Understanding Deafness: Not Everyone Wants to Be 'Fixed'

Wow, this article is an eye opener for a lot I'm sure. I personally believe you're only "broken" if you think you're broken. =) )
 
Theoretically, not realistically, I could get behind it, but notice I said mandatory birthcontrol. Actually I've thought about this with abortion, if a woman is having a lot of them, using them like post birth control they should be court ordered to recieve BC, one of those shots that lasts 3 months or whatever, if they don't show up for appointments to get the doses, they get fined. They could do the same thing, all women, mandatory birth control. Totally theoretical though, would never happen. Anybody that thinks it could probably wears tin foil hats.

I'd say give them $1,000 and a free surgical (reversible) procedure for either male or female to make them surgically sterile. That's a far cheaper option and much more acceptable one to society. It's not mandatory but voluntary, and a chance to get $1,000 tax free. Now, if a couple want to have babies they will have to pay for the reversible procedures themselves which could cost ten to twenty times more over. It's far more cheaper option for the govt to do this than to spend money on welfare mothers/fathers of kids or care for unwanted babies. The savings would began to be realized in a variety of ways a few years down the road and would gradually get better once it gets fully implemented and mainstreamed.
 
I'd say give them $1,000 and a free surgical (reversible) procedure for either male or female to make them surgically sterile. That's a far cheaper option and much more acceptable one to society. It's not mandatory but voluntary, and a chance to get $1,000 tax free. Now, if a couple want to have babies they will have to pay for the reversible procedures themselves which could cost ten to twenty times more over. It's far more cheaper option for the govt to do this than to spend money on welfare mothers/fathers of kids or care for unwanted babies. The savings would began to be realized in a variety of ways a few years down the road and would gradually get better once it gets fully implemented and mainstreamed.

That could work too.
 
You see what you want to. Companies are in business to make money, that's not inherently evil. If a product gives access to sound, it not surprising, or even remotely underhanded or whatever ebilness you want to see, that they'd advertise somewhere that stresses and importance on oral communication. They'd be stupid not to.


It's not just advertising...there's a lot more uncomfortable links.....
 
I find it rather appalling that ANYONE would think that they had the right to strip another's rights away for any reason.

From many of the posts I have read here, a fair few feel that anyone who is poor, blind, deaf, in a wheelchair or anyone considered by society to be an "undesirable" should be stripped of their right to life on any level. If you go that far then you may as well advocate out and out murder of every child or adult person who are "less fortunate" than all the rest of "normal mainstream society".
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the topic why some Deaf persons don't want to be "fixed"- presumably referring to Cochlear Implants?
I am not sure "poor/blind/persons in wheelchairs" fit that criteria?
 
Wasn't the topic why some Deaf persons don't want to be "fixed"- presumably referring to Cochlear Implants?
I am not sure "poor/blind/persons in wheelchairs" fit that criteria?

Yeah, I know. I agree. Seems like it did get off subject when the GA Guidestones got brought into the conversation. Seems to happen a lot with most of these threads/conversations. :D

Just got really appalled that anyone would think it's ok to take another's right's away for any reason.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top