(Untitled)

[jessicalois]

Consider the following: This couple want a deaf child. Should we try to stop them?

For those what don't want to read the whole thing, here is the pertinent bit:

Comments

[antichristie]

I think it's messed up to wish a disability on your children. And even if these people fully embrace their disability, it IS a disability, and they are in denial. They should be happy to have a child that can go through life without all of those extra obstacles. But do I think destroying the embryos is right? Nope. These people shouldn't be forced to have a child that can hear, either. If they don't care whether their child is deaf, then neither should anyone else. They should just implant the embryos. After all, we don't get a choice whether our kids have disabilities or not when we do it the "normal" way. And this could set a precedent for the destruction of ALL fetuses with abnormalities, and could lead to forcible abortion of all 'disabled' fetuses. Any law that paves the way in any form for forced abortion OR forced birth is wrong, IMO.

[nemo_wistar]

Legislation to automatically discard abnormal fertilized eggs? No ... but I do question what could possibly motivate two otherwise intelligent people to deliberately plan to bring a child into the world with a predetermined disability by way of this kind of selection. For as much as the parents want to "celebrate" it, and for as much as the deaf deserve equal protection under the law, it's still a handicap relative to the rest of the human population.

If they want their future kid to be part of a "linguistic minority", teach them Manx and Athapaskan when they're young; just don't stack life against them before they've even implanted.

[roseofjuly]

Or sign language! Hearing people can and do often learn sign language, so it'll be perfectly possible for their child to learn sign language if s/he's hearing.

[nemo_wistar]

Well, yes, of course; I was being facetious :)

[roseofjuly]

I know, I was concurring :)

[harro_der]

I don't understand why they *want* a deaf child, when a hearing (or non hearing impaired, if you will) can learn and interact with deaf people just fine. I understand that it's a culture, and people apart of it are REALLY into it, but it just doesn't make sense to hope for something that makes a child unable to enjoy an entire part of their life. Also, there are plenty of partially hearing or fully hearing people active in their community who lead wonderful lives as part of the deaf community.

[vampire_kitten]

Perhaps, not so much want a deaf child, but don't want to disgard embryos for suffering from the same disability as they do.

[puf_almighty]

So, debaters, my question to you is this: Should there be legislation that automatically discards embryos with genetic "abnormalities" when a) these people are legally seen as equal in the eyes of the law and b) there are people who are seeking children and don't care one way or t'other what "abnormalities" may be present or are actually actively seeking a child with an "abnormality"?
a) Yes, your leading language notwithstanding, because it's hugely obvious that being deaf is inferior to hearing and no amount of political correctness will change that.
b) People should "care one way or another" whether their child has disabilities, and should have the decency to not wish something like this on their child. If they don't, well, at least the UK is passing a law to make them act right.

Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'Oh what a pile. Being deaf is

[nothingmuch]

Seriously! It's one thing if you just happen to be born deaf, but imagine what it would be like to know that your parents went to a doctor and made you deaf on purpose! Parents are supposed to want their kids to have every advantage possible, and doctors are supposed to cure disease and disability, not cause it.

[puf_almighty]

Sure, absolutely. I mean, why not just cut out the whole tiresome IVF procedure and just stab out your newborn's eardrum with a needle?

[nothingmuch]

exactly

[lavendersparkle]

I just want to clarify. According to the BBC the bill makes it mandatory, if there are some embryos with 'abnormalities' and some without, to use the 'normal' embryos, but that if there are only 'abnormal' embryos, or you've used up all of the 'normal' ones, you can implant the 'abnormal' ones. They aren't automatically discarded.

I don't agree with the legislation, mandating the preference for 'normal' children, nor do I support the active selection of a deaf embryo, to fit into the culture of the parents. I think it's very problematic for parents to select for characteristics other than those which will seriously reduce suffering because it sets up an idea that you can choose how your children will turn out when no amount of screening is going to allow you to do that. If you set off with the approach that children will be their own individuals I think you'll be better equipped to cope when they inevitably don't turn out as you expected.

There's a piece of misinformation in the article which is one of my pet peeves.
Pro-choice