http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

This is a very interesting article which raises all sorts of questions about the rights of parents to choose what physical attributes their children have. The couple here have views on their disability (deafness) which some may consider distorted (although shared by many) and make a decision that many would consider immoral.

I haven't quoted it because it's rather long. Any contributions to the thread I would appreciate staying off the topic of same-sex marriage or anything related to it - it's irrelevent to the issues raised by the article.

To those who read it, I would put to you these questions:

1) Can the children complain?

2) If no, have the mothers done anything wrong? That is to say, if no one has been harmed, can the action still be wrong?

3) If yes, why?

4) Can deafness be viewed as a culture, or is it just a plain and simple disability?

5) Do parents have a duty to have the best offspring possible. If yes, how does this reflect on the debate about "designer babies" and genetic enhancement?

[ 11-17-2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Its a disability. Sorry, but these "parents" should not have children. If I hacked the right arm off my child just because I had only 1 armm I would be arrested for child abuse. I see no difference between that and this situation, (save that they did it sooner) These people have not only commited a crime, depriving their child of hearing (one of the greatest gifts a human can have), but have also laid a great burden on society by creating a deaf baby. This is a disturbing trend (if it is one), and should not be pursued. All IMO.

Shamrock, are you trying to get us to do your ethics homework? lol

Interesting though, and worth considering more.

Haha, no, I had the good sense to drop philosophy a year ago. This is quite random.

I like the article asking whether a black couple should be disallowed for having black kids because they are discriminated against. Or girls because women are discriminated against.

Should dwarves not be allowed to have dwarf kids? Deaf people can read, write, communicate, think, reason, appreciate art, the sun, trees, shadows, the moon, theorise, philosophise, be theologians, scholars, craftsmen, politicians, anything. Even a drummer if they really want. They can grow food, harvest, be electricians or plumbers or teachers.

I once worked for a music producer who had hearing aides.

I think you need to open your mind as to what constitudes a "disability". Deaf people contribute to society. They are not a burden to it! A deaf person could be reading and replying here and you would never know.

Yes. A culture that speaks another language.

Deafness in itself is a disability, the deaf community as a whole are part of a culture. Someone who signs but is not deaf themself, who participates in the deaf community, (for example the parent of a deaf child) is part of deaf culture. So there is a deaf culture, distinct from the condition of not being able to hear.
Yorick - I actually agree with you on something - I'm as shocked as you are :D

The suggestion that a deaf person is a 'burden on society' is incredibly biggoted and indicative of complete ignorance on the subject. Most deaf people have jobs and live their lives like anybody else, with the minor disadvantage of not being able to hear.
What you are advocating is called eugenics. You are not alone in your beliefs. Such historical luminaries as Hitler and Stalin also believed in preventing disabled people from reproducing.

[ 11-18-2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Dirty Meg ]

Meg, I concede this point this point to you. I understand that my statement was incorrect and insensitive.however, the audacity of these people to also use Eugenics (in that to create a specific type of child) to create a DEAF child, one with a disability, one that can never hear, only because they also have that disability is selfish to say the least.