should have the choice to have either a hearing child or a deaf child IF, and ONLY if they are presented with a choice between a deaf embryo and a hearing embryo.

I do not want hearing children deafened or deaf children made hearing.

Sorry, make the deaf parents do it. Deafness is a definite malfunction and if it can be avoided or fixed, it should be.

Once you get home from the hospital, you can deafen your own child if you don't get caught doing it.

You've mentioned the idea of "wiping out deaf people" over and over in this thread, yet I've never seen (or heard) a single person propose that.


That'd be because they only do so on bad "Law and Order" episodes.

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to choose your child's biology based on how other people will treat your child.

But with deafness it's not really about that at all. Deaf people by and large are not persecuted or treated badly, the disadvantages are inherent in being deaf, regardless of how you are treated. Disadvantages such as being unable to enjoy or experience music, being harder to communicate with unless those around you can use sign language, unable to listen to the radio, disadvantaged in education etc...

Absurd. Based on everything you have said, why wouldn't you want you deaf child to be made able to hear? If you wouldn't want to take any action to let your child hear instead of making him go through all the crap you went through, you are a bad parent.
Well, what if there was a way for you to tell that your fetus was going to grow up to be a gay child? I know a lot of shite happened to me because I'm non-hetero, so does that mean I should automatically want to "cure" my fetus of being gay so that they don't have to go through all that?

For that matter, I know a ton of crap happened to me because I'm female, and if I'd been male my life would have been much easier in many ways. Does that mean I should be sure to select only male fetuses to carry to term?

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to choose your child's biology based on how other people will treat your child.

Thank you - thats the point I was trying to make, except much better expressed. :)

People should be able to have the child they want to have and not the one society thinks they should have.

No child will be exactly what you imagined. Why should they be? Children are not robots or dolls or custom-made tools. They are human beings.

Having a child is not a matter of getting what you want. Someone who goes into parenthood with the attitude "I should be able to have the child I want" is not going to be a good parent.

Of course, as much as i respect parents for wanting a child that will be able to fully understand their situation and not grow up to judge them as being different, i have to ask: why choose to condemn your child to a living punishment

Its only a couple steps away from those parents who abuse alcohol and/or drugs while pregnant - they are willingly condemning their unborn child to a half-life

Of course, as much as i respect parents for wanting a child that will be able to fully understand their situation and not grow up to judge them as being different, i have to ask: why choose to condemn your child to a living punishment

Its only a couple steps away from those parents who abuse alcohol and/or drugs while pregnant - they are willingly condemning their unborn child to a half-life

This would seem to be exactly the sort of statement these deaf parents are objecting to. Being deaf makes your life a "half-life"? I think they are wrong to want their child to be deaf, but I agree with them in finding the notion that a deaf person's life could not possibly be as worth living as a hearing person's rather ridiculous and offensive.

This would seem to be exactly the sort of statement these deaf parents are objecting to. Being deaf makes your life a "half-life"? I think they are wrong to want their child to be deaf, but I agree with them in finding the notion that a deaf person's life could not possibly be as worth living as a hearing person's rather ridiculous and offensive.

Exactly, Deaf people have just as much to contribute as hearing. And yeah they'll never be able to fully appreciate the magic that is modern music :rolleyes: but that doesn't mean they are doomed to life of unfulfilled misery. :)

While I do have a certain amount of respect for the deaf people who refuse to consider themselves disabled or in any way handicapped, the idea of deliberately harming a child is abhorrent. A hearing-child can still learn sign-language and read deaf-culture novels, but a deaf child will never be able to listen to Meatloaf or Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals (random I know, but these are the first things I thought of when I asked myself what I'd miss most if I lost my hearing :p). A deaf child will still be able to live a happy and fulfilled life, but a child with hearing will have more possibilities open to them.

While I do have a certain amount of respect for the deaf people who refuse to consider themselves disabled or in any way handicapped, the idea of deliberately harming a child is abhorrent.

Do note that the original question of the topic was if a deaf couple should be allowed to pick a "deaf" zygote over a "hearing" zygote.

Do note that the original question of the topic was if a deaf couple should be allowed to pick a "deaf" zygote over a "hearing" zygote.

