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: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:35 PM
This totally amazed me. What's really behind this? Selfishness? Probably. Fear that their child will have MORE out of life than they did? But, isn't that what we ALL want for our kids?

To start with they have NO idea what they are wanting to deny their children. Hearing a kitten purr, a baby's laugh, the sound of a stream, Celine Dion. OK, that last one was a joke. They say it's to fit in better with the family. Isn't that a little convenient? The deaf have to work to fit in and all the power to them. Now they want to make it easier on the family by denying their kids an incredible experience that they have no comprehension of? A little lazy imo, with too high a cost. I say this though knowing what it is like to hear.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Beachcoma
What? No, really, what?? Are these people mad? Who in their right mind would want such a thing?

The profoundly deaf are a cult of people -- a closed society. They go to their own schools and universities, have their own art forms, their own unique sense of humor, and their own philosophical perspectives. They work and play only with people that are also profoundly deaf. And this closed society is EXTREMELY FUNCTIONAL.

What makes this possible (and what many people might not fully appreciate) is that sign language is totally effective human communications, capable of conveying any complex idea. It is not a "limited" or "primitive" form of communication. Not at all! It is a starkly alternate way for two human minds to contact each other without using speech or hearing.

So I can see how someone might select their child so as to be part of this society, much the same way that someone would raise their child in a particular religion, except more so -- because the desire is driven out of physical handicap as opposed to belief. By exercising genetic selection, they help perpetuate their completely legitimate and functional world. I don't think it is selfishness, but more of a way to deny loneliness and isolation.

What is saddest about this, by being deaf, they have absolutely no idea how WRONG THINKING their attitude is. Having never experienced hearing, they have no ability to appreciate how important sound actually is.

I don't think that anyone with hearing could possibly make an honest assertion that genetic selection for the deafness gene is a good idea. There can't be any justification for this. Significantly, at least so far, nobody in this thread has made an attempt to justify it.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:19 PM
As a partially i.e 60% deaf person, I think that the choice to have deaf or non deaf babies; blind or non blind babies, if you want to have a girl or boy by choice is abhorrent. When a sperm and an egg meet and a new life is created leave it the ***k alone love that child regardless. Just in case you have not noticed the birth rates have plumetted via environmental, hygiene, dietary and ideological methods. To choose the sex, race or functionality of another human being amounts to biological fascism. For the record I am male and not a feminist (female supremacist). To address Beachcoma's observations, you are right, the deaf community is insular, but I have two fully deaf cousins and one who is 80% deaf and I find that sign language is a pretty cool skill to learn. This aside, my beef is with the termination of viable human beings for the sake of vanity.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by djaybeetoo]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by djaybeetoo]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by hikix
Oh, its in the U.K. They are almost as vain as us there. haha

You weren't too far off base hikix. According to the article it's already been done in the US, and the current UK legislation prohibits it.

No parent should be messing with creation period (in total agreement with the above post). The US already allows it.

[edit on 12/24/2007 by Relentless]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by djaybeetoo

No disagreements with anything you said. In particular, I've studied sign language a bit, and agree it is amazingly cool!


I want to distinguish mild and moderate deafness from "profound" deafness (which was the topic of my last post.)

The definition of profound deafness is 100% hearing loss, or close to that, so that communications by any means other than sign language or lip reading is impossible. Under those circumstances, a person is completely lost -- isolated beyond belief. It must be pure torture.

Remarkably, if profoundly deaf people learn sign language, all communcations is miraculously restored. They can complain, marvel, share, argue, seduce, commiserate, philosophize, praise, instruct, question, counsel-- all the things humans do quite naturally.

EXCEPT -- they can ONLY do this with someone who is also fluent in sign language.

You can see, in that situation, a person is extracted from the reality we know and placed into a highly constrained, unique, crazy world, where things such as selecting deafness over hearing seem rational.


Although I TOTALLY DISAGREE with this genetic selection idea (and how could I not, as part of the hearing world?) I think I actually understand the rational behind it. The bottom line: they want to ensure their child only learns sign language. It is similar to the english-only movement, but more desperate.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by Buck Division

I understand your view and I too do understand the world that members of my family exist in. As i said my objection is that a genetic modification of a human is not a good thing. Look at the world at large are we as a species mature enough to make decisions that allow one unborn human being to live or die by their genetic coding.

If you say yes, If you are brown haired, you would not exist, if you were brown eyed you would not exist, if you are deaf you would not exist, if you have any inperfection no matter how insignificant you would not exist. This is not a argument about if we allow deaf people to terminate non deaf babies, this is about if you do not fit the social, physical or economic ideals of a sub strata of society, you will not be allowed to exist. A pretty bad deal by anyones standard.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:55 PM

Seriously, I've no comment on this.....if I had lost my hearing, I sure as hell wouldn't want another hard-of-hearing child. I guess these type of people would.

