Deaf Lesbians Criticized For Efforts to Create Deaf Child

Ozrat

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
This is actually two years old, but I don't think that its ever been discussed here before, so why not now?

CNN said:
Deaf Lesbians Criticized For Efforts to Create Deaf Child
By Matt Pyeatt
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 02, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - A leading pro-family organization is questioning attempts by a Suburban Washington, D.C. lesbian couple to deliberately create a deaf child.

Candy McCullough and Sharon Duchesneau of North Bethesda, Md. said they did everything possible to make sure their newborn son is deaf by specifically seeking and obtaining a sperm donor for artificial insemination who has a lengthy family history of deafness.

But one group has made it clear it disagrees with the women's choice to produce children with disabilities, not to mention raising them in a homosexual household.

"This couple has effectively decided that their desire to have a deaf child is of more concern to them than is the burden they are placing on their son," Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said.

"To intentionally give a child a disability, in addition to all the disadvantages that come as a result of being raised in a homosexual household, is incredibly selfish," Connor said.

McCullough and Duchesneau, who were featured in a cover story of the Washington Post Magazine March 31, already have a daughter who was designed to be deaf and they're hoping their son Gauvin is deaf as well. Duchesneau is the mother of both children.

Because the child is a newborn infant, it will take several months until an audiologist can determine whether Gauvin can or cannot hear.

The women, however, insisted that it is not of utmost important that Gauvin is deaf, but they would like their son to have the same disability as the rest of the family.

Duchesneau hopes the family's deafness stays intact. "He'd be the only hearing member of the family. Other than the cats," she told the Washington Post Magazine.

McCullough was more direct in her hopes that their son would be deaf. "I would say that we wanted to increase our chances of having a baby who is deaf," she said in an interview with the Post.

But Connor said it was wrong to attempt to produce a deaf child and that serious challenges against the traditional definition of family were taking place.

"This reduces the father to a mere inseminator, raises the prospects of donor shopping and designer genes, and turns a baby into a trophy," Connor said.

An official with the Family Research Council said the group's opposition to deliberately creating deaf children would not change if the couple were heterosexual.

McCullough told the Post that families should have the right to seek sperm donors from anyone in order to be comfortable with the culture of the family.

"Some people look at it like, 'Oh my gosh, you shouldn't have a child who has a disability'. But, you know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't parents be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want," McCullough asked rhetorically.
\sb100\sa100"They should have that option. They can feel related to that culture, bonded with that culture," McCullough said.

But Connor disagrees when it comes to deliberately trying to create children with the burdens of physical disabilities.

"We've seen many parents try to ensure they create children possessing a certain trait, however, this couple has sought to create a child so that he does not possess a certain trait - in this case, the ability to hear," Connor said.
\sb100\sa100
"One can only hope that this practice of intentionally manufacturing disabled children in order to fit the lifestyles of the parents will not progress any further," Connor said.

The women were quick to point out that they would not be disappointed if Gauvin could hear but were just as clear in telling the Post that they preferred him to be deaf.

"A hearing baby would be a blessing," Duchesneau said. "A deaf baby would be a special blessing."

Connor hopes the practice of designing babies is stopped. "The places this slippery slope could lead are frightening," he said.
Should people be able to arrange their sperm donations in order to create a child with a similar background? Should they know the backgrounds of their donors at all?

Is culture a valid reason for this? Should the parent's own background be considered? Or should we expect a child to be like a suprize out of the Cracker Jack box?
 
I have nothing against lesbians, or lesbians having children, or against genetically engineering babies for better results. But deliberately creating a defective child is doing a disservice to the child, to society, to future generations, and is a waste of the time of medical professionals who should be trying to create children *without* handicaps. In short, this is deplorable and inhuman.
 
Re: Deaf Lesbians Criticized For Efforts to Create Deaf Chil

Some people look at it like, 'Oh my gosh, you shouldn't have a child who has a disability'. But, you know, black people have harder lives.

If that statement is any indicator of the intelligence of the parents, all other issues asside, I dont think they should be allowed to raise anymore children anyways. Life must be hard for the poor oppressed and deaf lesbian. At least shes not black! Because then life would be even harder!
 
or against genetically engineering babies for better results.

Better, of course, being entirely objective. It was "better" for the big deaf lesbians to have a big deaf child.
 
Thats pretty F'd up...

