Lesbian couple engineers deaf child

Shinji

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1916000/1916462.stm

A deaf lesbian couple have decided to engineer a child who will also be deaf; effectively deliberately bringing a child into the world with a handicap.

Now, I'm all for gene therapy; but it's meant to be used to eradicate disability and congenital disease, not to introduce it.

Hell, I'm all for lesbian/gay couples being allowed to raise children... I'm just not for cracked-up nutjobs being allowed to cripple kids because it fits with their world view.

Terminator

Thought about it for a minute ...

But NO its still sick

DMC

Completely barmy.....

BTW, the headline is a cracker. The Sun and The Daily Mail's sub-editors are going to have a field day with this one....

strat

jesus tap dancing christ

The couple have said they will let him decide when he is older if he wants to wear a hearing aid.

why not have a non deaf child and let him decide when hes older if he wants to rupture his ear drums with red hot pokers ?


pffffffffft

PHB

While she was pregnant, Ms Duchesneau said: "It would be nice to have a deaf child who is the same as us.

Its quite obviously a selfish decision.

"A hearing baby would be a blessing. A deaf baby would be a special blessing."

Obviously she is strongly in agreement with the view that deafness is not a disability just a trait.

They told the Washington Post they believed they would make better parents to a deaf child, because they would be better able to guide them.

I can understand this logic but why don't they adopt a deaf child who has been turned away due to this disability.

They say their choice is no different from choosing what gender the child would be.

Which is illegal as I'm aware of.

Ms McCullough added: "Some people look at it like 'Oh my gosh, you shouldn't have a child who has a disability'.

"But you know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?

Thats just idiotic.


I dont think these people should be allowed bring up a child at all, yet alone a non-disabilited one. I really think its time for manditory testing for parents to have children.

Terminator

This kid is gonna need a shed-load of therapy. I'd be amazed if he doesn't kill his "parents" with a shot gun before he's 13.

Lolo

Apparently they're part of a community of deaf people who don't view deafness as a disability. I haven't heard their argument so I'm not going to dismiss this worldview outright, but I think deliberately giving a child a disadvantage like that is very unfair.

SheroN

well while it's sick and wrong in my opinion....having never been able to hear...it'll seem normal to him and he'll probably see nothing wrong with it.

Victor

I thought 'lifestyle' choices were all about choosing for yourself, not for your children.

Lolo

Most people I know have grown up with at least one 'lifestyle choice' forced down their throats (religion, politics etc.).

Terminator

Originally posted by Lolo
Most people I know have grown up with at least one 'lifestyle choice' forced down their throats (religion, politics etc.).

Yes but you can usually denounce these choices and make up your own mind. But this kid is gonna be handicapped for the rest of his life. Forget what this couple are saying about deafness not being a disability - it is a disability - not as bad as blindness or immobility but a disability nonetheless.

seamus

dis·a·bil·i·ty Pronunciation Key (ds-bl-t)
n. pl. dis·a·bil·i·ties

1

1. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.
2. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.

2. A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
4. Law. A legal incapacity or disqualification.

I'm sure this child would have trouble learning music, or growing up to become an air-traffic controller.

Surely they won't let this go ahead. What parents wouldn't want a child to have every possible chance in life, especially those that the parents never had? Yet another reason to have a basic competency test for parenting/living.

:rolleyes:

DMC

Of the child they already have...

The couple have said they will let him decide when he is older if he wants to wear a hearing aid.

Well, they've made it damn hard for him to hear in the first place, getting sperm of a deaf guy!

This could be seen as child abuse...inflicting needless harm on the child... I hope the social services in America have picked up on this...

amp

I've heard of this sort of thing before. Certain deaf people complaining about cochlear implants causing people to hear. I think their argument is that to a certain extent they have a cultural identity, their own language, blah blah blah. In their eyes it's like two white people making sure their offspring are white.

But it's still fúcking stupid.

koneko

Usually parents want the best for their kids. What's up with this? We want our child to have less chances in life. We want our child to be picked on. We want our child to miss out on so many many wonderful things (just because we had to). We want our child to find out we PLANNED things this way and hate us for the rest of its life.

I know if my parents gave me a disability I'd be pretty fúcking p!ssed.

Shinji

I know if my parents gave me a disability I'd be pretty fúcking p!ssed.

That's the thing - I've had a lot of people argue that the kid will grow up never knowing anything other than deafness, so won't find any problem with it.