Yes. I admit that my post was phrased poorly, but the point I was trying to make was that, assuming that two potential zygotes are otherwise identical, by deliberately picking the handicapped zygote you're harming the potential child.

That said, however much I dislike the idea, I'm not sure whether the law should intervene: it's something of a legal grey area for me.

Do note that the original question of the topic was if a deaf couple should be allowed to pick a "deaf" zygote over a "hearing" zygote.

Exactly, but for some reason that has twisted in peoples minds into 'Do you think Deaf people should be allowed to hold their child down and stick pins in his ear until he becomes deaf too?'. Which does explain a bit why people are so upset with me for saying I would like to have the choice too - they think I am advocating maiming a toddler for my own selfish ends, which of course, I am not. lol ;)

Yes. I admit that my post was phrased poorly, but the point I was trying to make was that, assuming that two potential zygotes are otherwise identical, by deliberately picking the handicapped zygote you're harming the potential child.

That is a tricky statement. How is it harmed by letting it come into existence deaf, if the alternative is nonexistence ?

No child will be exactly what you imagined. Why should they be? Children are not robots or dolls or custom-made tools. They are human beings.

Not at the time they are concieved, no. So the ones doing the conceiving, who will also be paying the bills (presumably), losing sleep and cleaning up an astonishing variety of bodily fluids deserve some judgement and choice in the matter. If you consider yourself a complete and autonomous Human Being, try concieving yourself.

Having a child is not a matter of getting what you want.

(Yet.)

Well, what if there was a way for you to tell that your fetus was going to grow up to be a gay child? I know a lot of shite happened to me because I'm non-hetero, so does that mean I should automatically want to "cure" my fetus of being gay so that they don't have to go through all that?

For that matter, I know a ton of crap happened to me because I'm female, and if I'd been male my life would have been much easier in many ways. Does that mean I should be sure to select only male fetuses to carry to term?

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to choose your child's biology based on how other people will treat your child.
But with deafness, there is not only the social reactions but the problems caused by the physical disability :rolleyes:
Stop being obtuse.

But with deafness, there is not only the social reactions but the problems caused by the physical disability :rolleyes:
Stop being obtuse.

Like if you're deaf, and hiking in the Sonora Desert, don't expect the rattlesnakes to give you any special consideration. ADA lawyers don't intimidate them.


(Out of Professional Courtesy, of course; lawyers and snakes don't interfere with each other)

I also haven't seen anyone say anywhere that they want to deafen existing children, I certainly haven't said it. In fact I've said all through this thread that people should have the choice to have either a hearing child or a deaf child IF, and ONLY if they are presented with a choice between a deaf embryo and a hearing embryo.

I do not want hearing children deafened or deaf children made hearing.

Yeah, 'cause curing the child's disability would be a bad thing. We should also stop making prosthesis (sp?) because they prevent people with missing limbs from 'embracing' their condition.

Yeah, 'cause curing the child's disability would be a bad thing. We should also stop making prosthesis (sp?) because they prevent people with missing limbs from 'embracing' their condition.

How are you proposing curing the deafness though? Because the method of curing deafness will play a big part in my decision whether or not to cure my deaf child.

That is a tricky statement. How is it harmed by letting it come into existence deaf, if the alternative is nonexistence ?

Assume for a moment that the couple intend to have only one child: in the absense of major fertility problems/twins, one child is going to come into existence through their decisions. This potential child will be either deaf or not-deaf depending on the parents' choices. As personhood doesn't commence until long after the zygote stage, it would be better for the potential person to choose the hearing zygote.

Suppose the choice was between a zygote with no arms or legs, severe mental damage and blindness: most people would say it would be better to choose a healthy zygote in preference to such an unfortunate one, no? Obviously I'm not saying that deafness is even in the same league as the disabilities I just described; I'm exagerating the position to illustrate my reasoning.

The parents seem selfish - surely if you had a child you would want it to have equal opportunities as every other child?

I'm pretty sure you would want it to have better opportunites, no?


The problem here is that they don't see deafness as a defect: According to them it's an opportunity, and I'm inclined to agree - at least a bit - because eventually we're able to cure deafness but not necessarily induce voluntary deafness.