I am a "christian" and a independant/libertarian. And somebody who supports abortion.. i guess thats somewhat of a paradox but, imo

The two lesbians should have been aborted... sick lesbian freaks... They shouldnt play God.
 
Read the article, not just the title! They didn't genetically engineer the child to make sure it was deaf, they looked for a sperm donor with a genetic predisposition for deafness.

This man has a good chance of producing deaf children, normally or artificially. If his sperm is used to artificially inseminate a deaf female, it shouldn't matter. Unless you are not going to allow deaf people to reproduce normally either.

Now, if they genetically engineered, actually tampered with the genetic structure or the fetus, that would be crossing the line. This was just finding a sperm donor, what is wrong about that?

As for seeking specific backgrounds, people currently do that with adoption. White parents can specifically request to adopt a white child. I think that's an important factor when considering this issue.
 
This was just finding a sperm donor, what is wrong about that?

Hello? They're actively seeking to bring a child into this world with a malady it didn't ask for. It doesn't matter if they're messing with genetics, its the intent we're talking about, here.

And what if the child turns out to not be deaf? Then what? Are they going to wait a few years to see if it loses its hearing? This is setting a child up for an awful lot of rejection issues.
 
So you are saying that all deaf couples with a genetic predisposition for deafness should not be allowed to have children? Some of them want a deaf child, they 'seek' it. This is little different, except with lesbians and artificial insemination added into the mix.

*Sigh* I expect the child will grow up with just as much drama in his life as anyone. You think they will love the child any less because he isn't deaf? One of the lesbians still gave birth to Gauvin, will all the psychological baggage attached to that physical act. The only issue I could think of if the child wasn't deaf is that he might lack necessary auditory stimulation at a young age. It's a general undefined worry, because I have no idea on how much these deaf lesbians talk or how much they are aware of such things.

My parents brought me into this world with full knowledge that I would very likely be near-sighted from a young age. It was a malady I didn't ask for.
 
What if they used a deaf adoption service?

Edit:

Also note that the lesbian couple were living in Washington D.C., which is where Gallaudet University is located. GU is a university for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students and studies. D.C. is arguably also the capital of the nation's largest deaf communities. Deaf and Hard of Hearing citizens in D.C. and at Gallaudet also won several civil rights bills through the Deaf President Now protests of 1988. President of the University, not Nation in case you're wondering.
 
Kotario said:
Read the article, not just the title! They didn't genetically engineer the child to make sure it was deaf, they looked for a sperm donor with a genetic predisposition for deafness.

Genetic engineering just the same. Breeding cattle is a primitive form of genetic engineering. It's been practiced for thousands of years. This is a miscarriage (no pun intended) of the technique to a disturbing degree.

To answer Bradylama, a deaf child may be "better" in the eyes of its ersatz parents, but on a species-wide scale it's worse. We're bad enough as it is, cheating natural selection as we do. Because we're (more or less) ethical we shouldn't kill off undesirables (extreme eugenics), but because we're also intelligent we shouldn't tempt fate by deliberately creating defectives of any sort because they suit us. This is stupidity and arrogance.

Kotario said:
My parents brought me into this world with full knowledge that I would very likely be near-sighted from a young age. It was a malady I didn't ask for
More or less the same here, but that's one thing. Accepting 'defectiveness' to a mild or moderate degree is one thing, deliberately creating it because you want it for some perverse reason is completely another.
 
I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it but it just seems idiotic to me, and probably has a lot more to do with emotional neediness and "personal issues" than altruism. It would be much better all around for them to adopt a deaf child, as Ozrat suggested.

Also, don't most parents want their children to be better off than they are? This is like saying to your kid, "Son, I never had the opportunity to go to college and I'm damn well gonna make sure that you don't have that opportunity either." (Yes, I know deafness isn't as bad as that, it's just the only example I could think of at the moment.) Anyone who actively seeks to deny someone something because they themselves don't have it has serious problems.
 
So you are saying that all deaf couples with a genetic predisposition for deafness should not be allowed to have children?

No, I am saying that people should not want a deaf child, PERIOD. It would not matter if the parents were deaf (though being deaf would probably give them a reason to do so).

It doesn't matter if two deaf people want to have a baby, as long as they don't want a deaf baby. If the baby does turn out deaf, then them's the breaks. Its the intent that is the problem.

You think they will love the child any less because he isn't deaf?