This is crap. If you're born deaf through natural causes, you live with it - you come to terms with the fact that fate has urinated on you from a height. If, however, you're born deaf *because your parents decided to deprive you of hearing*, that's a whole new ball game.

saik

i am sickened to see this. an appalling act.

the two women, mental and deaf "therapists", are fúcking insane. completely deluded in thinking that deafness is not actually a disability.
They have never been "able" so to speak, so how can they compare? How can they make the "informed" choice?
Stupid fúcking idealism seems to have warped their minds somewhat....


I'm losing faith in the saying that "everyone is created equal".


and if i have p1ssed off and offended people, it is because
i'm very p1ssed off by this. sorry, no offence intended *except to the two women in question*

(ta very much wwm, point taken lolo)

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by saik

They have never been "enabled" so to speak,

its able, not enable.

Lolo

Originally posted by saik


and if i have p1ssed off and offended people, it is because
i'm very p1ssed off by this. sorry, no offence intended *except to the two dyke tw4ts*

(ta very much wwm)

Would you be less pissed off and appalled if it was a straight couple who'd done this to their child? I don't think their sexuality is an issue here.

PHB

If the child decide he wants to be deaf when he is older he can go about this, if the child decide he doesn't he can't do anything about it. Their logic is flawed.

Kolodny

This is insane! Okay, so they want their children to share their perspective on the world (seems a bit much anyway, forcing your way of life on someone else when they will never have the option to renounce it), but to deliberately ensure that your child is disabled and limit their opportunities in life - I just can't understand. That this was allowed to happen is another mystery, and it doesn't look to promising for the future does it? Designer deafness and what else?

I wonder also, are they ever planning to tell their children that they did not have to be born deaf - that their parents made that 'choice' for them. I think I would probably grow up to be more than a little resentful if I knew that.

Xterminator

I think its disgusting, and tantamount to child abuse.

If it was a genitic manipulation in a laboratory ther would be uproar!
The 'parent's' are behaving in an entirely selfish manner, when real parents know you do whats best for the child, even if it means sacrifices for yourself.

I think the baby should be taken from them (when and if it is born), as this to me would be evidence that they are not suitable candidates to mind the child.

X

Sand

Gene therepy should be used to prevent disabilities, a non selfish act, not to cause them which is incredibly selfish and self centered. Deaf people are all fine and dandy etc etc, but I think everyone has some piece of music or some singer they like listening to - to have this kid never able to have that because his parents are just selfish gimps, its child abuse imho.

mike65

Its when you read this that you know the facism of Political Correctness has to be fought!

I'm diabetic, if I took thier approach I would actively seek out a diabetic women to procreate with...

Mike.

Lolo

Originally posted by Terminator


Yes but you can usually denounce these choices and make up your own mind. But this kid is gonna be handicapped for the rest of his life. Forget what this couple are saying about deafness not being a disability - it is a disability - not as bad as blindness or immobility but a disability nonetheless.

I was kind of playing devl's advocate there, but I wasn't defending them. I was just pointing out that if they do view it as ensuring that the child is part of the same 'culture' as they are, it's a more extreme version of the same kind of indoctrination that lots of parents inflict on their kids. A *much* more extreme version.

But here's a question: everyone on this board seems to agree that this act was morally wrong, but what about a deaf man and woman, with generations of genetic deafness behind them, deciding to have a child when they know the child will be deaf? Is the fact that it was a lesbian couple clouding the issue, or just the fact that it was an artificial insemination?

seamus

Originally posted by Lolo
But here's a question: everyone on this board seems to agree that this act was morally wrong, but what about a deaf man and woman, with generations of genetic deafness behind them, deciding to have a child when they know the child will be deaf? Is the fact that it was a lesbian couple clouding the issue, or just the fact that it was an artificial insemination?

If they want to have a child, fine. OK, the laws of genetics wil prevent their child from hearing, but same goes for colourblind parents, and other genetic defects. If they want to start a family, great, because it's their child. Yes they could go and get artificial insemination, but that would take away part of the whole joy of being a biological parent (for the father). Plus he would miss out on a night of superunprotectedfunsex.

The disgust here is that these women knowingly abused the laws of genetics for their own selfish ends. They were going to get artificial insemination one way or another, so why wouldn't they make the best choice for their child, instead of deciding it would be disabled (and no doubt ****ed up) for the rest of it's life?

