It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Deaf demand right to designer deaf children

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:18 AM

Deaf demand right to designer deaf children

DEAF parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).

Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled[..]
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:18 AM
What? No, really, what?? Are these people mad? Who in their right mind would want such a thing?

I've read the article over and over again, I still shake my head in disbelief at the inanity of some people. No matter what justification is given, I still completely disagree with it. It seems less about the (unborn) child and more about their own desires, and that is bad parenting (before they were even parents).

Einstein was right:

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:23 AM

a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.

A small minority of any large group should not be able to have children - looks this minority at least has the decency to shout about it, now we just have o trick them into getting sterilized.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:35 AM
Yep, doesn't surprise me. Imagine anything you can, and odds are that someONE someWHERE at someTIME has done it, or is like it, or will do it.

Sad but true.

It's I think these geniuses who either want to share something with their child (deafness), or they want their child to grow up with this because the parent thinks they will grow up stronger from having to cope with being deaf. Like overcoming a challenge.

Either way, it's ludicrous and crazy.

[edit on 12/24/2007 by bigbert81]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:17 AM
While I agree that no one should be able to manipulate their genes until they have a deaf child I cannot agree to sterilization of deaf people. Where will it stop? Will we sterilize all children with any type of deformity such as blindness, or those born with club feet?

Hitler wanted to create a perfect people.

I have a deaf grandson. He had an illness when he was 18 months old that destroyed his hearing. He is 15 years old and 6'2" and a fine young man. He has a very high academic record and has already chosen the college he wants to attend to become a doctor of medicine.

Last year I gave him the opportunity to get implants so he could hear and be more "normal". He flatly refused. He wanted to remain a " deaf head". He did not want to hear. He said most people spew nonsense. He knows what others say as he reads lips.

I have promised him a car for his 16th birthday. His only suggestion was that it be a 4 door sedan so he could buckle his child in the back seat. He plans on keeping the car for a long time. he wants a family when he graduates from college. He's already thinking of their welfare.

His mom and dad do not qualify for any government assistance as their income is to high. He , like his parents, are high achievers.

And he should be sterilized? I think not. He will have a hearing child in all probability. If a deaf couple want a deaf child there are deaf children in the system waiting to have a good home.

If we are going to start sterilizing children maybe we should start with the ones that are hooked on drugs and alcohol. Or the unwed teen mothers.

Deaf people are not stupid or dumb........they just can't hear. It's funny to think of all the hearing people that just don't listen. Maybe they should be sterilized for being ignorant. How's that for denying ignorance....just sterilize the children of ignorant people.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:26 AM
Well my sterilization comment was an off hand remark - not intended to be serious.

What I ment was that it should not be allowed to choose to 'engineer' in a disability, and for the vast majority of Deaf parents I expect that that would not even be an issue. It just seems cruel to the child if any hope of hearing was removed intentionally - it is child abuse, how would you feel if you grew up deaf and say on your 16th birthday you were told that it was your parents choice rather than an 'act of God' (for want of a better phrase) Would this be discussed if it was blindness, or would you want to have children with no sense of pain just because you were born that way?

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:23 AM
I hate to say this but I have seen deaf people living high on the hog due to diability payments received by the government. If their children are deaf too - more money. I know this sounds nasty, and doubt (hopefully) it has anything to do with such nonsense as this being discussed, but I'm getting a little disgusted with deaf clients who we have to bend over backward for to accomodate them.

If they want to get ahold of you, they call through an interpretor - ususally to accuse us of discrimination (which luckily in our case is a crock cause we have plenty of deaf clients we accomodate). But I am so sick of hearing it within 24 hours of establishing contact. Meanwhile, if you need to reach them the heck with you. They are very difficult to stay in touch with and do not go out of their way to make sure you can reach them if you need to.

Don't take me wrong, we have deaf clients we have very good relationships with, but about half of them have this attitude of gimme gimme and the minute they don't get what they want they scream discrimination and ADA. They are already accomodated financially to live in better homes than most working stiffs.

Bleh - I have no use for such an attitude, especially when they have never taken the time to even learn lip reading and keep signing to themselves while you are trying to communicate with them. The deaf people who have really made an effort to overcome their diability and become productive people are some of the most inspiring people I have met. The other side of the coin are the ones who just sit back and take advantage of the system - they are a disgrace, and will do nothing but injustice to raising deaf children.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:41 AM
Well if deaf people wants the right to designer deaf children then all disable people should be able to have children also that included mentally disable people, the mute and blind

Is interesting to see how can a parent will want to see their children with the same disabilities as them to me that is plain selfish or their agenda in mind is on the monetary side.

Just like Relentless posted.

