StSapphire

She's not. I thought she said in another thread that she didn't support abortions at all.

[edit] Apparently I was wrong, sorry BG.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

kokonut

I see it as a double standard, hypocrisy even, when it comes to abortion in this instance such as "My body, my choice!" But to do a 180 when it comes to accepting or rejecting an embryo on the basis of what they're looking for as being "wrong," even "unethical" which is a hoot because it's still abortion, doesn't exactly pass the smell test.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

StSapphire

Well of course there's a difference, unless you also think that killing a home intruder in self defense is exactly the same thing is plotting out and assassinating that same person.

Aleser

I'm all for PGD and/or prenatal dx in the case of serious abnormalities. Frankly, I think parents are all sorts of fcked up if they just "take a chance" with having a kid with Tay Sachs or something really horrible despite knowing they're at risk, or refuse prenatal testing that can reveal other conditions incompatible with life... and do think that abortions should be practiced for such conditions. Carrying a child you know will die horribly is not for the sake of that child, it is for the sake of maintaining the fantasy of parenthood you had, and that is wrong. I am absolutely a believer that the most loving parenting choice someone can possibly make with the diagnosis of a catastrophic fetal illness is to let that otherwise wanted child, and all their hopes and dreams for it, go.

But PGD in the case of non-lethal conditions is much more murky grounds. Now its some kinds of disabled people, but soon it could be many kinds of disabled people (autism speaks, for example, is actively funding research for a prenatal test for autism- their explicit goal is to eradicate a neurological difference that in no way impacts health or lifespan), and not too long after that- what if the ability to screen out gay embryos or fetuses came long?

PGD has the "slippery slope" thing attached to it, big time. And of course, what I think is too far down the slope is not what another person thinks.

__________________
"She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

Beach girl

You are misinterpreting. I am in favor of abortions being legal, up to a certain point. As I understood it, I thought you were too.

Given that, it follows that I don't feel I have the moral right to pick and choose what reasons should be ok and what reasons shouldn't, when it comes to another person. (Obviously I have that right for myself.)

If a Jewish couple discovers that their baby will have Tay-Sachs, if a woman discovers that the baby will have Down's, if it is determined that the baby will have any sort of serious physical disability, is that more wrong to abort that child than a woman choosing to abort because "it's inconvenient right now" or some other reason?

Personally I think abortions for reason of sex selection are abhorrent, unless there is some other correlated reason (hemophilia being more prevalent in boys, for instance).

But at the same time, it's inescapable that if the law permits abortion *for any reason* up to a certain point in gestation, plenty of people will make that choice for their own reasons, even if it is a reason you personally would not agree with and a choice you would not make in the same situation.

That's pretty much the nature of the beast; people will make their own choices. Period. I thought that was pretty much what the fight was all about: allowing women to make their own choices, regardless of other people's moral judgments.

shel90

I edited my post and answered your question about my stance on abortions.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

Beach girl

No, I didn't say that. Although "support abortions" is not exactly the phrasing I would choose, I am in favor of abortions being legal up to a certain point.

StSapphire

Sorry, edited my post after I saw that I was wrong. I'm bad at occasionally mixing up people, I apologize.

Babyblue

I would not want to pick and choose what baby I want.

StSapphire

Would you pick and choose what to feed you baby, how to clothe it, how to educate it, etc?

AlleyCat

You sound bitter. Sorry you had to "work" as a young child. Deafness isn't the circumstance in which children have to help out parents sometimes.

traciedantoni

All babies are not created the same, therefore, certain variables can change how you decide what to feed your baby, clothe it, educate, etc.

If your baby has allergies to gluten or peanuts you would have to pick and choose what you feed it.

If your baby is born a dwarf you have to have special clothes made to fit their body.

If your baby has learning issues you have to decide where the best place to educate your child is.

I don't see how that has anything to do with choosing what KIND of child you have to begin with?

You deal with what you get. Period. Choosing what you get I think is insane.

AlleyCat

All parents do.

These are superficial things -- food, clothing, whatnot.

Choosing prenatally is an entirely different subject. I'm surprised you would try to lump this together.

traciedantoni

Let me be clear:

I'm not bitter. I was offended by the comment by Aleser that I am an outsider to deafness. If I am an outsider than ALL the hearing kids of the people on this forum are too. Coda's may not be deaf themselves but they experience the deaf world very intimately especially when BOTH parents are deaf like mine were.

I loved helping my mom. But I also felt bad for her that she got so frustrated so often because of dealing with hearing people.

StSapphire

You can make decisions that aren't driven by biological necessities, too. I may choose to raise a child that I do not feed meat, only meat substitutes and other things. I may choose to raise a child who, because I'm incredibly weird, is never given a single article of clothing to wear that has the color red on it. I may choose to raise a child and send it to a Montessori school, rather than a generic public school. None of these are driven by any biological needs, but they are all choices, and they all very strongly affect who your child ends up being as an adult.

If I decide I'd prefer to have a vegetarian, red-hating, child who is good at tutoring others, then my actions such as above could certainly help to bring that about just as much as mucking about with their genes (in fact, would probably affect the child much much more than selecting specific genes would).

StSapphire

No, they're not superficial. All of these things can have a massive impact on the growth and development of your child. I would argue just as much, if not more, of an impact than any particular genetic markers that can be tested for would.