OTOH there is the other end of spectrum: "I don't see my hereditary disease that kills me off before I turn 30 as a defect so why should my child be any different?"

The question really is: Should there be a list of 'allowed' disabilities?

btw. Since when have they been able to root out the deaf gene in the first place? :confused:

Assume for a moment that the couple intend to have only one child: in the absense of major fertility problems/twins, one child is going to come into existence through their decisions. This potential child will be either deaf or not-deaf depending on the parents' choices. As personhood doesn't commence until long after the zygote stage, it would be better for the potential person to choose the hearing zygote.

But that would just be a different person than when you would have picked the deaf zygote.

What you are basicly saying here is that, when given the choice, one must pick the potential "healthier" person of the two, regardless of other considerations (like in this case the parents wishes). While my first gut feeling is to say "hell yeah" to that, my brain keeps asking me the question "but why should we then oppose parents 'genetically enhancing' their children" or "disallow parents to pick looks that will make the kid more popular in later life", followed by nazi references and such.

btw. Since when have been able to root out the deaf gene in the first place? :confused:

Well the British Govt is atm debating a law in the House of Parliament that will force deaf and otherwise disabled embryos to be discarded by doctors regardless of the parents wishes. And in fact deaf people will not even be allowed IVF if the bill goes through - taking away every human beings right to have a child. I think thats barbaric but its getting a little off-topic. My point was that if they are putting this law through then there must be a way to determine whether a child will be deaf (unless there is a generic disability gene lol)

Yeah, 'cause curing the child's disability would be a bad thing. We should also stop making prosthesis (sp?) because they prevent people with missing limbs from 'embracing' their condition.

Tapao is under the illusion that deafness is somehow not a disability, merely because civilization can, through effort and expense on the part of other people, overcome some of the disadvantages.

Not always. Hearing is the brain processing signals from the universe, in this case, the frequency and amplitude of vibrations. If you can't detect and process those signals, you may miss out on important things the universe is trying to tell you, and no amount of accomodation from other people will correct it. For example, there is a characteristic squeal and popping made by the vibrations in a structure about to fail. This is the universe's way of telling a hearing person that he or she has maybe a second to get clear of whatever it is he or she is on, over, or next to. The deaf person gets no such message- he or she is about to die, horribly, and the universe really doesn't care.

The deaf person can read sign language. This will do a lot of good when the sign language is being used by a person about 20 meters behind you, trying to warn you.

I covered rattlesnakes. I don't think fitting them with warning lights is feasable.

The great thing about hearing is that it is omnidirectional. The forklift about to back into you has its flashing lights and alarm. But if your back is turned you won't see the lights.

And, although a person missing a sense can become more attuned to the others, there is no sensation a deaf person can experience that a hearing person cannot.

We evolved hearing because it works. It's good for us. It provides us with vital information about the environment. Pretending that it's unnecessary because we can tweak our environment artificially is ridiculous- there are limits to what civilization can do. Dismissing one of our methods of knowing the universe with such a cavalier attitude is...

ahem...

blindness.

How are you proposing curing the deafness though? Because the method of curing deafness will play a big part in my decision whether or not to cure my deaf child.


Depends on the source.

If the deafness results from a physical condition, like damaged or malformed inner ear parts, nerve connections, lack of hairs in the inner ear, etc, then now or in the near future, surgical repairs are likely.

If it is due to brain formation, such as the audio processing center being poorly formed, it may be possible to "train" other parts of the brain to take over, if the condition is identified early enough and the technology can be developed.

But that would just be a different person than when you would have picked the deaf zygote.

What you are basicly saying here is that, when given the choice, one must pick the potential "healthier" person of the two, regardless of other considerations (like in this case the parents wishes). While my first gut feeling is to say "hell yeah" to that, my brain keeps asking me the question "but why should we then oppose parents 'genetically enhancing' their children" or "disallow parents to pick looks that will make the kid more popular in later life", followed by nazi references and such.

Yeah, that's where my thoughts led, which is why I've limited myself to saying 'should' rather than 'legally must' for the moment.

