Why would people want their children to be deaf?

Daredevel7 said:
I am just going to ignore where this thread is heading and go back to the original post.

Personally this is what I think:

Scenario 1: Wanting your child to be deaf without actually being able to control their deafness (natural, no genetic engineering)

Reasons: Similar identity, easier for the parent to communicate with child, easier for the parent to relate to child, "if there is going to be a deaf child, it's better if I'm the parent rather than a hearing parent who knows nothing about deafness", basically a deaf parent is more likely to be a better prepared parent for a deaf child.

Scenario 2: CHOOSING the child to be deaf, via genetic engineering means.

Reasons: People could say all of the above reasons for Scenario 1, but honestly, I personally think most of it is out of selfishness or self (group) preservation. To me, It makes it easier for the parent and/or using the child for political/social reasons. (Basically try to change the world or how society views deaf people)

There is a pretty big difference between "If my child is deaf, I will better prepare him for the real world and society." and "I CHOOSE for my child to be deaf, despite society's negative views on deaf people, because I want to prove something."

That's just how I view it. Convince me that reasons from Scenario 2 would be the same as Scenario 1, because I am not convinced at all.
Click to expand...

As usual, you hack your way through the jungle and make sense.
:gpost:
 
Daredevel7 said:
I am just going to ignore where this thread is heading and go back to the original post.

Personally this is what I think:

Scenario 1: Wanting your child to be deaf without actually being able to control their deafness (natural, no genetic engineering)

Reasons: Similar identity, easier for the parent to communicate with child, easier for the parent to relate to child, "if there is going to be a deaf child, it's better if I'm the parent rather than a hearing parent who knows nothing about deafness", basically a deaf parent is more likely to be a better prepared parent for a deaf child.

Scenario 2: CHOOSING the child to be deaf, via genetic engineering means.

Reasons: People could say all of the above reasons for Scenario 1, but honestly, I personally think most of it is out of selfishness or self (group) preservation. To me, It makes it easier for the parent and/or using the child for political/social reasons. (Basically try to change the world or how society views deaf people)

There is a pretty big difference between "If my child is deaf, I will better prepare him for the real world and society." and "I CHOOSE for my child to be deaf, despite society's negative views on deaf people, because I want to prove something."

That's just how I view it. Convince me that reasons from Scenario 2 would be the same as Scenario 1, because I am not convinced at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would want to genetically engineer a deaf child. Is this even a scenario that happens in the deaf community? I can't imagine that, except in maybe the most strict DoD families...
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I don't think anyone would want to genetically engineer a deaf child. Is this even a scenario that happens in the deaf community? I can't imagine that, except in maybe the most strict DoD families...
Click to expand...

DoD = Department of Defense? :)
 
Bottesini said:
Engineering Deaf Babies for Deaf Couples: U.S. and Britain Debate the Selection of Deaf Embryos and Adopted Children « JONATHAN TURLEY
Click to expand...

Wow! very interesting. Thanks, Bott.

So I'm just going to throw this out there--not saying I support it. Don't comment until you read the article...

How is the case documented in the article different than a hearing couple who selects a donor based on their family history of having high achievers or beautiful features, or being of the same race? In the case documented, the baby was deaf, but there is no guarantee that the baby will always be deaf just by selecting a donor with genetic hearing loss. Also, notice the last part of the article where it discusses "naturally engineering" a deaf baby by two deaf people choosing mates based on their genetic predisposition to deafness. Is that genetic engineering? Is it wrong?

I really wish we had a trained philosopher in the house that could discuss biomedical ethics right now!

And, I also didn't care much for the audist language in that article. But oh well, whatever.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Wow! very interesting. Thanks, Bott.

So I'm just going to throw this out there--not saying I support it. Don't comment until you read the article...

How is the case documented in the article different than a hearing couple who selects a donor based on their family history of having high achievers or beautiful features, or being of the same race? In the case documented, the baby was deaf, but there is no guarantee that the baby will always be deaf just by selecting a donor with genetic hearing loss. Also, notice the last part of the article where it discusses "naturally engineering" a deaf baby by two deaf people choosing mates based on their genetic predisposition to deafness. Is that genetic engineering? Is it wrong?

I really wish we had a trained philosopher in the house that could discuss biomedical ethics right now!

And, I also didn't care much for the audist language in that article. But oh well, whatever.
Click to expand...

Good questions to sit back and think on.

Also good point on the last sentence.
 
Back
Top