h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*utterly amazed that this discussion has carried on this far*

What a wonderful excercise! I have been magining allsorts of possible genetic variables that will be available to 'parents' in the soon-to- be. Imagine white folks ordering black or oriental children to prove they aren't prejudiced.. oh wait ..they do that with adoption already don't they. But hey, why didn't these two lesbians just adopt a deaf child instead of mutating a fetus. Yeah, I know, it's a woman's perogative, right Lucy?

*cant believe I've actually risen to this bait*
~jwf~

Oversimplify, stigmatise, ridicule.

If you mean me, yes, it seemed the thing to do.

If you mean one these other petty gossip mongers... well, I'll let them flame you.


~jwf~

alright then

Ste

Wow, I've only been gone a couple of days and this is still raging on!

I'd just like to say this though - I have deaf people in my family, well, partially deaf but they still know what it feels like to be disadvantaged. They do see it as a handicap. To everyone on this thread who disputes this, go and look up the meaning of the word again and think about it.

> "And who asked these ratlings if they would rather be deaf?"

These 'ratlings' don't have any desires yet, because they don't exist. Their happiness is not going to be effected by the failure to satisfy desires they don't have. Who asked these ratlings if they would rather be hearing?

> "The problems [being deaf] causes are not about social prejudices"

Not all of them, no. Some of them are, though, judging from what the various deaf associations say.

> "why didn't these two lesbians just adopt a deaf child instead of mutating a fetus"

"mutating a fetus"??? They chose a sperm donor - once the baby was conceived it was implanted and left to grow in the standard way that babies do. There wasn't any genetic engineering involved, whatsoever. I don't think we've even isolated the *genes* for deafness yet!

> "To everyone on this thread who disputes [that deafness is a handicap] ..."

*sigh* I don't think there are any such people, except 7rob7 way back in post 40. It's a disability. It's also a difference. The two are not mutually exclusive. Read the following posts: 117, 114, 112, 108, 47, and 41.

We seem to be going in circles here, don't we?

-Martin

regarding the running joke about legs: It seems to have spread that anybody wishing to respect this family's decision, supports involuntary amputation.

I made the silly comment, in reply to another silly comment. My line of thought was influenced by a rather silly reading of Dr Bloodmoney by Phillip K. Dick; it really has nothing to do with the issue, which is deafness.

Post 126: We seem to be going in circles here, don't we?

Post 108: We both agree that being deaf is a net disadvantage

Post 114: deafness has some advantages, but is a net disadvantage

Post 114: in some circumstances the advantages of being deaf may outweigh the disadvantages

In answer to post 126, yes, we clearly do!

IMO this thread has ceased to be constructive arguement therefore I see no point in continuing to read this rubbish any further...
Lucinda, feel free to pontificate all you want, IMO you are attempting to defend an indefensible point of view.

That's OK Lucy, I'll argue with you if you want.

Now I said:
> "why didn't these two lesbians just adopt a deaf child instead of mutating a fetus"

And you said:
"mutating a fetus"??? They chose a sperm donor - once the baby was conceived it was implanted and left to grow in the standard way that babies do. There wasn't any genetic engineering involved, whatsoever.

To which I will reply:
Yes mutation! If you take a defective egg from a genetically infirm donor (ie: deaf woman) and slosh it around in a plastic serving dish with the sperm from some unknown stranger - known only to be from another genetic line prone to accoustic deficiencies - and, once it starts growing, you implant it back into the belly of this same woman who refuses to know the love of a man - can the results be anything but monstrous.

I have intoduced the word 'infirm' up there because amongst prior arguments as to whether deafness is really 'crippling' or can be considered a 'handicap' or a 'disability' or whatever, no one mentioned the word 'infirmity' which is in fact the most proper word for deafness. Deafness is only 'crippling' if you don't hear the train coming.

What? I can't hear you.
~jwf~

This post has been removed.

It's a valid point as to why they didn't adopt a deaf child. If they want a child to grow up in the deaf community, wouldn't it be better to save* a child who's already here? Yes, I know people want to be genetic parents, an understandable drive, but in this case only one of them would be.

*please don't criticise this word. I used it because I couldn't think of anything better.

Lucinda, the manner of your defence of this couple actually only serves to re-enforce prejudicial stereotypes of disabled people. It's hugely patronizing of you to let pass without judgement the couple's view that a person cannot fit into their society unless deaf, when you'd go for the jugular if anyone said that deaf people cannot fit into a hearing society. Disabled people are and should be treated as equals, and by granting them latitude that you wouldn't to others does them a disservice not a favour.

"Save" is a perfectly good word! That is exactly my point. No one should be messing with petri dishes until all the living children have found loving homes.
Some poor deaf kid out there is still being bounced from foster home to foster home because no one will adopt a 'cripple'. He could at least have satisfied the political agenda of these two 'women' if not their biological imperatives.

wonder who got moderated...?
has political correctness truly gone mad...?
or is it just getting even...?