Any debate involving the law, children and parental rights is always going to be tricky, and there aren't any easy answers. Personally my ideal solution would be to convince the deaf parents that their child can share in their culture without sharing their deafness, but I'm not sure what I'd decide if I was asked to make a legal judgement regarding a couple who rejected that reasoning and insisted on trying to choose a deaf zygote. :(

And what do you have against ensuring blind people aren't hit by cars? ;):D
It encourages blindness. It's the same reason I oppose bailouts for people losing their homes to foreclosures. Doing so encourages bad borrowing practices by lessening the downside.

The experience of not being able to hear? Absurd. They will be perfectly fluent in sign language and thus can integrate fine.
Wow... so if you speak the language, you're able to fully experience a culture? So tell me, what's it like to be Black? How about gay? A woman? Australian? Quadriplegic? If there was any absurdities, it was what you just posted. Unless you are deaf, you cannot know.

Wow... so if you speak the language, you're able to fully experience a culture? So tell me, what's it like to be Black? How about gay? A woman? Australian? Quadriplegic? If there was any absurdities, it was what you just posted. Unless you are deaf, you cannot know.

Don't forget the Black, gay, Australian, quadriplegic woman culture.

Not at the time they are concieved, no.

So? They are human beings once they are born, which is when these sorts of decisions and the mentality behind them would matter.

So the ones doing the conceiving, who will also be paying the bills (presumably), losing sleep and cleaning up an astonishing variety of bodily fluids deserve some judgement and choice in the matter. If you consider yourself a complete and autonomous Human Being, try concieving yourself.

A person doesn't automatically "deserve" to have the opportunity to raise another human being. I don't care how many bills you pay or fluids you clean up, you don't "deserve" that type of control. And someone who will not be a parent without it simply shouldn't be a parent at all. They don't "deserve" that opportunity or the opportunity.

If you're going to raise a child, you will be raising an individual. If you go into it with the type of attitude displayed by these parents, you are going to be a bad parent. Thus, you shouldn't do it at all.

Wow... so if you speak the language, you're able to fully experience a culture? So tell me, what's it like to be Black? How about gay? A woman? Australian? Quadriplegic? If there was any absurdities, it was what you just posted. Unless you are deaf, you cannot know.

Unless you are me, you cannot possibly know what it is like to be me. Does that mean that you and I can never understand one another enough to share a culture?

Unless you are me, you cannot possibly know what it is like to be me. Does that mean that you and I can never understand one another enough to share a culture?
Yes.

This is why society isn't a thing.

Unless you are me, you cannot possibly know what it is like to be me. Does that mean that you and I can never understand one another enough to share a culture?
Can you tell me enough for YOU to accept that I now know what it is like to be a woman? Enough that I will never hear from you in this forum something along the lines of "You don't understand, you're not a woman" about ANY subject affecting women from physical to social? Because then the burden if upon YOU to inform ME.

No?

Ok, we'll go with something a bit easier, Dempublicents, can you tell me what surround sound is like? What it means to experience it? Because in all my 29 years of life I have never heard it and I never will. So, go ahead and try.

Ok, we'll go with something a bit easier, Dempublicents, can you tell me what surround sound is like? What it means to experience it? Because in all my 29 years of life I have never heard it and I never will. So, go ahead and try.
Close one of your eyes for awhile. Keep it closed, and look around the room. Get up and walk around a bit. Write out your name. Tie your shoes. Read the front page of a magazine. Just fiddle around until you've mostly forgotten you've got one eye closed. Then open your eye again.

Surround sound is like that, but with noise.

Close one of your eyes for awhile. Keep it closed, and look around the room. Get up and walk around a bit. Write out your name. Tie your shoes. Read the front page of a magazine. Just fiddle around until you've mostly forgotten you've got one eye closed. Then open your eye again.

Surround sound is like that, but with noise.

That has to be the most interesting explanation of surround sound I've ever 'heard'.

Close one of your eyes for awhile. Keep it closed, and look around the room. Get up and walk around a bit. Write out your name. Tie your shoes. Read the front page of a magazine. Just fiddle around until you've mostly forgotten you've got one eye closed. Then open your eye again.

Surround sound is like that, but with noise.
Nice try, doesn't make any sense, but nice try.

