Deaf couple wants deaf baby guaranteed via IVF

[jillio]

Are you intentionally trying to bait me? It is hard for me to get a thought out as it is. I have been ripping my brain out practically for this.

And if you want to use "we are talking about deafness" as an excuse to not debate, then fine. If we cannot discuss ramifications, then we are not discussing at all. That would make this a useless opinion poll.... may as well talk about the weather, it's just as good for that.

And I felt that by logic, if you had actually -read- me, you could have ruled out the possibility of "your question can be interpreted to mean that you feel that choosing a deaf embryo is creating suffering...." and saw what it really was. I have to get my thoughts out the way they come to me, I don't have the energy to sit here all day to think of the best way to say one single post. I wish I did, because the topic is worth it, but I just don't. Sorry.

Also, it is possible to feel against something but still allow it. Do you know what "ambivalent" means? Just because I might have appeared to 'waiver' does not mean I actually did. People have conflicts of interest and contradictions EVERY DAY, if someone says they don't, they either don't realize they do, or are lying.

And my discussion is not 'fallacious'. I also never said being deaf makes you 'inferior' you are putting words in my mouth. There is a difference between that and what I said.

What I brought up also does matter. You can choose to think it doesn't all you want, go on and have your fun. The thread lost all seriousness the moment you chose to ignore these possibilities for the sake of staying 'on topic'.

No I am not attempting to bait you. I am pointing out where you are offering conflicting POVs.

Nor am I using "we are discussing deafness" as way to avoid debate. In fact, I think I have demonstrated that debate is not something I tend to avoid.

I am not putting words in your mouth. Evidently, you are not considering the implied meaning of what you say. If you state that deafness is a genetic regression, then you have implied that people who are gentically deafened are gentically behind, and therefore inferior to, those that have progressed farther down the genetic scale. That is what "regression" means. To have returned to less advanced state.

If you are ambivilent, it is best to say that "I am ambivilent." There is no room for misunderstanding in that statement.

 

[jenni-m]

No I am not attempting to bait you. I am pointing out where you are offering conflicting POVs.

Nor am I using "we are discussing deafness" as way to avoid debate. In fact, I think I have demonstrated that debate is not something I tend to avoid.

I am not putting words in your mouth. Evidently, you are not considering the implied meaning of what you say. If you state that deafness is a genetic regression, then you have implied that people who are gentically deafened are gentically behind, and therefore inferior to, those that have progressed farther down the genetic scale. That is what "regression" means. To have returned to less advanced state.

I apologize. I just got very frustrated... I have been close to tears a few times over this thread. And yes, I can forget implied meaning... pretty often in fact. It's part of the way I write... I tend to rely on chunks of things I have read before, and possibly might not give them the same meaning as other people do... I tend to forget this as I have not actually communicated with very many people.

Also, I do not think being 'genetically behind' makes you anymore inferior than having to use a wheelchair... I kind of take offense to this, actually. But I can see it was my fault now that I have vented and calmed down... I am really sorry.

 

[jillio]

I apologize. I just got very frustrated... I have been close to tears a few times over this thread. And yes, I can forget implied meaning... pretty often in fact. It's part of the way I write... I tend to rely on chunks of things I have read before, and possibly might not give them the same meaning as other people do... I tend to forget this as I have not actually communicated with very many people.

Also, I do not think being 'genetically behind' makes you anymore inferior than having to use a wheelchair... I kind of take offense to this, actually. But I can see it was my fault now that I have vented and calmed down... I am really sorry.

Its all good. No need to get so upset.

Has it been a learning experience?

 

[jenni-m]

Its all good. No need to get so upset.

Has it been a learning experience?

Yes, it has. A hard one, but worth going through.
Thank you for putting up with me.

I am beginning to see your points more clearly now that I am not in frustrated 'defense' mode. I can be stubborn at times, but if people have patience... I will see my errors eventually.

 

[jillio]

Yes, it has. A hard one, but worth going through.
Thank you for putting up with me.

I am beginning to see your points more clearly now that I am not in frustrated 'defense' mode. I can be stubborn at times, but if people have patience... I will see my errors eventually.

That's what trying to teach is all about. Bringing a student to a new level of awareness so that they think for themselves. I wouldn't expect you to simply accept what I say without question. That is why I continue to discuss the issues with you. So that you can work through to a new and deeper understanding for yourself.

No need to thank me. It's what I do.

 

[jenni-m]

That's what trying to teach is all about. Bringing a student to a new level of awareness so that they think for themselves. I wouldn't expect you to simply accept what I say without question. That is why I continue to discuss the issues with you. So that you can work through to a new and deeper understanding for yourself.

No need to thank me. It's what I do.

Thanks.

I will try to revise my points:

1. Yes, I did see genetic deafness as a form of 'regression'. This is simply my 'technical' opinion, and carries no social connotations with it. I think some say "calling a spade a spade" or something like that.

Point #1 is also why I brought up adaptation (in the technical evolution sense, not the Webster's Dictionary sense.) vs acclimation. The reason I brought this up is just too hard for me to explain on a casual forum, it is very abstract and does not 'fit' typical evolutionary discussions. But a brief insight to my line of reasoning, at least, is that I consider whether or not something is called "human" to be irrelevant in this case, I was looking at the "evolutionary line". It's not the same thing, but you could compare it to apples. An apple is not a tree, and a tree is not a seed, but you need the seeds to get an apple.
That is also along the lines of what my friend said, something to the effect of "they weren't deaf if the species did not have ears". It's a semantics defense, which I see as ineffective in this case.

