Making Deaf Children: Eugenics is Eugenics is Eugenics

rockdrummer said:
so then you are for eugenics?? I think it is wrong in either direction.
Click to expand...

Please, reread my post. I only want the hearing people and the deaf people to have the same right. I don't want the hearing people to have the right to screen out whatever they don't want while denying the deaf people that same right. If they think they have the right to do that and I would say that the deaf people ought to have the same right. That would make them think twice before going ahead with it.
 
but if they would really be a horrible parent to a deaf child, do we want them to have one? On the other side, I can see why a deaf parent could want to choose a deaf child.
Click to expand...
Well you know...................I just LOVE (sarcasm) how nondisabled parents go all " I just want a perfect high acheiver suburban brat. Having a kid with a disabilty is SO horrible!!!!" Sometimes it seems like parents want a designer child, instead of a kid with all sorts of complications.
 
Perhaps that won't be an ethical problem later on. Let's say biotechnology advanced to such a state that many conditions can be rectified/corrected with, let's say for the sake of argument, stem cells. So, that any screening that comes up show a condition won't have to face the prospect of having a child with a condition when biotechnology can help correct it prior to baby being born or treated immediately after birth.

Then again if we're talking about rights so do little people who may want to screen to ensure on having the same kind of offspring. What about those who tend to have a slight retardation would want to have the same kind of child with those same traits? And so on?

How far is too far in this instance?
 
We shouldnt mess around with mother nature? I can understand from hearing people's point of view that they wouldnt want a deaf child but deafness is not a life-threatening condition just like with blindness and etc.
 
I know some down syndrome who like to marry other down syndrome. It doesn't bother me at all if they decided to have a child.

I don't think they should do designer babies at all for anyone. Our population is high enough. Let nature take it's own course.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I know some down syndrome who like to marry other down syndrome. It doesn't bother me at all if they decided to have a child.

I don't think they should do designer babies at all for anyone. Our population is high enough. Let nature take it's own course.
Click to expand...

:gpost:

The concept of wanting designer babies just makes me want to :barf:
 
shel90 said:
We shouldnt mess around with mother nature. I can understand from hearing people's point of view that they wouldnt want a deaf child but deafness is not a life-threatening condition just like with blindness and etc.
Click to expand...

Lighthouse77 said:
I know some down syndrome who like to marry other down syndrome. It doesn't bother me at all if they decided to have a child.

I don't think they should do designer babies at all for anyone. Our population is high enough. Let nature take it's own course.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Just leave the mother nature alone.
 
Hear ye! Hear ye! I have to agree with you and to let nature take it course in their own way. That goes to show that we don't need stem cells, either. It won't work that way. I have been trying to tell everyone here on AD or live people here at home that it is better to go natural and just be the way we are. I just don't understand why we need to get fix up, just because we have disabilities. Gawd. :roll: Beside, it is up to the people with disabilities or deaf people to decide what they want to get fix or change their disabilities. It is kind of sad when they do that because they could not accept themselves the way they are. :dunno:
 
It's not that simple.

As a veteran photojournalist in Nashville, Tennessee, I was hired by USA Today newspaper to photograph a spina bifida corrective surgical procedure. It was to be performed on a twenty-one week old fetus in utero at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. At that time, in 1999, twenty-one weeks in utero was the earliest that the surgical team would consider for surgery. The worst possible outcome would be that the surgery would cause premature delivery, and no child born earlier than twenty-three weeks had survived.
Click to expand...
Samuel's Spina Bifida Surgery In Utero
An Update on Samuel Armas "The Hand of Hope"
 
Buffalo said:
Please, reread my post. I only want the hearing people and the deaf people to have the same right. I don't want the hearing people to have the right to screen out whatever they don't want while denying the deaf people that same right. If they think they have the right to do that and I would say that the deaf people ought to have the same right. That would make them think twice before going ahead with it.
Click to expand...
I did read your post. Personally I don't think deaf or hearing people should have the right to fliter in or out anything regarding how a human is born. It's eugenics and I personally believe it is wrong.
 
rockdrummer said:
I did read your post. Personally I don't think deaf or hearing people should have the right to fliter in or out anything regarding how a human is born. It's eugenics and I personally believe it is wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really understand why I am for deaf people's rights. I don't like the screening the disablities out/in of fetuses either. Like somebody said once there is a new technology, somebody would find a way to abuse it. Once somebody abuse it, one can push to legalize the abuse just like the eugenic law that lasted into 80's. If the deaf people didn't bring up about wanting to screen in deaf genes, they will legalize the screening out of undesireable traits. By standing for the deaf rights, we are keeping the abuses at bay and making sure that the deaf people are treated equally.

Now about the eugenic law... I don't know about the Canadian eugenic law but the USA eugenic law is still on the book but it is being negated by other laws that was put up later on. I don't have any faith that the eugenic law won't be in use again ever. If a law can be repealed so the latter laws that negate the eugenic laws can be repealed. I would love to see the eugenic law repealed for good. I suspect that the eugenic law would be used because it was not repealed in the first place.

I believe the deaf people who didn't have children by chance, have the right to find out if they have been sterilized. What a deaf person can do if the doctor said "no way". So there are people who think that the deaf people shouldn't have children... well, I feel the same way about certain hearing people (those who are pro-oral) shouldn't have children in case the child was born deaf or became deaf. I just don't like what they have put the deaf child thru.