Just to throw my 2cents in - I fully support this couple. There is NOTHING wrong with being Deaf, I have many Deaf friends and trust me they DO NOT feel handicapped in anyway. I would be delighted to have a Deaf Child so I can share the beautiful language of Sign Language with it and introduce it to Deaf Culture.

The Deaf Community is so tight-knit that everyone knows everyone else, its basically like having a huge extended family which reaches into every city in the UK (if we talk solely about the UK Deaf Community). Just imagine moving to a new city and already knowing people - having a place to hang out with people who are like you and share your goals, hopes, fears, experiences and difficulties. Free support group ftw! Who wouldn't want their child to be a part of that? It can be a huge benefit - being connected to so many people. I know it sounds weird but when it comes down to it - Deaf people want to make friends with other deaf people, so if you're a deaf person you can walk into a Deaf Club and have a room full of people who actively want to befriend you, its not like walking into a hearing pub where people will look at you like you're mad if you say 'hi' to them at the bar. Basically, you just have a source of friends for life, and so being Deaf is much less isolating than people think, theres always a Deaf club around for people to meet up in.

Besides its been said that Deafness is just a social disability anyway so, yeah, I support this couple. They should be allowed to have whatever baby they want.

Why in God's name could you not teach the child sign language and have him or her be bilingual?

Seems rather horrid to me to designate what sense you're going to take from someone. "Hey, I love my seeing eye dog. I think everyone should have such a close and loyal companion... let's design us a blind baby."

I don't know - these days you have 'Text-Talk' so Deaf people can use the phone, Interpreters so Deaf people can attend school and University and get as much out of it as other students, Mobile phones so deaf people can text their friends, vibrating alarm clocks so deaf people can be woken up, flashing doorbells so deaf people can answer the door, flashing fire alarms so deaf people know when theres a fire, vibrating pagers so deaf people can know if their baby is crying or if someones trying to get in touch with them. And of course - theres no law against deaf people going into pubs and you dont need to be able to hear the music to go out and get completely wrecked and make a tit of yourself on the dancefloor lol

Deaf people don't miss out on as many opportunities as people think!

Except someone trying to warn them of an oncoming truck by yelling to them.

The problem here is that they don't see deafness as a defect: According to them it's an opportunity, and I'm inclined to agree - at least a bit - because eventually we're able to cure deafness but not necessarily induce voluntary deafness.

... say what?

Wow... so if you speak the language, you're able to fully experience a culture? So tell me, what's it like to be Black? How about gay? A woman? Australian? Quadriplegic? If there was any absurdities, it was what you just posted. Unless you are deaf, you cannot know.

Apart from the obvious problems with moving to Australia, what stops someone from fully experiencing Australian culture exactly?

Apart from the obvious problems with moving to Australia, what stops someone from fully experiencing Australian culture exactly?
Ok, let's say you move to Australia, you're... how old now?

Well, I'm going to assume since you're posting here you are older than 5-years-old. You've missed childhood in Australia, their school system, the slang, the games, the thoughts and feelings of being Australian since birth. These things do make up a LARGE part of the cultural world view that someone has. You can indeed come to Australia, learn about it, live in it, become an Australian citizen, and so on, but at the end of the day, you really can't say that you know what it's like to be Australian as much as a native-born son or daughter does.

Can you tell me enough for YOU to accept that I now know what it is like to be a woman? Enough that I will never hear from you in this forum something along the lines of "You don't understand, you're not a woman" about ANY subject affecting women from physical to social? Because then the burden if upon YOU to inform ME.

I'm only one woman. How can I possibly embody "what it is like to be a woman", much less explain it?

What does that even mean, anyways? Does every woman go through the same experiences? Does every man?

How do we even classify "being a woman"? Is it a mental thing? A physical one?

If sharing a culture requires having the same experiences, you cannot share a culture with anyone.

Ok, we'll go with something a bit easier, Dempublicents, can you tell me what surround sound is like? What it means to experience it? Because in all my 29 years of life I have never heard it and I never will. So, go ahead and try.

Doe s it matter? Do you think surround sound is somehow such a big part of culture that you cannot share that culture without experiencing it?

Ok, let's say you move to Australia, you're... how old now?