Aleser

But you don't have to get what you get. You chose to get what you got by choosing to be ignorant of your child's future.

That is not a choice anyone else -has- to make. It is not an actual truth, that is merely what you subscribe to.

Personally, I think its insane to be so caught up in the fantasy of having a child that you forget the reality that you might be bringing a human being into the world just to torture them.

Even if you think eugenics is wrong, it needs thinking about! It can't be as simple as "ALL LIFE IS VALID".

__________________
"She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

Beach girl

So those who are against "choosing what you get," does that mean you are against in-vitro fertilization and that type of manipulation? Like infertile couples going for surrogate motherhood or anonymous sperm donors and that type of thing?

I'll admit that sort of thing gives me the heebie-jeebies (for lack of a better scientific term). I would never, ever do that. Can't even imagine wanting to "make a baby" with some anonymous guy I picked out from a catalog or something. No way, no how. Yuck.

That's where I'm all in favor of adoption, rather than creating a "designer child" that would not exist absent all the various manipulations involved.

I'd rather raise a child that was not biologically related to either of us rather than make a baby in that anonymous sort of way from one of us. That feeling might not make much logical sense, I'll admit, but there it is.

Aleser

You are an outsider, though. You have never actually -been deaf-. CODAs can be a part of Deaf culture, but they have neither had the experience of being deaf, nor of raising a child while deaf, etc.

__________________
"She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

StSapphire

Just to verify, you're well aware that in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy/sperm donors are distinct procedures, right? Most in-vitro fertilization is done with both parents' own sperms and eggs, so biologically the child is identically related to the parents as a naturally conceived child.

AlleyCat

They're superficial in that a child HAS to eat, regardless of what you feed it. A child HAS to be wearing clothes otherwise they'll be taken away for child abuse. A child HAS to be in school otherwise there's a truancy issue. These are NOT optional.

StSapphire

Yes, and a child HAS to have genes, otherwise, y'know, they're... uh... not a living creature.

Aleser

1: Theoretically, a child doesn't HAVE to eat. They could receive TPN.
2: Nudists exist in many cultures and in many parts of the world.
3: No, a child does not have to be in school. Homeschooling and unschooling exist, dear.

The point is that many variables make up who your child will be, but while these are all seen as "choices", another one is seen as "playing god".

__________________
"She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

Bottesini

Studies have been done that show that genetics often override upbringing.

StSapphire

I prefer "playing human". Much more powerful. We have guns and electron microscopes.

traciedantoni

You think I CHOSE to have my son be born only so he could die 3 years later????? Highly offensive.

I didn't know there was anything wrong with my son until the day before he was born and he was born 7 weeks early. I was 24 years old and they did offer me prenatal testing but I had NO reason to think there could be anything wrong because I already had a healthy pregnancy and I was a healthy person. If I had done the prenatal testing there is still no evidence that it would have revealed that my son had problems. When he was born I was told so many things by the doctors. I worked hard and trained every day to be able to bring him home on a ventilator, oxygen, feeding tube, etc. It didn't work out and he died two weeks before his third birthday on October 19th 2010.

You think I regret his life? No I don't. He taught me more than anyone else in this world has ever taught me. He taught me to love harder and live life better. He taught me to appreciate life and those around me.

You think I tortured him by bringing him into this world? No I didn't. I didn't know he was going to have problems just like hearing parents with deaf kids don't know until their babies are born that they are deaf. You deal with what you get and you LOVE your child no matter what.

StSapphire

The view held by modern biology is that both genetics and the environment you've developed and grown in both very strongly affect nearly every aspect of you.

If you're referring to any specific studies, feel free to share, though.

Beach girl

Sure, of course. You sure about that "most" being with the parents' own sperm and eggs?

Even if it is "most," genetic selection is still involved, because once sperm and eggs have united, only the *best* examples are then implanted. Which makes sense, of course, if that's the method you're going to use, but it's not the same as letting nature take its course and loving what you get.

And of course often donor sperm or donor eggs ARE involved.

I'm lumping all of these things together under the general heading of "genetic manipulation," because they all involve methods above and beyond just letting nature do its thing.

AlleyCat

The bolded -- that is exactly what I was trying to say. I may not have conveyed that well at all. You bring up good points (in your #1-3), but, for the norm, the typical child eats normally, the typical child wears clothes, the typical child is in school. Your examples are more out of the norm. But not necessarily "playing god".

And, please don't call me dear. You don't know me well enough to call me that. Let's keep it civil, hm? Sarcasm or patronizing isn't necessary here.

StSapphire

Okay, the wording of your post confused me, so I just wanted to verify. And I don't have any numbers to back up the "most", but if personal anecdotes count for anything (and they probably don't), I know three couples in my family who had IVF. All of them used the sperm from the husband and the eggs from the wife. Presumably the main time when anonymous sperm/egg samples are used would be for either couples where one of the two is actually sterile (ie not producing any sperm or eggs) or when you're talking about a homosexual couple who obviously can't provide each.

As for the ascertation of "letting nature take its course" etc etc - do you go to a doctor when you get sick? Would you give birth in a sterilized hospital? Neither of those are "letting nature take its course" because you already have presumptions about things like "infectious diseases" and "not dying" that are contrary to "letting nature take its course".