Kopite Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Just been reading through yesterday's paper (don't ask why ) and stumbled across a challenge to parliament from this couple. They are after IVF treatment etc but WANT their child to be deaf like that father (who happens to be called Tomato). They are saying it is discrimination that they are not allowed to have genes for deafness selected for the embryo as he argues deafness is not a disability and does not mean they are lacking anything, but they merely communicate in another form. Personally I think it's absolutely right for them not to be allowed to have a child ready made to be deaf, what do you lot think? Added a poll! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couv3z Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 to be honest we are not ready for Designer babies, as if we where all the ladies would want my 3rd leg genes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzthedentist Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Theyll be defeated, Deafness is clearly a disability, if you were injured and you were out of plain sight of people and everyone was deaf, how is anyone going to helar you calls for help? why in the hell youd want to give your child a disadvantage as soon as its born is completely beyond me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Theyll be defeated, Deafness is clearly a disability, if you were injured and you were out of plain sight of people and everyone was deaf, how is anyone going to helar you calls for help? why in the hell youd want to give your child a disadvantage as soon as its born is completely beyond me! Exactly. Otherwise evolution would've removed our ears if you subscribe to that theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Plain wrong if you ask me, it's mad scientist material !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dangerousandy Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I was listening to these 'kn0bs' on radio 2............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 At first i read it the other way around and was going to vote yes. I thought you meant the baby was going to be deaf and should they be allowed to cure it. Thats just so wrong! And, what kind of name is Tomato? Scott =op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Deliberately disabling and embryo is just plain wrong and selfish. The kid can always have ear plugs if he/she doesn't like what they hear...... The parents should be peeled with a blunt knife also!! H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 They're right that being deaf isn't a disability... it's an impairment. IMO they shouldn't be allowed the treatment, not because they're deaf, but because they want a child to have the same impairment as them because they're selfish. What the hell is stopping them teaching a kid with perfect hearing to communicate with them in sign language? I smell a big 'us and them' attitude towards people with normal hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 They're right that being deaf isn't a disability... it's an impairment. IMO they shouldn't be allowed the treatment, not because they're deaf, but because they want a child to have the same impairment as them because they're selfish. What the hell is stopping them teaching a kid with perfect hearing to communicate with them in sign language? I smell a big 'us and them' attitude towards people with normal hearing. Its a disability. An ability is something you are able to do. A disability is something you should be able to do but can't. Impaired hearing is when you can still hear. Scott =op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 but because they want a child to have the same impairment as them because they're selfish. What the hell is stopping them teaching a kid with perfect hearing to communicate with them in sign language? Teach the child sign language, or even teach yourselves your own way of communicating. Total bull cr*p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The report on the BBC news website here puts a slightly different slant on things. On it they say that the couple, "given the choice," would prefer a deaf child. They are not saying they want to genetically modify an embryo to ensure it is deaf. At the moment, the ruling is such that if the embryos are screened and there is a mixture of non deaf and deaf then they must use the non deaf embryo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamanC Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 They need a slap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyP Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Heard these two on the radio. F***ing sickos shouldn't be allowed to have kids. What kind of parent would, given the choice, want a disabled child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soop Dogg Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 "communicate in another form", eh? Communication is a two way process - you transmit AND receive. To ignore the receiving part of the process is clearly going to disadvantage the child. I'd like to see how they receive communication from a truck blaring it's horn at them as they cross the street having failed to see (or hear) it coming towards them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I heard the radio show too- very poor arguments they put across. Example (paraphrased): "We go to deaf-only conferences, where a hearing person would be unable to communicate" Not if they knew sign language, which clearly you would have to teach your child whether it was hearing or not. "Some parents choose to have their children circumcised" Cutting a bit off, which makes it more hygienic and bigger looking is sooo different to removing one of their senses. They also dodged the traffic accident argument by saying that they had never been run over... Personally I think normal (as in normal in the head) parents want their children to have every opportunity in life, and every success, which means having as many advantages on their side as possible. To deliberately choose to remove one advantage is weird. Can you imagine the conversation they will one day have to have with that child? "Dad, why can all the other kids hear things except me?" "Well son, we choose to mutilate you before you were born." "Gee Dad, thanks a bunch." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Personally I think normal (as in normal in the head) parents want their children to have every opportunity in life, and every success, which means having as many advantages on their side as possible. To deliberately choose to remove one advantage is weird. Spot on! Scott =op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Can you imagine the conversation they will one day have to have with that child? "Dad, why can all the other kids hear things except me?" "Well son, we choose to mutilate you before you were born." "Gee Dad, thanks a bunch." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Personally I think normal (as in normal in the head) parents want their children to have every opportunity in life, and every success, which means having as many advantages on their side as possible. To deliberately choose to remove one advantage is weird. Can you imagine the conversation they will one day have to have with that child? "Dad, why can all the other kids hear things except me?" "Well son, we choose to mutilate you before you were born." "Gee Dad, thanks a bunch." Whilst I might not agree with the views of the couple, what you have just said is incorrect and would be a typical "Sun" headline or write up. If you had read the BBC report you will see that they are not removing any of the genes in the embryo and therefore are not mutilating anything or anyone. But hey, why let the facts spoil a good post eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 If you are born without a sense, then how can you possibly be lost without it, the other sense will take over the role. My mother is deaf and so far she has managed to live her life without getting run over or not being able to communicate with the world. I don't agree with the couples views but some bs is spouted in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 If you are born without a sense, then how can you possibly be lost without it, the other sense will take over the role. My mother is deaf and so far she has managed to live her life without getting run over or not being able to communicate with the world. I don't agree with the couples views but some bs is spouted in this thread. My wife is profoundly deaf and would disagree with your post. She finds it immensely fustraiting despite having some bloody expensive hearing aids. Other senses do not 'take over' you just use them more but any four senses no matter how sharp cannot equal five senses in normal working order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I don't think they should be able to choose any part of it, just like if you do it naturally. All comes down to chance. Although if I could I would filter out some bad bits I suppose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cj748 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I read this the wrong way round too. Now i see what they want to do, i can't believe anyone, doctor or otherwise, even listened to the idea. What is the world coming to................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uzthedentist Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Hello my name is Carrot, i have no teeth, i want my child to be born without the ability to grow teeth so he can be just like me. Having no teeth is not a disability, I can still eat, I just eat differently thats all, a bit of mash and Gravy certainly goes down a treat. I only eat in places where the food is mashed to a baby consistency, a normal person would find this way too runny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.