Have you guys heard of Stefan Heller? He actually is working on developing on the cure of hard of hearing, where people wouldn't have to wear some unnatural technology in future.

Somewhere I learned that if birds lose their hearing, they can actually regenerate to bring back hearing. And as for humans, if your skin gets cut or scratched, why do you think skin can regenerate itself, but not the vision, not the hearing, not the whatever? Now that's some b/s right there, isn't it? The DNA in humans MUST be modified and engineered for the better.

EDIT: BTW, This type of idea stated in the news should be illegal and banned.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by TheoOne]

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by TheoOne

If you dont wanna lose you hearing do not work in metal shops or go into war zones or for that matter firing ranges, or ride motorcycles.

All I can say is do you wnt to kill an embryo if it is a brown haired boy and you wanted a blonde haired girl, saying that the sperm and egg donor had the characteristics to produce either outcome, would you terminate the embryo/human life?

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:52 PM
Firstly In my opinion this is as relentless says a fishy topic. While I'm sure 1-5% of Deaf citizens would prefer deaf children (I would assume for the simple heightening of the other 4 senses, AND the fact that communication training would be less of a hassle from a deaf person to their deaf child)

I don't see the purpose of this engineering, as in my humble opinion all this does is hinders the child from easier interaction with their society.

reply to post by DocMoreau

I understand your point on Eugenics, I do wonder what you think about embryonic gene therapy?

by your definition it DOES sound evil, but I think with a simple restriction on the destruction or poisoning of viable embryonic cells, one could PLAUSIBLY engineer blindness, deafness, mutes, diabetes, Parkinsons, Alzheimers Lou Gherics (sp?) Disease, Autism,(theories are out there that this could be wiped out utilizing in vitro genetic therapy), M.S., Muscular Distrophy, EVEN CANCER... OUT of the human genome.

This sounds like science fiction I KNOW, BUT it is plausible, and as long as the scientific research into it is meant with good intentions and for the betterment of Man as a Species, not particular races, it could ONLY lead us to a better, healthier world. The key is to keep the power out of bad peoples hands... and if the therapy shows negative side effects... it should be canceled.

Just wanted to see what you thought about that Doc, as you seem to hold a strong opinion against Eugenics (as I do).

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:05 PM
its a shameful ploy to be "immortal" , think about it, they want theyre child to be in their image, thats a form of trying to remain here even when your not immortality.

selfish, every parent I have known who was disabled, my wife and I included, WISHES NOTHING OF THAT NATURE TO HAPPEN TO THEIR KIDS.

Why on gods green earth would you not want them to have all the perks they can to use an learn with?


posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by coven

Honestly, the cat is out of the bag, technology wise. There is no way to keep rogue scientists from doing as they please. Who is going to police them? The danger of Genetic Engineering is greater than something like Nuclear Weapons, if only because of the potential consequences for the long term are so great, the techniques are relatively easy and the knowledge so easy to obtain.

Personally, I think that embryonic gene therapy is basically the same thing. While it is amazing that human beings have the technology to, in theory, prevent genetic disorders and diseases, should we? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want a child with a genetic deformity or disease, but I think it would be a more prudent choice not to have biological children at all. There are millions of orphans in the world. Who is to say that the embryo you receive to become 'your child' has any genetic similarity to you once the scientists are done anyway? So if you are Deaf, and want a Deaf child, adopt one, but don't edit its genetics just so your ego is validated.

I am not religious at all, but one has to also see the similarities between mankind manipulating the genetics of an embryo and "God creating man in his image". At some point once the Human Genome is completely mapped, instead of a clone, science will be able to 'hand code' a copy of anyone's dna. So instead of just choosing a deaf embryo over a hearing one, you will be able to go into an embryo, and make a replica of your deceased child with hearing, but make a duplicate who is deaf.... Man will be able to create Man, in whatever image he chooses.

Either way, mankind doesn't really know what they are doing. The scientists pretend that they are 'all knowing', but in reality we have no idea what the effects of modified dna will have on future generations of humankind. For all we know, the first generation will be fine, and maybe even the second generation, but at some point the recessive genes will show signs of man's hand.

Sadly, I think it is already too late. Humanity as a whole is either to egocentric or naive to either pay attention or care what these scientists are doing. Without a near unanimous outcry against these experiments, there would be no way to stop it. Plus you have the propaganda of 'potential benefits' hypnotizing rational thinking about the possible side effects out of most people's minds.