Well, I'm going to assume since you're posting here you are older than 5-years-old. You've missed childhood in Australia, their school system, the slang, the games, the thoughts and feelings of being Australian since birth. These things do make up a LARGE part of the cultural world view that someone has. You can indeed come to Australia, learn about it, live in it, become an Australian citizen, and so on, but at the end of the day, you really can't say that you know what it's like to be Australian as much as a native-born son or daughter does.

I'm already here. I was born here. :p

You do realise Australia is a nation of immigrants, right? One could just as easily argue that someone who was born in Australia is missing out on the full Australian experience, so to speak.

I'm only one woman. How can I possibly embody "what it is like to be a woman", much less explain it?

What does that even mean, anyways? Does every woman go through the same experiences? Does every man?

How do we even classify "being a woman"? Is it a mental thing? A physical one?
So in other words you would have no reservations about a guy giving advice then about giving birth? How about dealing with a yeast infection? Gender discrimination in the US? Nice to know.

If sharing a culture requires having the same experiences, you cannot share a culture with anyone.
I can TELL you about a culture, but you cannot say that you can be integrated into that culture and know what it means to be a part of it.

Doe s it matter? Do you think surround sound is somehow such a big part of culture that you cannot share that culture without experiencing it?
Actually it does matter because you seem to think that you can experience what it means to be deaf if someone tells you and therefore a hearing child of deaf parents can indeed become fully integrated into the Deaf culture. I'm turning this around as I am half deaf and so I have never experienced surround sound. So, tell me all about it so I can fully understand what it means to be someone who can hear with two good ears.

I'm already here. I was born here. :p
Oh GOOD. Then I can really illustrate my point. Tiger toast.

You do realise Australia is a nation of immigrants, right? One could just as easily argue that someone who was born in Australia is missing out on the full Australian experience, so to speak.
I do, and I'm willing to bet that in talking to someone you can tell just from what references they get or not whether they were raised in Australia or came in later on.

So in other words you would have no reservations about a guy giving advice then about giving birth? How about dealing with a yeast infection? Gender discrimination in the US? Nice to know.

I'd wonder about anyone who had never given birth or had a yeast infection trying to give me advice. I'd ask where they got the advice from.

Of course, there are plenty of women (including me) who have never given birth. There are also women who have never had a yeast infection. I wouldn't trust advice on it from them any more than I would from a man.

I can TELL you about a culture, but you cannot say that you can be integrated into that culture and know what it means to be a part of it.

Based on your apparent definition of culture, there's no such thing. I'd have to have exactly the same experiences as you to fit into your culture. Since that is patently impossible, I cannot fit into your culture.

Actually it does matter because you seem to think that you can experience what it means to be deaf if someone tells you and therefore a hearing child of deaf parents can indeed become fully integrated into the Deaf culture. I'm turning this around as I am half deaf and so I have never experienced surround sound. So, tell me all about it so I can fully understand what it means to be someone who can hear with two good ears.

I never said you can "experience what it means to be deaf if someone tells you."

I simply don't thin k you have to have exactly the same experience to share in a culture.

No two people have the same experience of anything. You can never fully understand what blue looks like to me. Even if you had two functioning ears, your experience of surround sound would be different from mine.

No two people, no matter how similar, have the same experiences. It's ridiculous to suggest that they have to in order to share in the same culture.

I'd wonder about anyone who had never given birth or had a yeast infection trying to give me advice. I'd ask where they got the advice from.
And yet you say that you can share in Deaf culture without being deaf? You, who have never been so?

Based on your apparent definition of culture, there's no such thing. I'd have to have exactly the same experiences as you to fit into your culture. Since that is patently impossible, I cannot fit into your culture.

I never said you can "experience what it means to be deaf if someone tells you."

I simply don't thin k you have to have exactly the same experience to share in a culture.
Go re-read what I have said. We're not talking about the exact same experiences, we're talking about a major defining point of that culture. Or do you now presume to say that you can experience gay culture without being gay? Black culture without being Black?

No two people, no matter how similar, have the same experiences. It's ridiculous to suggest that they have to in order to share in the same culture.
No, it's ridiculous to suggest that you can share in something that you have never experienced. The Deaf culture defines itself by being deaf. Are you deaf? No? Then how can you say you can share in that culture when you lack the chief definition of it?

Oh GOOD. Then I can really illustrate my point. Tiger toast.


