NEWS: What If I Want My Kid To Be A One Armed, Blind Midget?

i once knew this girl in high school, she was the only member of her family who could hear.
deaf mom, deaf dad, deaf brother.
it was awesome because we could have the loudest teenage sex ever.

I could dig the sentiment in theory. But, I grew up without the sense of smell a bloodhound might have, or the ability to see in total darkness, or to breathe underwater (or whatever). I don't see these inabilities as disabilities either...but more senses means better competitiveness and a better chance of success. Intentionally removing a valuable social/survival asset in order for a child to "fit in" with a more restrictive (and perhaps - dare I say - elitist) cultural norm sounds disingenuous.

hey! i didn't say that, fix yer quote!

I can't believe this thread made 8 pages making Zarth's original prediction quite eerie.

Well I guess many deaf people don't think of themselves as handicapped but rather as a minority...

I can see both sides of the argument. I mean yeah we all say that being deaf is a disadvantage because we are so used to hearing and would feel massively disadvantaged if we lost that gift. I would assume that the majority of deaf people who feel this way were born deaf, and in light of that I can see what they mean about their deaf identity. It's something they have always had and the major obstacle of communication was taken out years ago so in that respect it does seem a little odd that they are still being referred to as disabled and disadvantaged when that blatantly isn't the reality. It is a contentious argument and there will never be a right or wrong answer; you have to try and grasp that from the perspective of those deaf people involved being deaf as important a part of their identity as their ethinic make-up. Also, in light of the kids who would possibly be effected by this; they are going to be raised by people who will help them see their deafness as an identity trait not as a disability so I think the impact of that may well not be as severe as one would imagine. he embryos are not being engineered for deafness, they are being selected for it so the children they become would always have been deaf regardless. No one took the hearing away, they just chose to allow a deaf embryo to develop as opposed to a hearing one.

DEC 28, 2007 03:15 PM



signcrash said:
All the people who are complaining about this know nothing about deafness. I am a sign language student and have had direct experience with Deaf individuals and people in the Deaf community. Some, indeed many, Deaf people do see a cultural itentity in being born Deaf. They do not see their deafness as a handicap but as a human difference much like a persons sexual orientation or whether a person has hanging or attached earlobes. They are trying to promote that concept in the general public. I am disappointed, I would have thought the SG community was more enlightened.



I understand that point, as I'm sure many people here do. However, I don't think anyone really should be able to pick their kid's sexual orientation at birth either.

Yes the next thing you know cloning of humans so that they are just like you, the connotations of this is very frightening.

I can't speak for these hypothetical children, but if I found out that my parents "selected" certain traits for me to be born with just so I could fit into whatever cultural identity they wanted, I'd be pretty pissed off. It's one thing when it's a natural occurence, but it's a completely different thing when a parent chooses you to be that way because they won't accept you as anything else.

Just saying.

As I've stated several times, I don't agree with the sentiment either. I just disagree with it respectfully, unlike a lot of people here (not you - you're fine).

I am full of magic.

I think a lot of people made that same prediction after reading the first paragraph of the article. He was just the first one to post it.

I don't know how far this has gone because I'm not reading 8 pages of people arguing freedom of choice vs. The Good of The Children. It's a choice I'll never have to make so I don't think it's right to tell someone else how to make it.

The closest I can come to relating is that I'm a dialysis patient, and if I ever heard of anyone choosing an embryo with kidney disease over one without just so mommy has someone to relate to I would be sorely tempted to punch them in the throat.

I saw an interview with a deaf lady whose son was eligible for a cochlear implant - which she refused for him because it sent out a 'negative' message to people in reinforcing the idea that deafness is a disability which... I think is pretty damned selfish.

Being able to hear whilst clearly not being necessary is also pretty damned useful. She's denying her kid the chance to interact normally with the majority of people and potentially also putting him at risk at times.


If I had to chose between giving birth to a deaf child or a child that could hear, I'd pick the kid that could hear - I'd want to give them the best possible start in life that I could. Saying that, I think that picking your child's traits is pretty sick xx

Speaking as someone who is partially deaf, it's a fucking pain and if I knew that my parents had deliberately visited this on me (as well as my short-sightedness and colour impaired vision) I'd be having SERIOUS words with them. Does it make a difference because my frustration is increased due to the fact that I have part of the world of the hearing, but not all of it? I don't know. Either way, I think this is a bad idea.

