1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoSome people were asserting that the children of the couple could sue their parents for intentionally enchancing the odds that the child would be born deaf. I was merely pointing out that following this logic two deaf parents could also be sued for the same thing as their decision to have a child would be also increasing the risk that said child would be born deaf. The difference between "intending" (more like hoping here) a child be born deaf and ignoring the substantial risk that your behavior (i.e. having the child) would mean a deaf child would be born would be legally insignificant as "intentional" and "reckless" acts are both actionable in American Law.
There is one part of no1's argument that really bugs me. This "intent/recklessness" thing.
Yes, it's true the law often equates the two. But I think it's highly misleading to try and use 'recklessness' in this context. It assumes ...[text shortened]... choose a deaf embryo, I think exactly the same issues would arise.
The sterilization question is I believe a relevant question to ask the people who raged that the couple were increasing the chances that a child be born deaf; the point being so do all deaf people who procreate if they have a genetic disposition for deafness. No one has really addressed the issue and I doubt if anyone will as the logical conclusion of their arguments lead to such forced sterilization.
Perhaps most people who have responded here don't think that the fact that the couple are lesbians is relevant at all, but I'll bet you the person who started this thread does as he has stated repeatedly that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt children. From looking at his reasoning, I'm fairly certain he also believes they shouldn't be allowed to have and raise children with surrogate parents. Whether that effects his view of the actions of the couple here, he'd have to say.
Originally posted by no1marauderPeople sue each other all the time; it's possible someone could sue his parents if he was deaf and both parents were, but would he win the case? Wouldn't a victory for him be at odds with his parents right to conceive a baby? Here we are leading to sterilization and I don't think that will ever fly.
Some people were asserting that the children of the couple could sue their parents for intentionally enchancing the odds that the child would be born deaf. I was merely pointing out that following this logic two deaf parents could also be sued for the same thing as their decision to have a child would be also increasing the risk that said child w ...[text shortened]... te parents. Whether that effects his view of the actions of the couple here, he'd have to say.
In the case in this thread, couldn't it be argued that the parents could or should have used a different donor?
This won't work for gay-bashers; sexual orientation is irrelevent-ie the same thing could arise in a heterosexual marriage if one partner was sterile.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem with the logic of suing two parents for merely choosing to have a child is, can the child sue for having been born AT ALL?
Some people were asserting that the children of the couple could sue their parents for intentionally enchancing the odds that the child would be born deaf. I was merely pointing out that following this logic two deaf parents could also be sued for the same thing as their decision to have a child would be also increasing the risk that said child w ...[text shortened]... te parents. Whether that effects his view of the actions of the couple here, he'd have to say.
I realise there have been SOME moves towards this, eg suing a doctor for a failed vasectomy, and maybe the law of "wrongful birth" has advanced further along this route in the USA than I realised. But a child suing (a) the parents for (b) a particular genetic outcome that while perhaps more likely with that particular pairing of parents, was not actively sought is advancing the law a lot further than I suspect judges would be willing to go.
I'll reconsider if you can point me to a case of a child successfully suing his or her parents for his or her existence.
In fact, I would have doubts that the couple under discussion, who consciously chose a genetic trait, could be sued by the child either. I think the entire issue wouldn't be touched by the courts with a 10 foot pole as a matter of policy.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you believe that all deaf people should be sterilized, pcaspian?
Which part of this debate are you confused with ? I bold typed the points you missed. Only 2 points you needed to take into accounts. Seems you've realised one of them, now lets try the other.
Lets try again...deaf people, mentally retarded people, heck anyone capable of producing and looking after a child, or able to obtain help to look after their children, should be allowed to have a child. Any person however purposefully wishing their own personal limitations on their children is acting not out of love, but self interest. No idea whether you have a child or not, seems you don't, but heck sadly I could be wrong. When you have a child, you want everything that is best for that child. Indeed you'd gladly give up your life for that child. Now purposefully limiting the full joys that are granted to us by selective breeding or a ritual (eg: female circumcision) is taking away from a child, something they by full right should be able to experience as an adult.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianSpoken like a true know-it-all-bigot. Not only can't you grasp the simple fact that is repeated in numerous posts that deaf people don't think of themselves as "handicapped" or "missing something" but you really aren't paying attention to the thread at all. If the only issue is whether people like you will stick yer nose in the air and disapprove of somebody else that's of no interest to me; it's what people like you do. I'm only concerned when some people want the State to provide a legal apparatus to support your ignorant, bigoted views say by making what these people did a crime (as Ivanhoe wanted) or by making it actionable (as others have stated). It's none of yours, mine or the government's business what these people did.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Do you believe that all deaf people should be sterilized, pcaspian?
Which part of this debate are you confused with ? I bold typed the points you missed. Only 2 points you needed to take into accounts. Seems you've realised one of them, now lets try the other.
