Originally posted by KneverKnightIf a child never had hearing, they would not know what they were missing. I can't imagine they'd want to sue their parents over something they didn't feel a loss over.
The kids will have cause to sue the parents later, because the parents [b]intendedthem to be deaf. Being a deaf lesbian is no excuse for cruelty and it is cruel to purposely deny a child of one of its senses.[/b]
Originally posted by KneverKnightThere's little legal difference in civil law between intending to do something and being reckless about the outcome; both are actionable. If your theory was adopted the deaf children of two deaf parents could sue their "cruel" parents just as easily.
The kids will have cause to sue the parents later, because the parents [b]intendedthem to be deaf. Being a deaf lesbian is no excuse for cruelty and it is cruel to purposely deny a child of one of its senses.[/b]
To be precise, what the couple "intended" was to increase the chances that a surrogate child would be deaf. If the child was not born deaf (50-50 chance according to the article), could the couple still be sued for "intending" him/her to be deaf?
Originally posted by no1marauderIn that case, the kid would be able to hear, maybe play Carnegie Hall, who knows?
There's little legal difference in civil law between intending to do something and being reckless about the outcome; both are actionable. If your theory was adopted the deaf children of two deaf parents could sue their "cruel" parents just as easily.
To be precise, what the couple "intended" was to increase the chances that a surr ...[text shortened]... according to the article), could the couple still be sued for "intending" him/her to be deaf?
In the case of two other deaf parents, I assume that they would rather their child be able to hear.
What would these parents have done if in spite of their machinations, the child was not deaf? Thrown him back?
There are some screws not only loose, but missing IMHO
Originally posted by KneverKnightThanks for not answering my question; that always speed a debate along. You made a legal conclusion; I pointed out to you that as a legal matter "intent" and "reckless" would make no difference in civil law. It's easy to spew insults on this couple because they have a belief system that seems to be unpopular here, but the article makes clear that they preferred a deaf child (who they don't believe is so hopelessly handicapped as you do) but would not "have thrown back" a non-deaf child. Thus, your argument has a screw loose and is basically just an ad hominem attack.
In that case, the kid would be able to hear, maybe play Carnegie Hall, who knows?
In the case of two other deaf parents, I assume that they would rather their child be able to hear.
What would these parents have done if in spite of their machinations, the child was not deaf? Thrown him back?
There are some screws not only loose, but missing IMHO
Originally posted by ivanhoeAre you suggesting that deaf people have a lower quality of life?
Because it is deliberately and to a great extent increasing the chance of harming someone, depriving him or her from a possibility to communicate with others.
I hope blind people do not get that idea.
Have you ever interacted with a deaf person? Do you know them
to be resentful of their lack of hearing?
The deaf people I know have a 'deaf culture,' as such, something
very rich and which I cannot share (being able to hear).
Do you think that two people with cystic fibrosis shouldn't be able
to have children because of the 100% of having a child with cystic
fibrosis?
Nemesio
Here is the problem folks: deaf people do not view themselves as
'handicapped.' They do not see themselves as having a 'problem.'
Many of them feel enriched by their deafness because of the different
ways in which they experience the world.
They also have a 'deaf culture' wherein deaf people in the community
share a special relationship that hearing people cannot share. You
may scoff at it, but it exists.
To want their children to share in that part of their life rather than
the difficulties that would be manifest in a hearing child in a deaf
household is nobody's business but that couple.
Would I want it? No. But it's not my child. I don't know the emic
perspective on 'deaf culture,' but those few I know who are deaf find
it very rewarding.
Nemesio
Originally posted by wucky3ASL - American Sign Language is taught in some schools. Had I known that I could take ASL as my language requirement, I would have been all over it.
Ivanhoe..
I worked in the deaf community and learnt sign whilst doing so...why don't you take the time to learn S.L. so you can communicate with them. I think its high time BSL became a recognised language taught in schools to all children..deaf or otherwise
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for putting words into my mouth, when I need a mouthpiece, I'll let you know. I never said "hopeless."
Thanks for not answering my question; that always speed a debate along. You made a legal conclusion; I pointed out to you that as a legal matter "intent" and "reckless" would make no difference in civil law. It's easy to spew insults on this couple because they have a belief system that seems to be unpopular here, but the article makes clear ...[text shortened]... on-deaf child. Thus, your argument has a screw loose and is basically just an ad hominem attack.