I do, and I'm willing to bet that in talking to someone you can tell just from what references they get or not whether they were raised in Australia or came in later on.

Ah, but which one is more Australian?

Ah, but which one is more Australian?
Is not for me to judge as I am not Australian.

And yet you say that you can share in Deaf culture without being deaf? You, who have never been so?

The hearing relatives of deaf people do not share in Deaf culture? Tapao seems to share in it.


Go re-read what I have said. We're not talking about the exact same experiences, we're talking about a major defining point of that culture. Or do you now presume to say that you can experience gay culture without being gay? Black culture without being Black?

Yes. My fag hag friends experience gay culture all the time, in fact they're a part of gay culture. The same is true from my fewer fag stag friends.

No, it's ridiculous to suggest that you can share in something that you have never experienced. The Deaf culture defines itself by being deaf. Are you deaf? No? Then how can you say you can share in that culture when you lack the chief definition of it?

It is? Deaf culture defines itself by being deaf but I do not think it totally excludes those who can hear, generally hearing friends and relatives of deaf people, and if they do why would one want to participate in a bigoted culture?

So in other words you would have no reservations about a guy giving advice then about giving birth? How about dealing with a yeast infection? Gender discrimination in the US? Nice to know.

Well a male doctor could give advice about giving birth and yeast infection and they would (usually) be correct...

The problem with that kind of argument is that some people who haven't given birth can give advice on the subject and some people who have given birth could never give you advice on how to deal with it.

A male could easily give advice regarding gender discrimination in the U.S.A if they had read up onthe statistics and various initiative designed to combat it.

And yet you say that you can share in Deaf culture without being deaf? You, who have never been so?

Culture isn't a physical trait. "Deaf culture" does not refer to being deaf. If it does, it's not a culture. It refers to the culture created by people who are deaf. The child of a deaf person, whether hearing or not, would certainly be able to share in that culture, as they would be raised within it.

Go re-read what I have said. We're not talking about the exact same experiences, we're talking about a major defining point of that culture. Or do you now presume to say that you can experience gay culture without being gay? Black culture without being Black?

Of course you can experience those things without having an arbitrary trait. Gay culture doesn't mean "being gay". It refers tot he cultural trappings that have sprung up around the gay community. A person who spends a great deal of time within that community, whether gay or not, will be sharing in that culture.

The same goes for skin color. My skin color does not define my culture, nor does anyone else's.

No, it's ridiculous to suggest that you can share in something that you have never experienced. The Deaf culture defines itself by being deaf. Are you deaf? No? Then how can you say you can share in that culture when you lack the chief definition of it?

If the "deaf culture" defines itself by being deaf, then it isn't a culture at all. It's a misnomer.

"Culture" refers to things like traditions, art, phrases, stories, modes of dress, etc. that are common among a given group of people. It does not refer to a given physical trait, unless that trait is a tradition - something that the participants do to themselves (ie. a bindi would certainly be a part of culture, as would certain piercings, etc. in some cultures).

Yes. My fag hag friends experience gay culture all the time, in fact they're a part of gay culture. The same is true from my fewer fag stag friends.

Some of us prefer the term fruit-fly.

And when I get old, I'll want to be a flame-dame. =)

Nice try, doesn't make any sense, but nice try.
This actually works with hearing directly. I had a problem with one ear for a while, and I could only hear with the other one. I lost all ability to tell what direction sound was coming from; any sound approaching me sounded like it was coming directly for me - it was rather off-putting.

Then I got it fixed, and suddenly I could hear in different directions, and the world suddenly sounded so much more real. It's very much like getting depth-perception back.

The eye example explained it perfectly.

Some of us prefer the term fruit-fly.

And when I get old, I'll want to be a flame-dame. =)

I dont bend to fashion. ;)

Why is it so important to be a part of a culture based on a sense you do or don't have?

I'd think a hearing child raised by deaf parents would likely become fluent in sign language, understand how his/her parents felt, and would be able to enjoy things unique to both deaf and hearing people. There's more to be said for an enjoyable life than there is to be said for simply fitting in.

Random selection seems like the best bet here. Does make me wonder when these genetic quirks are going to start mutating more,though.