I think any of us would be outraged if we were forced to mate with whomever the government sanctioned or pre-arranged. But many of us would not have a second thought if the government sanctioned genetic engineering for the 'betterment' of society. Most wouldn't even blink an eye if the government offered tax credits to those who 'genetically prime' their children for success... if fact I think many would jump at the chance.


posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by dizziedame

Isn't your grandson deaf by accident not birth? His parents can hear ans you ay he does want to hear? how is he going to save his child whom he plans to buckle in to the car? Why both he already has choosen to put that child at risk. Not so smart if you ask me. He would have ability to do what most of wish we could do Turn noise off.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by DocMoreau

other question is down the road when designer babies mate what are the likekyhood of redneck offsoring?

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:56 AM
You've got to be kidding me.

Who in their right mind would wish upon others their own disability. Especially your own flesh and blood. Isn't it bad enough you can't hear the sound of your babies laughter, cooing, and sadness through those somber cries? You'd take away your child's right to hear the sounds that come out of your own very mouth to help comfort he/she? To hear music and understand it for the first time? To hear the sounds of nature. To be told "I love you" and being able to understand the expression through all your human senses.

You'd take that away from your own child?

Selfish troglodytes.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:00 AM
Let me state one more thing -

That's like you have AIDS and you wish to spread the disease upon your child who wouldn't be able to live and grow properly. That's like you're blind and you want another blind daughter/son.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Buck Division

Remarkably, if profoundly deaf people learn sign language, all communcations is miraculously restored. They can complain, marvel, share, argue, seduce, commiserate, philosophize, praise, instruct, question, counsel-- all the things humans do quite naturally.

EXCEPT -- they can ONLY do this with someone who is also fluent in sign language.

Personally, I have always thought that all children (they pick it up so fast) of all countries should be taught sign language. It is the perfect universal language EXCEPT if you are blind. The problem with sign language is the person has to be looking at you to know you are speaking to them. Even with deaf who can see, this is a major problem. How does a profoundly deaf parent get the attention of a profoundly deaf child about to run out into the street in the path of a car from across the street? Honestly, why would you want to take such risks with your children? It's hard enough to keep them safe. I just don't get it.

As an adult, I cannot imagine not being able to communicate effectively with my neighbors to get to know them, I actually see some shun their neighbors like they don't matter. I want mine knowing me, watching out for me, being my neighbors. I would want to have some warning if someone were sneaking around my home in the middle of the night. Gosh - I just don't see in a world that gets more dangerous by the day (judging from what's going on where I live) how much less safe I would feel if I did not have my hearing. At the very least, a hearing child in a non-hearing household is a bridge to the rest of the world. No group should actually want to isolate themselves deliberately. It's selfish, self centered, dangerous and downright stupid.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:53 AM
This is an abomination and the height of selfishness.

How might those deaf parents feel if they as a fetus, were detected and aborted according to their disability.

The command of Jesus needs an edge to it when considering reasoning such as this...or any other act of cruelty for that matter.

Do unto yourself first, that which you intend to do to another...

America has 3700 abortions per day
126000 worldwide every day
47 Million per year...more then WWI

In some nations, the act of infantcide is performed in which a baby just after birth is killed if they are not the correct sex. Over a 20 year period, India alone has killed an estimated 500,000 girls yearly alone.

Im sickened by this reasoning, and the mere speculation of application.


[edit on 25-12-2007 by HIFIGUY]

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:53 AM
What next......amputee parents demanding their offspring have a leg hacked off so they too can share in the unique experience of living without a limb?

This really is just so wrong on so many levels. I guess defying the wishes of these extreme views ould likely be seen as a form of oppression and likely end up in the courts

Another story for the "just when you thought the world couldn't get any crazier" files

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:09 AM
If this thread was 50 pages long you couldn't get me to understand why someone would want to take their precious child and change them from what they were originally meant to be.

Just because we can, we take it upon ourselves to decide for them how they should be and even the fate of their very life.

We have taken selfishness to a new level when we believe
"It's mine and i can do whatever i want with it" "It's my right"

We all value our individual rights, yet take liberties with the rights of an unborn child.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

This truly saddens my soul


posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:14 AM

Originally posted by dizziedame
I have a deaf grandson ... 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.

a bit close-minded and anti-social, no? seems more like a resistance to change than anything else. I imagine it would be impossible to explain Mozart to a "deaf head," but classical music alone is worth putting up with people that "spew nonsense."

Again, such a response seems to come from fear of change.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in