I don't know... this seems a little backwards. I can understand why a family would do this, but I think it's insanely selfish. It would be like actively choosing to have a child that was depressed, or has ADHD, just because you live the same way. Doesn't every parent aspire to have their child spared from the bullshit that they had to deal with?

And also... um... If I made a choice that would deprive my child from listening to Strauss' Ein Heldenlieben and the beauty that has been created through music, I would feel like utter and complete shit.

i'd say!

i see parallels here.

but that's neither here nor there.

I suppose I see myself as an agitator. I tried to give the opposing side with my first post. Someone had to do it. I haven't jumped back in because other people, like lavenir have defended my position better than I could have.

Now miserabelle has taken us in another direction

First of all, a cochlear implant does not give normal hearing. A person recieving one has to "learn" how to use one. The indications it gives are not the same as actual sound. It is very invasive surgery, cutting through the hardest bone in the body. If there is any residual hearing in the ear that small amount is completely killed.

Children should not be forced to accept a cochlear implant. While language acquisition at that age is vital manual languages like ASL and BSL can become their method of communication. When a person is older,can be presented with all the facts, and can make decisions for themself is the only time that cochlear implants should be considered as an option.

That mother made the right decision. Taking a deaf child and placing a cochlear implant in him is the same as taking a hearing child and poking it's ears out.

How about we all just learn to except each others differences and not fuck with nature?

Fuck off, hearer! I want babies who can't hear, see, speak, smell, taste, shit, urinate, breathe and wink. It's called freedom, motherfucker!

Funniest line ever.

i dont know if anyone has said this yet but those of this deaf culture feel they are a minority. and as such it is as if a african american family wanted to make sure their child was black during segregation. To these few deaf individuals it is the same thing. They are segregated from our society in that public schools do not accomidate them well, they have trouble taking advantage of even some of the most common hearing facilities. To some ( by no means all) they are a different people much as we felt african american were different. We know this is wrong but they are on the other side of the issue. They want to make sure that their children are of their "people" and i dont see this as being wrong.

I don't think being gay is a disability, but it is something that will drastically affect a person's life, and put him/her at real risk at times.

You really can't argue against that...

I have issues with people choosing the traits of their babies, though I also admit that I'm not sure why. I think it's because I wouldn't want that responsibility. I wouldn't want to know that I was directly responsible for purposefully creating traits that my child might not like.

For instance, I love that I have brown eyes. If I were choosing traits for my child, I might actually choose brown eyes over another color, because I enjoy having them. I would feel really shitty, then, if my 15 year old son or daughter was bitching about how much they wished they had blue or green eyes, knowing that I had purposefully chosen their eye color based on my preferences.

However, if I have a child the old-fashioned way and come across the same situation, I won't feel as bad.

Babies grow up to be people... I'm not pleased that I got my mom's shitty jaw formation or her mental issues, but she didn't choose to pass those on to me. Just like my dad didn't choose to give me my awesome brown eyes and cute nose...

I'd just rather not take on even more responsibility for how my children turn out... blaming the bad shit on nature and taking undue credit for the good things sounds like so much more fun than creating a child that has that much more reason to hate me during their angsty phase.

Genetic engineering is going to get more and more prevalent in the future, and all kinds of people will want all kinds of things (or NOT want some things) for their children, so I suppose we should get used to these kind of debates.

I think it is entirely goofy to "handicap" a child in any way from birth, and I wouldn't support a parent "right" to do this to their children because it is a step backwards. And arguments that it isn't a handicap just a difference... meh, those arguments do nothing for me. No one is saying people with handicaps are less human or less able to live healthy and satisfying lives... but denying the handicap is a handicap is a delusion.

Yet I feel like even that position is walking a slippery slope for me, because I'm not a fan of abortion and I know that sometime soon (it's already starting to happen) it will be considered culturally irresponsible to give birth to a handicapped child when you can just abort it and try again and get your healthy child.

And then there are things like circumcisions... they don't specifically HARM most children, but there are definitely some advantages to being uncircumsized, so I'm not sure how this fits into the overall debate.

Hmm... I guess it is about time to go watch Gattaca again.

Is it special or disadvantaged magic?

I'm only seeing 6 pages, did someone catch the uber-zot?