Originally posted by no1marauderA deaf couple procreating does not mean that they "intend" their offspring to be deaf. This couple intended it. It was a deliberate and planned idea.
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.
Nyxie
Originally posted by shavixmirExactly. I'm still unclear as to the motive behind the couple wanting a deaf child. Was it because they felt a deaf existence is a more satisfying experience? Was it to add another soldier to their "militant deaf community"? Oh wait, I know now! It was publicity. And being a lesbian couple doesn't hurt either.
I think the judgement lies on the "deliberate" side of the argument.
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.
Definitely some screws loose. It doesn't make them criminals, in my eyes, just idiots. And I agree with ivanhoe, the children should have a right to sue the parents if they feel that their life was "short-changed", and they should win.
Originally posted by darvlayThat's just bigotry; you're starting to sound like Darfius. The article made clear why they preferred a deaf child; they wanted a child similar to them like most parents do. The arguments here presume that being deaf is some half-human state; perhaps actual deaf persons would be in a better position to judge such than us non-deaf people. Their intention was to have a child like them; I see nothing particulary morally blameworthy about that. Nor do I think that a deaf child cannot live a full and rewarding life with loving, deaf parents.
Exactly. I'm still unclear as to the motive behind the couple wanting a deaf child. Was it because they felt a deaf existence is a more satisfying experience? Was it to add another soldier to their "militant deaf community"? Oh wait, I know now! It was publicity. And being a lesbian couple doesn't hurt either.
Definitely some screws loose. It d ...[text shortened]... ight to sue the parents if they feel that their life was "short-changed", and they should win.
Originally posted by no1marauderGood point no1marauder, and I shall point to the end of the mentioned acrticle. Apparently the deaf community is not in agreement with the intentions of this couple either.
That's just bigotry; you're starting to sound like Darfius. The article made clear why they preferred a deaf child; they wanted a child similar to them like most parents do. The arguments here presume that being deaf is some half-human state; perhaps actual deaf persons would be in a better position to judge such than us non-deaf people. Their in ...[text shortened]... or do I think that a deaf child cannot live a full and rewarding life with loving, deaf parents.
Nyxie
the Valkyrja
Originally posted by no1marauderI think any reasonable, caring person will conclude the same; a deaf child can certainly have a full life. But what is the reason not to let nature take its course without interference?
Their intention was to have a child like them; I see nothing particulary morally blameworthy about that. Nor do I think that a deaf child cannot live a full and rewarding life with loving, deaf parents.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat if two people tried their utmost best at conceiving a child with one arm? I mean, not two people with one arm each having sex and trying to have a child. I mean two people with one arm each, searching for an as high as possible succes rate to have a one-armed child.
That's just bigotry; you're starting to sound like Darfius. The article made clear why they preferred a deaf child; they wanted a child similar to them like most parents do. The arguments here presume that being deaf is some half-human state; perhaps actual deaf persons would be in a better position to judge such than us non-deaf people. Their in ...[text shortened]... or do I think that a deaf child cannot live a full and rewarding life with loving, deaf parents.
What do you think about that?
Originally posted by no1marauderBigotry, eh? Okay there, buddy. 🙄
That's just bigotry; you're starting to sound like Darfius. The article made clear why they preferred a deaf child; they wanted a child similar to them like most parents do. The arguments here presume that being deaf is some half-human state; perhaps actual deaf persons would be in a better position to judge such than us non-deaf people. Their in ...[text shortened]... or do I think that a deaf child cannot live a full and rewarding life with loving, deaf parents.
Being deaf does not make you a "half-person" but it does deprive you of enjoying life to its full extent. The child could have had full hearing and still have been an integral part of the deaf community and remain "similar" to their parents (whatever that means).
Simmer down, no1.
Originally posted by shavixmirDo you have a DVD of this, so I can peruse it and make a decision based on actual, "hard" evidence?
What if two people tried their utmost best at conceiving a child with one arm? I mean, not two people with one arm each having sex and trying to have a child. I mean two people with one arm each, searching for an as high as possible succes rate to have a one-armed child.
What do you think about that?
Originally posted by no1marauderAhh... an attempt at humour so subtle all forms of laughter were avoided!
It was a joke answer.
Yes, I would not care and wouldn't regard it as any of my or the government's business.
Where would you draw the line?
Say the two deaf people were forced to try to have a deaf child. Would that be your's or the government's business?
Originally posted by shavixmirPeople shouldn't be FORCED to have a deaf child by me, the government or the "militant, deaf lesbians" that Darvlay is concerned with. That's where I draw my line.
Ahh... an attempt at humour so subtle all forms of laughter were avoided!
Where would you draw the line?
Say the two deaf people were forced to try to have a deaf child. Would that be your's or the government's business?
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd so, if a government, or I, were forcing two deaf people to have a deaf child, you would draw line and try to stop me. Have a Judge step in, or something?
People shouldn't be FORCED to have a deaf child by me, the government or the "militant, deaf lesbians" that Darvlay is concerned with. That's where I draw my line.