:mad:

Biffa Bacon

My two bobs worth:

1. Artificial insemination is wrong.
2. Homosexual couples bringing up children is wrong.
3. Purposely giving a child a disability is wrong.

koneko

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
My two bobs worth:

1. Artificial insemination is wrong.
2. Homosexual couples bringing up children is wrong.

Are you serious? What century are you living in exactly?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by koneko


Are you serious? What century are you living in exactly?

The twenty-first.

Lolo

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
My two bobs worth:

1. Artificial insemination is wrong.
2. Homosexual couples bringing up children is wrong.
3. Purposely giving a child a disability is wrong.

You're entitled to your 2-bobs worth of course. But do you really think artificial insemination is wrong, full stop? Even when a couple desperately want a child but their are infertility problems?

As for gay parents, I don't know any adults who were brought up by a gay couple, but I do have gay friends (all female so far) who are currently bringing up kids and they seem to be turning out as well-balanced, morally sound individuals. Come back to me in ten years and I'll tell you how they turned out as adults.

Oh, and for the record, the ones who are old enough to be aware of their sexuality are straight, so far.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lolo


You're entitled to your 2-bobs worth of course. But do you really think artificial insemination is wrong, full stop? Even when a couple desperately want a child but their are infertility problems?

Yes because it involves creating many embryoes to ensure a greater chance of at least one surviving. Any that are not needed are disposed of or kept in cold storage or experimented on. It is wrong to abuse human life like this.

Lolo

It's all down to the "when does an embryo become a human being" argument then - right, I'm outta here.

seamus

Biffa I'm thinking you're ultra conservative (and a devout Catholic too). I can see your problem with IVF (although I don't agree),
but I can't see your problem with allowing gay parents bring up a child. I do have my own apprehensions about this too, as to how the child may be treated in school (like a child who is missing a parent) because in school, especially in primary school, any difference is begrudged by the child, and exploited for abuse by his peers.
A child of a gay couple has no greater chance of becoming gay than a child of a straight couple, particularly where two men are involved. Sexuality is a trait of genetics and/or circumstances in utero.

Biffa Bacon

I don't care whether the kid becomes gay or not, that's not the problem. The problem is that the best environment for a child to grow up in is with a father and a mother.

Terminator

Originally posted by Lolo


But here's a question: everyone on this board seems to agree that this act was morally wrong, but what about a deaf man and woman, with generations of genetic deafness behind them, deciding to have a child when they know the child will be deaf? Is the fact that it was a lesbian couple clouding the issue, or just the fact that it was an artificial insemination?

The fact that they are lesbian has nothing to do with it or that it was artificial insemination. Say, for example, they knew a deaf sperm donor who wanted to be a part of the child's life then that's fine - no harm there. If the child turns out to be deaf thats allright then.

But this couple deliberately chose a deaf sperm donor (who presumably won't be playing any role in the child's life) thereby drastically decreasing the child's chances of been born with normal hearing. Just cos they could ...

Lolo

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I don't care whether the kid becomes gay or not, that's not the problem. The problem is that the best environment for a child to grow up in is with a father and a mother.

I think it's fine as long as the kid has at least one strong adult role model of the missing gender (i.e. uncle/aunt, grandad/granny, close family friend) who has a big enough part in their lives. But again, come back to me in ten years when these kids have grown up.

Lolo

Originally posted by Terminator


Say, for example, they knew a deaf sperm donor who wanted to be a part of the child's life then that's fine - no harm there. If the child turns out to be deaf thats allright then.

But this couple deliberately chose a deaf sperm donor (who presumably won't be playing any role in the child's life)

As far as I could make out from the aritcle I read, it was a friend rather than an anonymous donor, so you might be presuming wrongly.

Terminator

BBC News

Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, who have both been deaf since birth, were turned down by a series of sperm banks they approached looking for a donor suffering from congenital deafness.

I think this proves their intentions were clear enough and morally questionable.

Lolo

Okay, fair enough.

Biffa Bacon

Having thought about it, unless you share my loony views I don't think anyone can object to this. Remember that the child was not "engineered" to be deaf, it's just that they picked a donor with a higher chance of producing a deaf child. Should that donor be sterilized then so that he couldn't produce any deaf kids?

Greenbean

This could also bring us back to the notion of everyone being allowed to raise children as part of their fundamental rights. I mean we have to pass a driving test to drive on the roads, yet we don't say anything about highly unsuitable parents being allowed to raise as many children as they like. Like Shinji (I think) once said, how about a parenting licence?