Lets try again...deaf people, mental ...[text shortened]... y from a child, something they by full right should be able to experience as an adult.
pc
[/b]
And BTW, I remember you whining and crying about things said at Forum Wars (not by me) jokingly concerning your family; you felt at the time it should warrant banning from RHP to say such things. Now, however, you seem to feel free to insinuate things about my personal life (which, of course, you know nothing about) on this site. Perhaps you'd explain to me why your comments above don't deserve a banning if off-site comments about someone's family do.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Spoken like a true know-it-all-bigot. Not only can't you grasp the simple fact that is repeated in numerous posts that deaf people don't think of themselves as "handicapped" or "missing something" but you really aren't paying attention to the thread at all. If the only issue is whether people like you will stick yer nose in the air and di ...[text shortened]... hy your comments above don't deserve a banning if off-site comments about someone's family do.
Maybe it is time you get banned from RHP, No1.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou and Pcaspian were on that shtick a few months ago; might as well try it again Ivanhoe. Unlike you, I've never received a minute of a forum ban and post well within the rules here. So knock yerself out trying to get me banned.
Maybe it is time you get banned from RHP, No1.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou post well within the rules ? Why ? Because you don't use the f-word here as much as you do elsewhere ? You are one of the biggest troublemakers and shit stirrers we have on the site. Elsewhere you are mighty proud of those titles. In fact you frequently boast about it. Your fellow Wolfpack-ers love the stories wherein you play the role of the hero kicking ass at RHP.
You and Pcaspian were on that shtick a few months ago; might as well try it again Ivanhoe. Unlike you, I've never received a minute of a forum ban and post well within the rules here. So knock yerself out trying to get me banned.
However you're not having much success with defending the lesbians that wanted to see their child born with a handicap. Would they have aborted the child if it could not meet their expectations ? In other words if it was a normal healthy child ? Anything goes in the New Ideology. Elsewhere or some place else being deaf can be a reason to perform an abortion on an unborn child. Here you see how criminal and arbitrary the New Ideology is you are defending.
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously not.
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?
I don't think they should deliberately try to maximise the chances of having a deaf child though.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou post well within the rules ? Why ? Because you don't use the f-word here as much as you do elsewhere ?
You post well within the rules ? Why ? Because you don't use the f-word here as much as you do elsewhere ? You are one of the biggest troublemakers and shit stirrers we have on the site. Elsewhere you are mighty proud of those titles. In ...[text shortened]... stories wherein you play the role of the hero kicking ass at RHP.
Simple. I, unlike YOU for example, have never received a minute of a forum ban. Therefore, the mods don't believe I've ever merited one. Ergo, I must be posting within the rules. As Spock (Mr. not Dr.) would say, "Logical."
I also post within the rules at Forum Wars. However, you should be fair and give me credit; my profanity there is far more colorful and creative than the mere use of the f-word. I consider some of my language there to be as much poetry as Frost or Keats.
It does you little credit to be jealous of whatever popularity I have; perhaps if you weren't such a humorless troll you might have others to chat with in a friendly manner. I enjoy myself on this site and FW; you should try it instead of going on yet another of your personal vendettas. They're boring and futile as you should know by now, but if that's the only way you can enjoy yerself on the site you have my permission to try and get me banned. See what I nice guy I am (no wonder all those Wolfpackers luuuuuuuv me)?
BTW, aren't your posts here off-topic and moderable?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sure you are enjoying yourself here No1. In particular when it is at the expense of others. But don't worry, I'm enjoying myself too. It is about time the two of us should spent some quality time together, if you can grasp what I'm saying. You have a very short memory considering the big mouth you are having again, mousie .......
You post well within the rules ? Why ? Because you don't use the f-word here as much as you do elsewhere ?
Simple. I, unlike YOU for example, have never received a minute of a forum ban. Therefore, the mods don't believe I ...[text shortened]...
BTW, aren't your posts here off-topic and moderable?
Please continue to defend the undefendable.
EDIT: Maybe you can answer the question posed in the new thread called "Will the Syrian Troops withdraw from Lebanon?"
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, I'd for one would love to see you and no1.Marauder sitting down for breakfast together.
I'm sure you are enjoying yourself here No1. In particular when it is at the expense of others. But don't worry, I'm enjoying myself too. It is about time the two of us should spent some quality time together, if you can grasp what I'm saying. You have a very short memory considering the big mouth you are having again, mousie .......
Please continue to defend the undefendable.
I'll even supply the mud.
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Defender of the Undefendable" would be a really cool Forum title for me; too bad it doesn't fit. You seem to be wanting to put your superhero tights on again and fantasize about driving the evildoers from RHP. It's OK by me; I always find your delusions pretty amusing + FW's been a little boring lately with Cribs crying about the creation of the Spirituality Forum. Just try to avoid another head explosion, Ivanhoe; it seemed to take you months to get over the last one and I worry about your mental health. I guess that's just my caring and nurturing side.
I'm sure you are enjoying yourself here No1. In particular when it is at the expense of others. But don't worry, I'm enjoying myself too. It is about time the two of us should spent some quality time together, if you can grasp what I'm saying. You have a very short memory considering the big mouth you are having again, mousie .......
Please continue ...[text shortened]... the question posed in the new thread called "Will the Syrian Troops withdraw from Lebanon?"