On a subconcious note, yes. The same kind of thing happens with children that were conceived "accidentally." They wanted a deaf child, not one that could hear, and on some level they'll resent the child for it.

Of course its not going to add anymore drama than the kid would have already dealt with, but the fact is that its there.

"Oh buck up son, it doesn't matter that you twisted your ankle, as you've broken your leg in three different places."

Well, it still fucking hurts, Dad.

My parents brought me into this world with full knowledge that I would very likely be near-sighted from a young age. It was a malady I didn't ask for.

Well, its not like they WANTED you to be near-sighted, did they?

I realize maybe I wasn't too specific before, but what I'm going for here is intent.
 
Jesus, what a pair of stupid dimwits. I have an idea - why not give birth to a baby with good hearing and then cut off his ears with a knife to make him deaf? It would certainly save them a lot of trouble looking for a suitable sperm donor. From moral point of view, there isn't much difference between their solution and the solution I suggested - in both cases, they are intentionally ruining their child's life.

So you are saying that all deaf couples with a genetic predisposition for deafness should not be allowed to have children?
Deaf couples should be allowed to have children, of course. But deaf couples where both parents are bloody morons shouldn't.
 
"Son, I never had the opportunity to go to college and I'm damn well gonna make sure that you don't have that opportunity either." (Yes, I know deafness isn't as bad as that, it's just the only example I could think of at the moment.)
I dont know about you but i would MUCH rather have hearing and not go to college then the other way around.
 
Well, Phil, nothing to say about that. If hearing is more important to you than a higher education, well, that's your choice. I don't think it's a wise one, but nothing to do about that.

I basically agree with Montez. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, but I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Adoption is a better choice.

Bradylama, good generalizing.

Ratty, good to know that every deaf child has it's life ruined.
 
Kotario said:
Ratty, good to know that every deaf child has it's life ruined.
Ever heard of hyperbole, Kotario? Of course a deaf child's life isn't necessarily a living hell, but it's a far greater challenge to succeed in life when you are deaf than when you have perfect hearing. And when parents, being morons and all, decide to play genetic engineers and deliberately have a deaf child, thereby condemning it to a life of endless difficulty, don't you just want to shoot them in the face? I do.
 
I wonder if being able to walk is more important than higher education. I know I wouldn't give my legs for a college degree.

I think what they did wasn't just stupid, it was trying to cripple their child, and it makes little difference to me that it wasn't even concieved yet.
 
Kotario said:
Well, Phil, nothing to say about that. If hearing is more important to you than a higher education, well, that's your choice. I don't think it's a wise one, but nothing to do about that.

I basically agree with Montez. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, but I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Adoption is a better choice.

Bradylama, good generalizing.

Ratty, good to know that every deaf child has it's life ruined.
How can you agree with this? If your soon-to-be parents were both blind would you want to be deprived of seeing just because they felt that if you were all blind you would be emotionally closer?

Moronic.
 
We had a similar thing here in Australia. But the couple weren't Lesbians which makes it a tiny bit simpler.

To summarize what they had to say. Deaf people perceive the world in very different ways and value their view no less than that of others. They communicate and empathize with each other uniquely and with great depth.

But what I believe is that seeing that they were born deaf, and they don't truly have any point of reference, they should be strongly discouraged from 'choosing' to have a deaf child. I do not believe in God, but if we didn't need hearing, we would have evolved some other sense to compensate and seeing that these people haven't, they shouldn't interfere. It is just a selfish burden on their child.

Furthermore, the closest thing to religion that I have is an intense love of music. Beethoven was a musical genius and was able to write even when he went deaf. Would he want a deaf child. Hell no! If I found that my parents ensured that I was deaf I would not feel that happy due to its problems, however, I would obviously be very happy if the parenting was good. A strong family is strong no matter if people are deaf or not. But. If a miraculous surgical procedure enabled me to hear, and I discovered music. I would either be intensely sad for what I had missed or feel hatred and resentment. But that's just me.

I would never stop deaf people from having children, but I would tell them, it is a terrible mistake.

To really empathize with their situation, I would need to find someone who went deaf at a young age, to explain this 'deep and meaningful understanding'. They similarly have to acknowledge my position (although I am biased as a music fanatic), that music is just one example of the wonders and abilities which children have a right to experience. If the parents can't, I'm sorry, but that's just their misfortune.

I was just wondering. Do we have any deaf people on this board? Although my hearing, sight etc. is bad, its pretty average.
 
Back
Top