As a student at a school with a major emphasis on ASL (Gardner-Webb University if you cared to know), I have had the opportunity to learn and appreciate sign language and associate with many deaf people. I discussed the topic of these two women with my professor of ASL (who is deaf) and he said the following:
"It is really very common for many deaf parents to have a desire of having the deaf children. My parents are deaf. I enjoy full linguistic and cultural communication with them all my life. Now I have three hearing children. Communication is not quite the same. The oldest child is more fluent in ASL and is able to communicate "fully" with me. With my 2nd and 3rd children, I tend to sign slower and fingerspell a lot to make sure they understand me. I truly do adore them!"
What these women did was not wrong in my opinion. They simply got a sperm donor who happened to have a lot of deafness run in his family. Like the article said, there was still a chance the baby could have been hearing. Does that mean the women would not love the child if it was hearing? NO! If any of you had a child that was born with a birth defect such as Downs or something else, would you love your child any less? I hope not. I think that if this situation would have happened with a husband/wife who were unable to conceive so the woman received an injection, it would not have been as big an issue. Again, my professor says:
"I have two good friends living in Frederick, Maryland who are lesbians and adopted two deaf small girls from Eastern European countries. They sent me the Christmas photo of their family recently. They seem to be so happy like other families. It is my personal opinion that in general the deaf communities tend to be more tolerant of different sexual orientations, because we are the minority, and many of us can relate to their feelings of being oppressed."
The deaf culture and community that he talks about here should show you what the other people in the deaf community feel.
As for their "handicap" most deaf people do not consider themselves handicaped. They are able to communicate the same, if not better, than those of us that are hearing. On the same note, however, this is because most of them were born deaf. Losing hearing after birth plagues some people, and it is usually these deaf people that try to correct their "problem" with cochlear implants and hearing aids.
Originally posted by GWUchessmasterHmmm Thanks for the post. It's good food for thought.
As a student at a school with a major emphasis on ASL (Gardner-Webb University if you cared to know), I have had the opportunity to learn and appreciate sign language and associate with many deaf people. I discussed the topic of these two women with my professor of ASL (who is deaf) and he said the following:
"It is really very common for many deaf ...[text shortened]... ese deaf people that try to correct their "problem" with cochlear implants and hearing aids.
To those who are quick to condemn the couple as "selfish" and insist they have a "screw" loose, here's a paragraph from the article:
But to Duchesneau and McCullough [the couple], a deaf baby is a perfect baby. They resent the implication that to be deaf is to be inferior to someone of normal hearing. Both are graduates and work as mental health specialists and therapists to deaf people and their families. Duchesneau and McCullough place themselves among those who see deafness as a cultural difference. "While being deaf is experienced as a loss by people who become deaf later in life, for people who are born deaf there is no loss," says Duchesneau. "Being deaf is just a way of life. We feel whole as deaf people and we want to share the wonderful aspects of our deaf community -- a sense of belonging and of connectness -- with children. We feel we live rich lives as deaf people."
Sound "selfish" and "nuts" to you? Should these people go to jail as Ivanhoe wants or be liable to be sued by their own kids as others insist?
Originally posted by no1marauderLove the way you just keep ducking the debate. That is what big bad rich lawyers do in the real world. How do you handle a real challenge in life? Just wondering.
To those who are quick to condemn the couple as "selfish" and insist they have a "screw" loose, here's a paragraph from the article:
But to Duchesneau and McCullough [the couple], a deaf baby is a perfect baby. They resent the implication that to be deaf is to be inferior to someone of normal hearing. Both are graduates and work as me ...[text shortened]... people go to jail as Ivanhoe wants or be liable to be sued by their own kids as others insist?
Originally posted by no1marauderThey brought a kid into the world without hearing, on purpose!
To those who are quick to condemn the couple as "selfish" and insist they have a "screw" loose, here's a paragraph from the article:
But to Duchesneau and McCullough [the couple], a deaf baby is a perfect baby. They ...[text shortened]... ants or be liable to be sued by their own kids as others insist?
Everything I've heard in this thread points to our capacity to overcome adversity, such as the inability to hear, and to lead productive and worthwhile lives in spite of this.
To introduce, on purpose, a child with the same disability as the parent to satisy the parent's longing to relate to the child better seems nevertheless to divorce the child from that which most of us take for granted eg-the enjoyment of music, the sound of an approaching car from behind. I still think they did the kid a disservice, limited it's options and so forth.