Originally posted by no1marauderI am curious about the sperm donar. How is this arranged? If it is found that the act of deliberatlely producing a child with a handicap is a culpable offense, is he liable for prosecution?
Ivanhoe's opinion was " I consider this a crime. I hope they will get sued by their off-spring in due time.
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 tha ...[text shortened]... to a story and a "crime" in some people's eyes.
What do you think?
What role does he have on the child's future?
Etc?
Also, I would like to see that the child's interests are protected if it can be proved that it has been inflicted with deafness.
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightAlso, I would like to see that the child's interests are protected if it can be proved that it has been inflicted with deafness.
I am curious about the sperm donar. How is this arranged? If it is found that the act of deliberatlely producing a child with a handicap is a culpable offense, is he liable for prosecution?
What role does he have on the child's futur ...[text shortened]... cted if it can be proved that it has been inflicted with deafness.
What "protection" would you suggest would be more effective than having a pair of deaf parents that love him/her?
And thanks for addressing my points in my last point.
It seems odd. Most parents from what i understand try to strive to give theier children all that they have and more. To work to better the conditions of their offspring and descendants is a fundemental part of what we call life and society. I myself would not engineer a child to be deaf. This is me, I can not tell others how to raise their children.
I think that it is a disservice to the child to engineer it this way. You say like them, but then that in itself is a selfish motive. My parents both suffered from headaches, as do all their children. I don't think my parents would have engineered us to be that way. If they had, I would have considered it wrong.
My oppinion may be biased because I can hear, the joy of music is something I would never want another human being deprived of. Being deaf is a handicap in certain situations. It is not debillitating, but it can lead to complications. Crosing the street and the car comes out of nowhere, I hear that car screech, and I jump out of the way. There are many times my hearing may have in fact saved my life.
Nyxie
I would like people to respond specifically to my post:
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?
And further, do you think that deaf parents should not be allowed to have children because that would increase the chances of their offpring being deaf?
Originally posted by no1marauderI was'nt even aware that we were discusing a lesbian couple, I'm sorry I missed that part and did'nt address it. This fact does'nt change my view in any way.
I would like people to respond specifically to my post:
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 f ...[text shortened]... llowed to have children because that would increase the chances of their offpring being deaf?
Should heterosexual deaf couples be allowed to reporoduce? Yes of course. Should they try to "make" their children deaf? I think not.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieWhy? Aren't they increasing the chance that the child will be born deaf? In fact, isn't any deaf person increasing the chance that their child will be born deaf just by procreating? Why is the answer "Yes, of course" if you find it morally reprehensible to increase the risk that a child will be born deaf when any deaf person who has children is increasing that risk?
I was'nt even aware that we were discusing a lesbian couple, I'm sorry I missed that part and did'nt address it. This fact does'nt change my view in any way.
Should heterosexual deaf couples be allowed to reporoduce? Yes of course. Should they try to "make" their children deaf? I think not.
Nyxie
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't remember stating I found it "morally reprehensible".
Why? Aren't they increasing the chance that the child will be born deaf? In fact, isn't any deaf person increasing the chance that their child will be born deaf just by procreating? Why is the answer "Yes, of course" if you find it morally reprehensible to increase the risk that a child will be born deaf when any deaf person who has children is increasing that risk?
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieI prefer not to dance. The people in this thread wanted a deaf child and they "engineered" it to increase the chances that the child would be deaf. I believe that you stated that was wrong; if I am incorrect merely say that you don't think that it was wrong. If you do think it was wrong, explain to me why deaf people "of course" should be able to have children knowing that they are increasing the risks of deafness in their children, but that it was "wrong" for this couple to do the same thing.
I don't remember stating I found it "morally reprehensible".
Nyxie
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry you have the wrong dance card here no1marauder. I never said what they did was wrong. I said I did'nt think they should try to do it. You wanted my oppinion that's my oppinion. I'm not holding them to my oppinion.
I prefer not to dance. The people in this thread wanted a deaf child and they "engineered" it to increase the chances that the child would be deaf. I believe that you stated that was wrong; if I am incorrect merely say that you don't think that it was wrong. If you do think it was wrong, explain to me why deaf people "of course" should be abl ...[text shortened]... s of deafness in their children, but that it was "wrong" for this couple to do the same thing.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieYou say like them, but then that in itself is a selfish motive. My parents both suffered from headaches, as do all their children. I don't think my parents would have engineered us to be that way. If they had, I would have considered it wrong.
Sorry you have the wrong dance card here no1marauder. I never said what they did was wrong. I said I did'nt think they should try to do it. You wanted my oppinion that's my oppinion. I'm not holding them to my oppinion.
Nyxie
Wasn't the above analogy you presented supposed to make the point that what this couple did was wrong?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're confusing two diferrent points. My parents did both suffer from headaches, and their children do. Was it wrong for them to procreate? No. Would it have been wrong if they had intentionally engineered us to suffer from headaches? In my oppinion yes.
You say like them, but then that in itself is a selfish motive. My parents both suffered from headaches, as do all their children. I don't think my parents would have engineered us to be that way. If they had, I would have considered it wrong.
Wasn't the above analogy you presented supposed to make the point that what this couple did was wrong?
That's my oppinion.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieI'm not confused. I am wondering why you feel that "in your opinion" it is acceptable to knowingly procreate realizing that your children have a higher risk of some physical trait that most of us would feel is undesirable (headaches, deafness, etc.) but that it is unacceptable for a couple to "engineer" such a trait (meaning in this case they merely enhanced the possibility of it occurring) even if they share that trait and do not find it as undesirable as most of us do. I realize it's only your opinion, but that is what I'm asking for. It's only my opinion that these people did nothing wrong and that this article was selected for shock value because it involved lesbians and that if a hetereosexual deaf couple did the same thing it would not get a mention. But that's my opinion, which is not necessarily more valid than yours.
You're confusing two diferrent points. My parents did both suffer from headaches, and their children do. Was it wrong for them to procreate? No. Would it have been wrong if they had intentionally engineered us to suffer from headaches? In my oppinion yes.
That's my oppinion.
Nyxie
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I stated before and will state again, when I made my point I was'nt even aware of the fact that the couple was lesbian. This fact does'nt change my oppinion in any way. I don't care if it was a heterosexual or a lesbian couple. What I care about is that they intentionally did it. I don't like the idea of intentionally trying to make a child a specific way.
I'm not confused. I am wondering why you feel that "in your opinion" it is acceptable to knowingly procreate realizing that your children have a higher risk of some physical trait that most of us would feel is undesirable (headaches, deafness, etc.) but that it is unacceptable for a couple to "engineer" such a trait (meaning in this case the ...[text shortened]... would not get a mention. But that's my opinion, which is not necessarily more valid than yours.
Beyond that the title of the thread is misleading, as they did'nt engineer it, they went for more favorable odds.
Nyxie