Originally posted by no1marauderBeethoven, Mozart, Tom Waits, The Velvet Underground...
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?
There are various things deaf people (born deaf or otherwise) will miss out on.
Deliberately trying to deny this to someone is evil.
The same as me forcing people to have a deaf child (deliberately) is evil, so is deliberately trying to deny a child hearing evil. They are forcing their will upon their child to reduce its quality of life.
I think any parent who would do that to a child should be on the other end of the mental health service than these two people.
Whether it's hearing, sight, smell, limbs or whatever. To deliberately try to get rid of one of these things is screwed up beyond belief no1marauder.
Yes, there are limits to liberalism and choice. Choosing to deny your kid the sound of the beach and the sound of water hitting a puddle and the sound of the wind in a harbour is EVIL.
Originally posted by shavixmirI spent a couple of hours researching for you today. I didn't find anything of note. I must have read a thousand pages of stuff from the clinic.
Beethoven, Mozart, Tom Waits, The Velvet Underground...
There are various things deaf people (born deaf or otherwise) will miss out on.
Deliberately trying to deny this to someone is evil.
The same as me forcing people to have a deaf child (deliberately) is evil, so is deliberately trying to deny a child hearing evil. They are forcing their will u ...[text shortened]... e beach and the sound of water hitting a puddle and the sound of the wind in a harbour is EVIL.
Sorry. I'll keep looking.
Originally posted by NemesioWhat a load of complete bollocks 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 he ...[text shortened]... ctive on 'deaf culture,' but those few I know who are deaf find
it very rewarding.
Nemesio
I know deaf people. And they do consider deafness a handicap. And why shouldn't they? They can't hear crickets chirp at night. They'd like to though.
See, the problem is not that two people who have an increased chance of having a handicapped child are "doing it". The problem is that they deliberately went out their way to do so.
That's not right.
If they so think that deafness is "So bloody great" then perhaps they should try to convince the child of this once he's 18 and see if it really wants to choose a life of silence. I mean, you can always have your hearing removed can't you?
Why not give the child a choice, if possible?
Originally posted by shavixmirSo you believe that all deaf people should be sterilized so that they can't "choose" to take a risk that their children will be denied hearing? After all, all these people did is to find a sperm donor who was also deaf; what is the difference between choosing a surrogate sperm donor who is deaf and choosing an actual sperm donor (i.e. husband) who is deaf?
Beethoven, Mozart, Tom Waits, The Velvet Underground...
There are various things deaf people (born deaf or otherwise) will miss out on.
Deliberately trying to deny this to someone is evil.
The same as me forcing people to have a deaf child (deliberately) is evil, so is deliberately trying to deny a child hearing evil. They are forcing their will u ...[text shortened]... e beach and the sound of water hitting a puddle and the sound of the wind in a harbour is EVIL.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is the same as saying that because "iraqi's have always been under the thumb, they deserve no better."
So you believe that all deaf people should be sterilized so that they can't "choose" to take a risk that their children will be denied hearing? After all, all these people did is to find a sperm donor who was also deaf; what is the difference between choosing a surrogate sperm donor who is deaf and choosing an actual sperm donor (i.e. husband) who is deaf?
What right has any human to intentionally try to deprive another of one of "only five" sensory inputs we have to the universe?
Is there a right to allow that? To justify it? Isn't 1 out of 5 just about 20% of what we receive from the universe?
What kind of "rationalization" can cause the DELIBERATE EFFORT of denying that sense? That 20%?
Are we not sorry enough as we are? Where are we better for receiving 20% less input from the universe?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy do you keep on with the sterilization? Nothing here to suggest that.
So you believe that all deaf people should be sterilized so that they can't "choose" to take a risk that their children will be denied hearing? After all, all these people did is to find a sperm donor who was also deaf; what ...[text shortened]... eaf and choosing an actual sperm donor (i.e. husband) who is deaf?
EDIT The difference is she might be in love with her partner
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmir
Beethoven, Mozart, Tom Waits, The Velvet Underground...
There are various things deaf people (born deaf or otherwise) will miss out on.
Deliberately trying to deny this to someone is evil.
You are being arrogant. You do not know what being deaf confers upon people.
You are assuming that missing out on Mozart or the sound of a fart reduces
someone's quality of life.
You are the big fan of 'choice,' no? Right to die, right to abort, right to do
drugs. That's fine. I agree with you sometimes, disagree with you on others,
but your life is your life.
Now, you are telling people, 'Hey, I know you're deaf, and I know you are
trying to have dignity, but, you know what, you are a cripple. You are missing
out on life. Your life is qualitatively worse than mine.'
Who the hell are you that has all the answers? And then you claim it is EVIL?
Porn, not evil. Drugs, not evil. Not wearing a seatbelt, not evil.
I'm so glad that we have the TRUE MESSIAH to inform us what is and is not
evil.
Call a spade a spade: is a deaf person a cripple? It seems your answer is yes.
Have you ever asked a born-deaf person that question? If so, what was their
answer.
Perhaps you should read GWUchessmaster's post above. It might give you some
revelation...oh wait, I forgot, you have all knowledge, Mr Messiah.
Nemesio
Originally posted by shavixmirOk. You obviously haven't spent a lot of time around
What a load of complete bollocks Nemesio.
born-deaf people.
Go ahead. Go up to one and tell them they are a cripple.
Make your axiomatic phrases about how you should tell people
what they can and cannot do with their reproductive choices.
I scarcely care.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMost people have 5 senses, to intentionally deprive a kid of one of them is egotism in this case.
Ok. You obviously haven't spent a lot of time around
born-deaf people.
Go ahead. Go up to one and tell them they are a cripple.
Make your axiomatic phrases about how you should tell people
what they can and cannot do with their reproductive choices.
I scarcely care.
Nemesio
They intended their child be deaf like them so that they could relate to him better.
What about the people they meet when they go out in the world, who are not deaf?
Originally posted by NemesioLike wow. that is a surprise. You don't even see that his point of view is the deliberate act of denying one of five senses to a child.
Ok. You obviously haven't spent a lot of time around
born-deaf people.
Go ahead. Go up to one and tell them they are a cripple.
Make your axiomatic phrases about how you should tell people
what they can and cannot do with their reproductive choices.
I scarcely care.
Nemesio
Why am I not surprised? You really were born without a clue. Then it got worse. You had to try and reason it out. And there was nobody to do it for you. Sad.
Who said anything about being "naturally born" to deafness? Do you really have a clue? This is about a deliberate ATTEMPT to deny a sense to a child.
What part of that is so difficult?
Originally posted by KneverKnightI don't deny that it is egotism. Are you going to make egotism
Most people have 5 senses, to intentionally deprive a kid of one of them is egotism in this case.
They intended their child be deaf like them so that they could relate to him better.
What about the people they meet when they go out in the world, who are not deaf?
illegal? Are you going to say all parental egotism towards a
child is evil?
In their shoes, I would not do this. I am not in their shoes.
Shavixmir would have them throw out their shoes and put on
his shoes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " Should these people go to jail as Ivanhoe wants ..... "
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?
I never said that.
Originally posted by NemesioYou would too. You are just the right mix of ego and non-thought to do exactly as they did. In my opinion.
In their shoes, I would not do this.
Nemesio
Who are you trying to kid? Are we supposed to not notice that you think everyone has the absolute right to do as THEY please? Do you really deny that you are the center of the universe? I doubt it. You have stated over and over that there are NO LIMITS. THAT WHATEVER A PERSON DOES IS JUST FINE. Name a single post EVER where you have said that there are limits to human behaviour. I dare you.