In the past it used to be natural selection that decided these matters, but now being deaf isn't as big a dissadvantage as it was before (you don't simply die off or get outcast from the community like you used to). In that sense I've nothing against to deaf parents raising a child of their own - deafness wouldn't come into their parenting ability - similar with homosexual parents. Should the children grow up with a different view point on the world, or even passed on disabilities - its not immoral as long as we accept any parents have the right to their own children. But I would certainly call it immoral when a concious decision is made to deliberately shape the destiny of the child to the detriment of that child. Is being deaf in todays world a detriment?

Another point, are these parents displaying racism? If they see deafness as a cultural identity - are they displaying a racist act by saying the baby with full capabilities is undesirable. Would they destest the baby? Is there a festering racism in the deaf community fed of a persecution complex so big that deaf parents couldn't bare to see their children to be of the majority "culture" of hearing people.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Greenbean
But I would certainly call it immoral when a concious decision is made to deliberately shape the destiny of the child to the detriment of that child.

But that's not what they're doing. If they hadn't taken sperm from that particular donor then that child wouldn't have been born at all. So they are not actually causing this child to be deaf.

Lolo

But they *are* causing the child to be deaf, not by messing with its genes, but by their choice of donor. And no, of course the donor shouldn't be sterilised, it's the fact that the genes of two congenitally deaf people were combined that made the child deaf.

In the article I read they said that a hearing baby would have been a blessing, but a deaf baby was an "extra-special" blessing, so no, they woulrn't have ostracised the kid if wasn't deaf.

The more I think about this issue the more ambivalent I feel about it - my first instinct was that it was definitely wrong, but then I wondered how much of it was due to the fact that it was an artificial insemination rather than just 2 deaf people having a child together. I can't help thinking the child will grow up feeling hard done by though.

I'd like to hear a deaf person's opinion on this issue, but I don't know any - are there none on the boards?

Greenbean

Biffa and Lolo good replies - not a particularly good post by me really, after I posted it I realised I'd been pretty wrong with the whole racism thing and that I was more interested in finding a novel slant on things than actually considering it in the real world sense or researching the idea properly.

I have to admit Biffa has clearly pointed out how it not to the detriment of the child if you think of things on the level of genetics. The child might realise the quandry of his/her situation - don't exist at all or be deliberately choosen into existence. Would you rebel against that even if you weren't deaf - would you rather be naturally selected by nature/sex or fashionably selected by your parents. I don't really think natural selection can claim to be on a morally higher ground. The decision making process for natural selection is survival of the fitest, the decision making process for designer babies is the needs/wants of the parents. Either/or in my opinion.

Shinji

The decision making process for natural selection is survival of the fitest, the decision making process for designer babies is the needs/wants of the parents. Either/or in my opinion.

Um, so you're honestly saying that you believe that a system of genetic refinement and improvement which evolved us from amoeba into fish into mammals into apes into humans is on a par with the whims of parents as to how they think their kids should look?

"Designer babies" are fundamentally wrong for a simple psychological reason; as it stands, you are who you are and there's nobody you can blame for that, so you accept it. You look a certain way, you may be born with certain defects - ranging from something very serious like deafness through to something minor like an allergy to cats - but that's random chance, it's something the universe has decided to bestow upon you.

When it's not the universe that's done this, but your parents with help from a guy in a white coat, that's another story - especially when it goes beyond "I'd like a boy with blue eyes" and into the realms of "I want my child born deaf" or "I'd like my child born with a crippled right arm". It used to be fashionable in China to bind the feet of little girls, stunting the growth horribly so that they would have dainty feet. Will it become fashion to have a child with a crippled arm, or no ears, or light, brittle bones? Will we engineer children with flawed vocal cords so they can't scream loudly, and can be carried around like trophies in polite society without fear of embarrassment?

It's wrong. This science exists to save lives, ease hardship and improve the quality of life of people who would be affected by congenital defects or illnesses. But science is amoral, and it's up to the people to draw the line and stop it from being used to make designer children, turning our future generations into a commoditised fashion accessory.

tHE vAGGABOND

I trust we have all seen the movie, Gattica - while its drame and fiction - its a world that seems to be coming closer and closer to reality - and what a nightmare!

crano

They Should Have their TIT'S cut off

DeVore

What do you get when you put bread under the grill... oh yeah:

toast.

DeV.