who's right is it to take away the chance of the child having normal hearing, i personally think its wrong to deprive a child, i dont understand why the parents would want this. the child should be able to grow up and decide for itself, not have choices made for them before they have a chance.
it seems like the parents are afraid of something, for if the child was to have normal hearing i cant see how its upbringing would be different for it would be the parents who have the major influence on the child's life
That they are lesbian is beside the point. From the article I gather they expected applause from the world and are dismayed to find themselves attacked. Another poster said something to the effect that most parents would want something better than what they have for their child and I agree, deafness is nothing to celebrate.
These people are selfish.
Originally posted by no1marauder
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
You are the only person confused in this thread, and acting like a child.
Some points which have been brought up and ignored by you on more than one occasion
1. The couple did not just choose 2 random deaf couples, they chose a couple which has a genetically significantly higher chance (than your average deaf couple) of conceiving a deaf child. The given percentage was 50%.
2. The couple did not want a child irrespective of whether it would be deaf or not, they purposefully wanted to deprive a child from being able to experience hearing. Nyxie made an excelent point, that she didn't know any parents who would willingly take away something from them, just because they didn't have it themselves. This couple is not trying to have a child and risking it being deaf, they are actively attempting to attain deafness in their child.
Why is it wrong to want less for your children ? If you don't understand that, there is more wrong with you than I thought. In fact, you really shoudln't be allowed close to children.
Originally posted by KneverKnightBesides a lot of bigotry directed at deaf people who may not think that being deaf is the type of half-human existence most of the other posters here believe it is, I've yet to hear a rational reason why these two people who want to bring a child into the world are particulary "selfish". So what if they preferred that there child be like them; most parents do. Do you believe that all deaf persons should be "humanely" sterilized so that they can't have children because the odds of having a deaf child from these parents is higher and therefore, they are "selfish" to have children? If not, please explain the difference between what a deaf couple having a child do and what these people did that's makes the latter so blameworthy and the former not.
That they are lesbian is beside the point. From the article I gather they expected applause from the world and are dismayed to find themselves attacked. Another poster said something to the effect that most parents would want something ...[text shortened]... gree, deafness is nothing to celebrate.
These people are selfish.
Originally posted by pcaspianDo you believe that all deaf people should be sterilized, pcaspian?
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
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 tha ...[text shortened]... fact, you really shoudln't be allowed close to children.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think you are reading too much into other people's responses, where is the bigotry?
Besides a lot of bigotry directed at deaf people who may not think that being deaf is the type of half-human existence most of the other posters here believe it is, I've yet to hear a rational reason why two people who want to bring a child into the world are particulary "selfish". So what if they preferred that there child be like them; most ...[text shortened]... a child do and what these people did that's makes the latter so blameworthy and the former not.
That couple could have chose another doner to increase the chances of the offspring having hearing, yet went the other way and expect us to applaud them? I think not, I'm a music lover and I stand by my assertion that they acted selfishly.
Originally posted by KneverKnightI don't expect you to applaud them, but neither should you condemn them. You should defend "assertions" here (it is a Debate Forum, after all) not merely "stand by them". How are the actions of this couple different from a another deaf couple that have a child knowing it has an enhanced risk of deafness? In legal terms, both deaf couples are acting "recklessly" as defined in NY Penal Law 15.05(3):
I think you are reading too much into other people's responses, where is the bigotry?
That couple could have chose another doner to increase the chances of the offspring having hearing, yet went the other way and expect us to applaud them? I think not, I'm a music lover and I stand by my assertion that they acted selfishly.
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result ............ when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur
Both couples are aware that the risk of the child being born deaf is substantial (I'm assuming a deaf couple carrying a hereditary gene for deafness, of course). So where is the moral difference?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe difference is that they "intended" the child to be deaf. Through their actions they set in course a way that would effectively give a higher chance that the child be born deaf.
I don't expect you to applaud them, but neither should you condemn them. You should defend "assertions" here (it is a Debate Forum, after all) not merely "stand by them". How are the actions of this couple different from a another deaf couple that have a child knowing it has an enhanced risk of deafness? In legal terms, both deaf couples are ...[text shortened]... af couple carrying a hereditary gene for deafness, of course). So where is the moral difference?
Nyxie
Originally posted by no1marauderI find it hard to believe people would try their best to have a deaf, blind or one-armed child.
I don't expect you to applaud them, but neither should you condemn them. You should defend "assertions" here (it is a Debate Forum, after all) not merely "stand by them". How are the actions of this couple different from a another deaf couple that have a child knowing it has an enhanced risk of deafness? In legal terms, both deaf couples are ...[text shortened]... af couple carrying a hereditary gene for deafness, of course). So where is the moral difference?
I find their reasoning pathetically stupid. Yes, they may relate better to that child, but unless that child ends up living with someone like me (a chronic snorer), then it's going to miss out on some great things in life.
Anyone who would try their best to create such negative circumstances for a child should be sterilised for idiocy, sued for neglect and stoned for their lack of compassion.
Originally posted by NyxieAnd so does a deaf couple that decides to have a child; after all, they could marry non-deaf people to lessen the risk of a deaf child being born. Or they could not have children at all. Their actions are effectively giving a higher chance that a child will be born deaf just like the couple in the article.
The difference is that they "intended" the child to be deaf. Through their actions they set in course a way that would effectively give a higher chance that the child be born deaf.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieExactly. The difference is another deaf couple would probably hope their offspring wasn't deaf and would use any means available to lessen the chances of it being deaf.
The difference is that they "intended" the child to be deaf. Through their actions they set in course a way that would effectively give a higher chance that the child be born deaf.
Nyxie
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the judgement lies on the "deliberate" side of the argument.
And so does a deaf couple that decides to have a child; after all, they could marry non-deaf people to lessen the risk of a deaf child being born. Or they could not have children at all. Their actions are effectively giving a higher chance that a child will be born deaf just like the couple in the article.
Obviously if you fall in love and there's a chance, things are different.
But when you go out of your way to try to create a handicap, there's a screw or two missing.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour suggestions that deaf couples not have children or choose a different parter are unrealistic and cruel.
And so does a deaf couple that decides to have a child; after all, they could marry non-deaf people to lessen the risk of a deaf child being born. Or they could not have children at all. Their actions are effectively giving a higher chance that a child will be born deaf just like the couple in the article.