2. I would rather have babies left alone, you get what you get. However, I also realize that IVF is probably here to stay, so I must make some concessions for this. I am comfortable with allowing choice, even though I personally disagree, because "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" I think they say. The situation goes both ways.

3. I see your criteria as paving the way for more trouble, it is objective, but law is hardly ever objective. There must be social compromises, not everyone can get what they want individually, we have to pick something that is 'best overall'. I personally would not be very happy if I discovered that I was specifically selected because I would have SEDC. I am happy to be alive, overall, but I would not want what I have on purpose. The fact that it happened randomly, is ok with me, it can't be helped.

I think there might have been a 4... but I can't remember it right now.

 

[jillio]

Thanks.

I will try to revise my points:

1. Yes, I did see genetic deafness as a form of 'regression'. This is simply my 'technical' opinion, and carries no social connotations with it. I think some say "calling a spade a spade" or something like that.

Point #1 is also why I brought up adaptation (in the technical evolution sense, not the Webster's Dictionary sense.) vs acclimation. The reason I brought this up is just too hard for me to explain on a casual forum, it is very abstract and does not 'fit' typical evolutionary discussions. But a brief insight to my line of reasoning, at least, is that I consider whether or not something is called "human" to be irrelevant in this case, I was looking at the "evolutionary line". It's not the same thing, but you could compare it to apples. An apple is not a tree, and a tree is not a seed, but you need the seeds to get an apple.
That is also along the lines of what my friend said, something to the effect of "they weren't deaf if the species did not have ears". It's a semantics defense, which I see as ineffective in this case.

2. I would rather have babies left alone, you get what you get. However, I also realize that IVF is probably here to stay, so I must make some concessions for this. I am comfortable with allowing choice, even though I personally disagree, because "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" I think they say. The situation goes both ways.

3. I see your criteria as paving the way for more trouble, it is objective, but law is hardly ever objective. There must be social compromises, not everyone can get what they want individually, we have to pick something that is 'best overall'. I personally would not be very happy if I discovered that I was specifically selected because I would have SEDC. I am happy to be alive, overall, but I would not want what I have on purpose. The fact that it happened randomly, is ok with me, it can't be helped.

I think there might have been a 4... but I can't remember it right now.

The only point I will continue to disagree with is that of genetic regression. I still maintain that the only way a regression theory will work in this instance is if all humans, at some point were deaf, and evolved into hearing beings, making hearing an evolutionary progressive trait. The species cannot regress, or return to a former state, if that was never the state of the species as a whole. It is a genetic mutation, not regression. Now, if a human were born with a cromagnum skeletal structure and under developed brain structures, it would be a regression, especially if it were seen not just in one individual, but a significant portion of the population.

 

[jenni-m]

The only point I will continue to disagree with is that of genetic regression. I still maintain that the only way a regression theory will work in this instance is if all humans, at some point were deaf, and evolved into hearing beings, making hearing an evolutionary progressive trait. The species cannot regress, or return to a former state, if that was never the state of the species as a whole. It is a genetic mutation, not regression. Now, if a human were born with a cromagnum skeletal structure and under developed brain structures, it would be a regression, especially if it were seen not just in one individual, but a significant portion of the population.

But I think it should be obvious that humans did not simply appear one day as they are. Cro-magnon may have heard, but there was something before them, and before that, and again before that. The line is the same, but classified in stages for reasons other than this one...

 

[jillio]

But I think it should be obvious that humans did not simply appear one day as they are. Cro-magnon may have heard, but there was something before them, and before that, and again before that. The line is the same, but classified in stages for reasons other than this one...

Granted, but we are talking about the regression of what is considered to be the human species. We can no doubt take all living creatures back to the same evolutionary beginning of cells. Given the predatory nature of the environment, I think it is safe to say that cro-magnon, and even much prior, had hearing as a survival trait. It is a trait that was passed genetically from generation to generation, except in the instance that the gene mutated and created an individual without hearing.

Likewise, the gene responsible for genetic deafness has been isolated, and shown to be a mutation.

 

[jenni-m]

Granted, but we are talking about the regression of what is considered to be the human species. We can no doubt take all living creatures back to the same evolutionary beginning of cells. Given the predatory nature of the environment, I think it is safe to say that cro-magnon, and even much prior, had hearing as a survival trait. It is a trait that was passed genetically from generation to generation, except in the instance that the gene mutated and created an individual without hearing.

Likewise, the gene responsible for genetic deafness has been isolated, and shown to be a mutation.

Yes, I'll accept that line of reasoning, it's just not the one I had, which is where I think the trouble came up. It has to do with "evolutionary games" and what would have happened if somewhere along the chain of what led to humans, hearing had not been developed or had come later than it did.

I'll admit I do not know a lot about this, but I have an intuitive grasp on it I think... but I am going to leave this one alone as it requires playing out scenarios which I don't really know how to do well.

 

[jillio]

Yes, I'll accept that line of reasoning, it's just not the one I had, which is where I think the trouble came up. It has to do with "evolutionary games" and what would have happened if somewhere along the chain of what led to humans, hearing had not been developed or had come later than it did.

I'll admit I do not know a lot about this, but I have an intuitive grasp on it I think... but I am going to leave this one alone as it requires playing out scenarios which I don't really know how to do well.

Absolutely you have an intuitive grasp of the topic, which is exactly why I kept trying to lead you along in the discussion so you could clarify and specify what your intuition was already telling you.

And I'm going to get some sleep...I look forward to more discussions with you. I'll try not to make it so frustrating!