Is beyond me when I read articles like this.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by marg6043

Exactly, marg. Selfish, not to mention short-sighted :shk:

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:20 AM
I had to click on this thread because i read the title and thought 'what the hell does that mean'. Now im even more confused. In theory this 'right' will allow them to abort a healthy child, in hopes to one day have a disabled child? Is this in America, because if it is, then i have to say 'Only in America'!

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:21 AM
Oh, its in the U.K. They are almost as vain as us there. haha

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:51 AM
Hmmm... I wonder if tall, muscular, good-looking, blond blue eyed people should be allowed to screen their embryos to insure that they don't get a ugly, weak dark haired baby? Wow...

This is called Eugenics folks. Or Animal Husbandry, or whatever label you want to give it. But contrary to most examples of Eugenics, this one illustrates an example of 'un-natural selection'. In nature, animals with certain traits that best allow them to survive, do, and those who don't have those traits, don't pass the bad traits on.

While I am in no way trying to imply that those with genetic deafness are any less 'human', the trait of 'deafness' is anti the survival of the species. The deaf chimpanzee would not hear the panther stalking him, and could get eaten. The chimps with hearing, are able to survive because the 'weaker' deaf chimp gets got.

So in effect this is Eugenics that will be administered to 'weaken' the future genetics of the commoners, and keep the 'elite' genetics 'stronger' in comparison. Selecting a embryo based on traits anti the survival of the human race is very dangerous. Plus where does it end? Do you allow people with Dwarfism to pick embryos that also have dwarfism? Or those with blindness?

So its okay to do this, but only if you are not trying to achieve Aryan Supermen, right?

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:29 PM
Over the last decade or so, perhaps longer, I've been reading things about the deaf community that convinces me that deafness is concomitant with irrationality.

I've heard of deaf employees of deaf schools and agencies losing their jobs because they have gotten cochlear implants.

I've heard of the deaf community maintaining that they are a culture unto themselves who have no desire to join the mainstream and, as noted above, reject cures and scientific advances to lessen the effects of deafness.

And all this after the mainstream culture has bowed to the demands of the "handicapped" to the extent that the rest of us are inconvenienced by all the "accommodations" for them. Not that it isn't the right thing to do, but you'd think there would be some gratitude.

Jerry Lewis, after years of his tireless work for those with Muscular Dystrophy, found himself under attack by militants with Muscular Dystrophy.

The irony of this is that these militant "handicapped" in a less compassionate society wouldn't survive childhood and now deaf parents want designer children, a step into a scientific reality that is fraught with ethical problems even for those who want to select for "perfect" children.

I am not in favor of denying those with limited capacities their rights under the Constitution. I am not against reasonable accommodation, but I am against a special class of bigots who despite their vulnerability, clamor for special status that allows for actions that are considered discriminatory for the rest of us.


This is a perfect discussion for Social Issues.

[edit on 2007/12/24 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM
Some people will do anything in a misguided attempt to be different. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that so many people, and groups, feel suffocated in our modern megasociety. I think it's the loss of individuality that is the impetus for these kinds of ideas.

I think they are stupid and shortsighted ideas, but I think the reason is that the human mind always seeks ways to differentiate itself from the group. Some choose such routes as this, others jump buses on a motorcycle, and others go in for body art. But in a way, all are trying to prove that they are worthwhile and that what they have is a viable and desirable lifestyle.

Stupid nonetheless, and unfair to the child.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by dizziedame

firstly Respect to your grandson dizziedame

and on topic these people shouldnt even have kids
if they intentialy want to give them a disability
i can imagine when the kids are older and they find out

"sorry son/girl we intentialy made you deaf to satisfy our selfish nature"

what a bunch of morons

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:55 PM

Plain and simple.

To claim one's disability as a birthright for your children seems like one of the greatest acts of selfishness I can think of...

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:05 PM
I was going to comment but I think loam summed it up pretty well. This is the ultimate of selfish behavior and any parent that would wish for their child to be born with a disability should not be allowed to be a parent. It is child abuse before the child is even born.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:19 PM
A parent's primary responsibility is to provide their child with the best foundation in life. This does not include 'ensuring' that they have a disability.

While the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID) almost contradicts itself in the article (it states at the bottom they would not 'encourage selection'), they need to be very careful indeed.

If they want to create an army of deaf people then they should lose any funding provided by the government and be held liable for the payments of disability and other benefits paid to deaf people currently paid for by the people's taxes.

Hopefully their plea's will fall on deaf ears!

[edit on 24/12/2007 by skibtz]


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:20 PM
Holy crap.

Preemptive child abuse I say.

What's next? Paralyzed people (assuming... er... yeah...) going in and breaking their embryo's back?

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:28 PM
Just when I think I've read it all, something like this comes along. Absolutely twisted and unconciensable. Don't know what else to say.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by jpm1602]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in