Eugenics in this modern day and age

deafdyke said:
Well you know.........................I think in SOME cases, this might be a good idea. I disagree with something like this if its targeted towards just deaf or just hoh folks. BUT, if it prevents a child being born with profound multihandicaps or a condition where mental issues get worse, then maybe it would be helpful.
I gotta say thou, that most nondisabled folks do not understand that being born with a disabilty, isn't that horrible. You can ADAPT to physical disablitiy.
Click to expand...

You never have to accept other people's definitions, even if they do carry the force of law. For lack of better terms I will say there are disabilities and disadvantages. Having MS with uncontrolable siezures is a disability -- Having the mind of a five year old in a thirty year old body is a disability -- There is not a lot a person can do to get around these things.

On the other hand loss of a hand, arm, foot, leg, speech, hearing, smell, youth, are disadvantages that can and do happen to anyone at any age.

The question then becomes: "Should someone who carries a gene that makes an early disadvantage more likely be allowed to pass that gene on to future generations?"

Then there is the question that is always present: "How far should any government go in protecting its constituants? At what point does it cease to be protection and become persecution?"

I personally believe anyone effected/affected by a decision should have a voice in that decision.
 
When I looked at the link, it seems to be saying that the bill is more aimed for people who show a preference to a deaf embryo over a hearing one, so in other words having preimplantation genetic diagnosis on the embryos to locate the deaf ones to return to the uterus and discarding the hearing ones. So in other words, they don't want people to deliberately create deaf babies.

I am UK born and bred and I don't think they would go as far as to prevent deaf people with deaf genes from getting IVF to get pregnant if they have fertility problems.

I'm sure though that the converse (keep the hearing embryos but discard the deaf ones) would still be allowed, which seems a bit of a double standard to me.
 
Buffalo said:
I like that. Do you know anybody in the WFD? Why don't you (Berry or anybody else) check with them and see what they say?
Click to expand...


I found the site here. They do have a way to contact them. There mission is to represent deaf people all over the world, and this is a deaf issue, but I myself am hearing so I'm not sure I'm the right person to approach them.
 
We as humankind perhaps shoots our own feets if we starts denying specific genes at a large scale. The mutations and different genes we have, causing downs syndrome, deafness and so on, have side effects that are needed to evolve. Some deaf people have been reported to be more resistant to specific diseases, and strong eye genes are a trait that can be developed through deaf generations due to the importance of vision. Those genes are needed to survive and be a part of the nature.

Some people seems to have a very basic knowledge of life...
 
Berry said:
You never have to accept other people's definitions, even if they do carry the force of law. For lack of better terms I will say there are disabilities and disadvantages. Having MS with uncontrolable siezures is a disability -- Having the mind of a five year old in a thirty year old body is a disability -- There is not a lot a person can do to get around these things.

On the other hand loss of a hand, arm, foot, leg, speech, hearing, smell, youth, are disadvantages that can and do happen to anyone at any age.

The question then becomes: "Should someone who carries a gene that makes an early disadvantage more likely be allowed to pass that gene on to future generations?"

Then there is the question that is always present: "How far should any government go in protecting its constituants? At what point does it cease to be protection and become persecution?"

I personally believe anyone effected/affected by a decision should have a voice in that decision.
Click to expand...

:gpost: :applause:
 
Oh, wait.......................so this is more like preventing delibirately deaf IVF babies from being born?
I actually find that extremely dumb. The MP who is pushing for this, prolly has NO plm whatsoever with yuppie moms and dads creating their very own high IQ, totally designer baby.
Deafness is pretty much BENIGN. It's not like something like Huntington's Disease or mild autism, or depression or other mental issues.
I wish people would realize that physical disabilty is something you can adapt to and live rich full lives. Sure, the kids won't be able to hear..............but so what?
 
Berry said:
I found the site here. They do have a way to contact them. There mission is to represent deaf people all over the world, and this is a deaf issue, but I myself am hearing so I'm not sure I'm the right person to approach them.
Click to expand...

Don't let that stop you, Berry. :) I send them an email and it turned out that they already know of it the day before from one of their deaf board members. They are doing something about it and are trying to connect their British organization.

I'd like to know if anybody in this AD who is also a member of World Federation of the Deaf. I would appreicate it if you keep us informed of WFD's plan regards to this. Thank you!
 
Kaitin said:
Reading articles I learned Nazis in Germany used the US as a model for the Nazi forced sterilizations etc. and then did more than US of course. I never knew this. Several books say this and I can't quote because they are PDF but this is one: link. The US was a model for the Nazis??? Very shameful.
Click to expand...

Oh my God, I didn't know that Nazis used US as a model either my hubby... :eek3:
 
Who made people deaf ? The Maker did. It shows obviously that the Maker LOVE deaf people more than hearin' people...that's my perspective.

I opposed them to terminate " deaf " from the face of the earth. I noticed that it was deaf people who invented things and the hearin' people stole their ideas to make themselves rich. Tsk tsk That's dishonesty.

Deaf people have better insights than hearin' people does.
 
deafdyke said:
Oh, wait.......................so this is more like preventing delibirately deaf IVF babies from being born?
I actually find that extremely dumb. The MP who is pushing for this, prolly has NO plm whatsoever with yuppie moms and dads creating their very own high IQ, totally designer baby.
Deafness is pretty much BENIGN. It's not like something like Huntington's Disease or mild autism, or depression or other mental issues.
I wish people would realize that physical disabilty is something you can adapt to and live rich full lives. Sure, the kids won't be able to hear..............but so what?
Click to expand...
I suspect if you "follow the money" you'll find the motivation behind all of this.

If you reduce the Deaf population, you reduce the need for special schooling, captions, interpreters, etc. It's all about the money, you can be sure.
 
Kaitin said:
I read about the bill but I don't know if I understand all really. The bill has a lot of ideas I think so very complicated. Also I don't know UK legislation process so probably I need to read again to find more.
Click to expand...
Wow, you've really been doing your homework. Thanks for all the information. :ty:



...The BMA acknowledges that the requirement to consider the welfare of the child before treatment is offered is regarded by some people as discrimination against those who are infertile on the grounds that those who conceive naturally are not prevented from reproducing, even if there is a clear risk to a future child....
Click to expand...
I found this statement particularly interesting, and a potential legal loophole.

If couples who conceive naturally are not forced to have their embryos inspected and rejected by the law, then why are infertile couples stuck with this discriminatory restriction?
 
jillio said:
Yes, I do believe that it was a step in that direction. How far is it, really, from not allowing deaf to intermarry to reduce the genetic transmission of deafness (A.G. Bell) to refusing to allowing a deaf/hearing couple to propogate? And the fact still remains that Bell's theories of genetic transmission were terribly, terribly flawed.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Reba said:
I suspect if you "follow the money" you'll find the motivation behind all of this.

If you reduce the Deaf population, you reduce the need for special schooling, captions, interpreters, etc. It's all about the money, you can be sure.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY!
 
Reba said:
Wow, you've really been doing your homework. Thanks for all the information. :ty:



I found this statement particularly interesting, and a potential legal loophole.

If couples who conceive naturally are not forced to have their embryos inspected and rejected by the law, then why are infertile couples stuck with this discriminatory restriction?
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, Reba.
 
Reba said:
If it passes in Great Britain, the idea will probably next go to the European Union. From there, it could spread to Canada and the USA.
Click to expand...

Let's hope not! I find the thought of such a possibility to be terrifying.
 
Back
Top