03 Mar 05
It really is odd, however I don't know if it's criminal. I know that thier child will be missing much in the hearing world, but maybe there is something to being deaf that we are missing. The quarterback for the University of Louisville is the only hearing person in a family of deaf people. He signed his first words. He also taught his wide recievers a little sign language so that he could sign signals to them at the line of scrimmage. I think it would be great to know sign language, but I think that it would suck to not be able to hear the roar of the crowd. It is quite a quandry.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by CliffLandinA friend of mine takes sign, and it is very neat. I can say 'bullcrap' and a couple other foul things.
It really is odd, however I don't know if it's criminal. I know that thier child will be missing much in the hearing world, but maybe there is something to being deaf that we are missing. The quarterback for the University of Louisville is the only hearing person in a family of deaf people. He signed his first words. He also taught his wide reciever ...[text shortened]... I think that it would suck to not be able to hear the roar of the crowd. It is quite a quandry.
As for the couple 'plans' for a deaf child... I don't know? Depends how the person turns out. Perhaps he might open a new school for deaf people... or be a miserable waste of human. Could be the president... or worse! 😉
At least he's got a chance at life, regardless of how he was brought into the world and in what condition.
P
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauder"To maximise their chances, they used a friend with five generations of deafness in his family as a sperm donor. Because Duchesneau is fourth-generation deaf on her mother's side, the baby would have a 50-50 chance of being deaf." from the article.
The article says that they took no more risk of having a deaf child then two deaf from birth parents would if they decided to have a child. It's funny that someone who pretends they are morally opposed to eugenics would have a problem with this.
Are you saying that if the lesbian couple were able to conceive using their own resources the results would be the same?
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightWhy is that important? You would agree that two deaf people from birth would have a higher chance of having a deaf child, wouldn't you? Would the fact that two deaf people had a deaf child make them criminals in your view?
"To maximise their chances, they used a friend with five generations of deafness in his family as a sperm donor. Because Duchesneau is fourth-generation deaf on her mother's side, the baby would have a 50-50 chance of being deaf." from the article.
Are you saying that if the lesbian couple were able to conceive using their own resources the results would be the same?
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's important because it might show that they tried to have a deaf child, which is somewhat different thatn "taking one's chances"
Why is that important? You would agree that two deaf people from birth would have a higher chance of having a deaf child, wouldn't you? Would the fact that two deaf people had a deaf child make them criminals in your view?
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause it is wrong to deliberately engineer a child with deafness? Or is it? You're the lawyer!
Why?
Are they harming the child by depriving it of hearing? Are they harming the child by trying to deprive it of hearing? I think they did try to deprive the child from having the faculty of hearing.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightIs a deaf child less of a child than one who can hear? Why is it wrong for parents of a child to want that child to be like them? Does that make them criminals? Do you have to be a lawyer to make a decision on what you think is right under these circumstances (it obviously didn't stop Ivanhoe)?
Because it is wrong to deliberately engineer a child with deafness? Or is it? You're the lawyer!
Are they harming the child by depriving it of hearing? Are they harming the child by trying to deprive it of hearing? I think they did try to deprive the child from having the faculty of hearing.
03 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat does Ivanhoe have to do with it?
Is a deaf child less of a child than one who can hear? Why is it wrong for parents of a child to want that child to be like them? Does that make them criminals? Do you have to be a lawyer to make a decision on what you think is ...[text shortened]... ght under these circumstances (it obviously didn't stop Ivanhoe)?
I think it's clear that the couple stacked the cards, had a deaf child, and didn't consider what the child might like later on in life, when both parents are dead and the child can't hear - anything
EDIT spelling
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightIvanhoe's opinion was " I consider this a crime. I hope they will get sued by their off-spring in due time.
What does Ivanhoe have to do with it?
I think it's clear that the couple stacked the cards, had a deaf child, and didn't consider what the child might like later on in life, when both parents are dead and the child can't hear - anything
EDIT spelling
From your posts, I assumed you agreed with his position; if I'm wrong I apologize.
I think it's quite possible that since they were deaf they did consider what the child might be like later in life. I think that hetereosexual deaf people who have children increase the risk that their child might be deaf. I think that nobody makes a big deal of it. I think the fact that this deaf couple were lesbians made it into a story and a "crime" in some people's eyes.
What do you think?