~jwf~

I just got moderated - I'm guessing a squack got copyright-paranoid. I've not got an email yet, so I don't know.
*sigh*

-Martin

Okay chaps and chapesess (sp?) both sides(?) are getting a bit silly here. Before we resort to anything really silly, let's see what we've got as common ground.

Deafness is a disability, it has advantages and disadvantages, but overall, it's a disadvantage

That doesn't make a deaf person any less in worth, unless they want to be a solider (that's my own addition that suddenly occured to me

We have deaf ratlings that deserve a home

Folks can be happy being deaf

It is a drive to want to carry on your own genes (something I certainly sympathise with, being unable to have brats myself)

So, anyone else, before we continue the discussion, what common ground do we have?

Sorry, a) I meant and b) what *other* common ground do we have?

Very good points there, KerrAvon.

Lucinda, I think you should take your foot out of your mouth and re-read your postings.

I can't get my post reinstated till I get email access next Wednesday (and after this hour I'll lose internet access too. c'est la vie) So I'll try and recall roughly what I said.

* 'infirmity' isn't a terribly accurate word for deafness, judging from my instinct and from Merrian Webster. Go look it up on http://www.m-w.com .

* I completely agree the world would probably be a better place if more people adopted or fostered instead of turning to technology. Whether or not they are deaf. That doesn't mean I'm willing to attack everyone who uses in vitro fertilisation. I'll leave that to jwf

* Incidentally, jwf, the sperm donor was apparently a friend of the family - so not a complete stranger after all. Make of that what you will.

*erects SEP field around troll*

Mycroft - I do hear what you're saying, but I don't think I'm being reverse-prejudiced here. In *this kind* of ethical grey area, where the issue doesn't seem to be very common, and isn't going to have a massive impact on the world, and isn't going to have any impact on me personally, I feel 'judge not lest ye be judged' is generally the best response, unless I've got a lot more certainty than I have in this case. The same judgement I use when I hear of parents choosing their child's gender, for example.

KerrAvon - I'll agree with most of that common ground. I'd say that deafness is, *in general*, a net disadvantage - I'd be more wary of ruling out any circumstance when deafness might be an advantage.

I'd also be more specific in saying that a deaf person has no less (or greater) *intrinsic* worth. Other sorts of worth depend on who's doing the judgement - as you point out, the army might well judge a deaf person to be of lesser worth, and I'm sure there are other examples.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's 'chapesses' in the plural...

-Martin

K does anyone think we need to backtrack abit the issue isn't about being deaf and the advanages and disadvanages of being deaf, isn't it about being able choose or design the child that you want to have? This couple seems to have deliberately choosen a donar that will definitely donate a specific genetic quality that the childs parents want him/her to have in this case being deaf, I hope that I've read that right.

If it is I think we have been confused by political correctness if we think this is ok when put in another perspective it wouldn't be. If you are agueing that anyone has this right to as deliberately engineer any quality such as intelligance for instance then at least you are being consistant. Aren't we setting a new precedence by validating what they have chosen to do and how comforatable is everyone with that. I'm not personally. Is it too unPC to point out that the situation is in one way has a hint of irony about it? But so long as the couple themselves are happy to support other people who'd like screen out deafness, gayness (is that a word), shortness or whatever then they at least won't be contradicting themselves. Harsh but true in my opinion.

Just to expect that validation (or to give it), when most people would be be very uncomfortable about such delibrate engineering for the pupose of endowing any quality, does perhaps demostrate there is a lack of insight into and/or an awareness of what the actual issues are in this situation. The equal opportunites and rights issues in this instance comes into play at the clinic, the couple concerned have equal rights to use this technology but they have no right to use it in a different way from anyone else.

If they had requested that sperm from this doner had been included in a random selection process, just say at the national incidence of its occurance, then that would be a different thing, I'm still churning that one over in its entirity but I'm fairly certain it is in some ways fundamentally different.

It also matters to me whether the sperm donar was simply that and from now will taking a passive role in the child's life. If he was unable to have childen (for whatever reason) and this was a solution to him experiencing being a parent then I'd support the three of them.

Its clear that we are treading many thin lines here and it's hard, which is why it would be hard to devise hard fast rules, we only have guidelines which is good because we need to flexible but here the one that says 'designer babies not a good idea' has been way overstepped. No-one has the right to disregard them for a personal reason or is right to do so. They have every right to try and change them if that's what they want.

So yes it is political correctness gone mad if they expect us to validate this decision as read, they have chosen to create a child with a specific quality as opposed to another. That was wrong in my opinion but not because of the quality they chose.


Love Peanut xx