The way I see, I have to fight fire with fire so they can't abuse us anymore. I believe in the Golden Rule and I will leave anybody alone as long as they leave me alone. Since they want to do wrong stuff to the deaf community, I can do the same back to them.
 
Buffalo said:
I don't think you really understand why I am for deaf people's rights. I don't like the screening the disablities out/in of fetuses either. Like somebody said once there is a new technology, somebody would find a way to abuse it. Once somebody abuse it, one can push to legalize the abuse just like the eugenic law that lasted into 80's. If the deaf people didn't bring up about wanting to screen in deaf genes, they will legalize the screening out of undesireable traits. By standing for the deaf rights, we are keeping the abuses at bay and making sure that the deaf people are treated equally.

Now about the eugenic law... I don't know about the Canadian eugenic law but the USA eugenic law is still on the book but it is being negated by other laws that was put up later on. I don't have any faith that the eugenic law won't be in use again ever. If a law can be repealed so the latter laws that negate the eugenic laws can be repealed. I would love to see the eugenic law repealed for good. I suspect that the eugenic law would be used because it was not repealed in the first place.

I believe the deaf people who didn't have children by chance, have the right to find out if they have been sterilized. What a deaf person can do if the doctor said "no way". So there are people who think that the deaf people shouldn't have children... well, I feel the same way about certain hearing people (those who are pro-oral) shouldn't have children in case the child was born deaf or became deaf. I just don't like what they have put the deaf child thru.

The way I see, I have to fight fire with fire so they can't abuse us anymore. I believe in the Golden Rule and I will leave anybody alone as long as they leave me alone. Since they want to do wrong stuff to the deaf community, I can do the same back to them.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
shel90 said:
I would be horrified if my parents would weed me out due to my deafness.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think even though they didn't put me up for adoption after they found out I was deaf, they still weed me out in other ways. Like they don't think I possess enough "common sense" to be able to be fully independent. I've told them, the only thing holding me back is finances. They've also kept me from getting certain jobs simply because I couldn't hear. I remember them making fun of my hearing status sometimes growing up.

Until the deaf and hearing get the ability to fully understand each other and appreciate what each has to offer, there is always going to be a weeding of the minority by the majority. Sad.
 
Dixie said:
Sometimes I think even though they didn't put me up for adoption after they found out I was deaf, they still weed me out in other ways. Like they don't think I possess enough "common sense" to be able to be fully independent. I've told them, the only thing holding me back is finances. They've also kept me from getting certain jobs simply because I couldn't hear. I remember them making fun of my hearing status sometimes growing up.

Until the deaf and hearing get the ability to fully understand each other and appreciate what each has to offer, there is always going to be a weeding of the minority by the majority. Sad.
Click to expand...

That's why I dont really get along with people who see deafness from a strong medical point of view or have an audist view. Blah..
 
Eugenics means good genes.

There is NOTHING good in selecting genes to make one deaf.
 
Eugenics at first meant good genes, coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Remember Charles Darwin originated Darwinism - "Survival of the Fittest." Galton believed in the getting rid of the "undesirables" and the multiplying of the "desirables." source

"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921 source

It was Hitler who initiated the actual movement by screening the "undesirables" and the multiplying of the "desirables" by implementing the desired "Aryan breed". Hitler ordered his people to eradicate the undesirables meaning the Jewish, disabled including the Deaf, blind, handicapped and others and encouraged the breeding of the desired breed - German blonde haired and blue eyed people.

This was not what Galton had in mind. This Eugenics debate was never about the deaf community - it was all about the undesirables meaning - the disabled, those who cannot contribute efficiently to the community, those who are not a conductive role model and so on.

Galton had this in mind when he thought of Eugenics - it was about good genes as well as his cousin Darwin thought of "The survival of the fittest."

You survive when you contribute equally and are able to look after yourself equally as a global citizen.
 
Mrs Bucket said:
It was Hitler who initiated the This was not what Galton had in mind. This Eugenics debate was never about the deaf community - it was all about the undesirables meaning - the disabled, those who cannot contribute efficiently to the community, those who are not a conductive role model and so on.

Galton had this in mind when he thought of Eugenics - it was about good genes as well as his cousin Darwin thought of "The survival of the fittest."

You survive when you contribute equally and are able to look after yourself equally as a global citizen.
Click to expand...


Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Furthermore, its emphasis was more upon social class, rather than race. Indeed, Galton expressed these views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British society into groups. These groupings are shown in the figure and indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their perceived genetic worth. Galton suggested that negative eugenics (i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. However, he appreciated the worth of the higher working classes to society and industry."

In this quote, Galton want to get rid of low classes. It is easy to see how is the low class will be contributing to the society if they are given something to work with? All they need is some training and a job. My grandfather came from a very poor family. He worked hard but didn't have much luck until he emigrated to USA. He owned a company.
 
Dixie said:
Sometimes I think even though they didn't put me up for adoption after they found out I was deaf, they still weed me out in other ways. Like they don't think I possess enough "common sense" to be able to be fully independent. I've told them, the only thing holding me back is finances. They've also kept me from getting certain jobs simply because I couldn't hear. I remember them making fun of my hearing status sometimes growing up.

Until the deaf and hearing get the ability to fully understand each other and appreciate what each has to offer, there is always going to be a weeding of the minority by the majority. Sad.
Click to expand...

Good post!
 
Back
Top