Deaf couple wants deaf baby guaranteed via IVF

Incompatible in that it can be medically determined that the genetic diffiulty is of such a degree that physical survival is impossible. By incompatible with life, I mean no chance of survival. That is the only objective measure we could use. Everything else, such as quality of life, is subjective.

Ok, I can 'buy that'. But what is 'survival'? Assisted or unassisted survival? Does the person have to be able to survive alone on a deserted island?
May they require some daily living assistance, but are mostly independent? Survivable if taken care for (feeding if they can't do it themselves, etc)?
Machines? No machines?
Which one of the above scenarios has more 'right' to exist?

No problem. Nothing to apologize for. I do the same thing with students, often playing Devil's Advocate, to get them to think their ideas all the way through. As long as you are defending your position logically and with forethought, you are thinking and stretching your mind. Its when you stop, and say, "Well, that's just the way it is and I don't have to prove anything to you!" that you have just stopped learning.

I agree...
So you are a teacher?
I guess I am a 'rogue scholar' in a way. I do try to be reasonable, learn, acknowledge what I don't know, see and admit when I am wrong and then try to correct it.

"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
 
Who decides what is 'incompatible'? Some think deafness alone already is incompatible (as I am sure is already well known here...)

But otherwise, I agree. At least we agree on something, haha. Sorry for earlier... I just get that way at times, get things in my head and can't let them go until I express it.

Let us say there are more Deaf people than there are hearing people and the Deaf people is running the show (i.e government). Suppose the Deaf people notice that certain people aren't signing but just moving their mouths. Since the Deaf people can't understand them, they decide that those people must be defective and not compatible with the general population. In the end, they pass the law that the hearing people must screen out hearing embyros.

Do you agree with this or not?
 
Let us say there are more Deaf people than there are hearing people and the Deaf people is running the show (i.e government). Suppose the Deaf people notice that certain people aren't signing but just moving their mouths. Since the Deaf people can't understand them, they decide that those people must be defective and not compatible with the general population. In the end, they pass the law that the hearing people must screen out hearing embyros.

Do you agree with this or not?

I don't understand the question, I'm sorry.
I do not agree that it is right, if that is what you are asking, but I never said it was wrong the other way either. What is prompting this question?
 
Ok, I can 'buy that'. But what is 'survival'? Assisted or unassisted survival? Does the person have to be able to survive alone on a deserted island?
May they require some daily living assistance, but are mostly independent? Survivable if taken care for (feeding if they can't do it themselves, etc)?
Machines? No machines?
Which one of the above scenarios has more 'right' to exist?



I agree...
So you are a teacher?
I guess I am a 'rogue scholar' in a way. I do try to be reasonable, learn, acknowledge what I don't know, see and admit when I am wrong and then try to correct it.

"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus


Survival means life....in as heart beating, respiratory system functioning, brain function, etc. Not dead.
 
Survival means life....in as heart beating, respiratory system functioning, brain function, etc. Not dead.

I know, but it has to be -more- than that, because it is redundant to choose a baby that will die anyway. To what level of survival are you talking about? There has to be one, and it matters.

Edit:
I have to go soon, so I am going to assume for a moment that you actually mean to say what you appear to be saying, that anything is allowable as long as the baby will live.

But in that context, If some form of regulation is not placed, I can guess some scenarios such as the following:

A person wants a baby who will be quadriplegic, so they don't have to 'chase' it around.
Or someone wants a baby that is severely retarded, because it would be easier to manipulate, and even abuse.
Maybe somebody wants a baby that is blind and deaf, just for the hell of it.

I personally find these prospects very alarming, and I -know- that these cases will be seen if some form of regulation is not in place. Not all parents are nice and responsible. Some are downright cruel, or insane.
 
Last edited:
I know, but it has to be -more- than that, because it is redundant to choose a baby that will die anyway. To what level of survival are you talking about? There has to be one, and it matters.

Edit:
I have to go soon, so I am going to assume for a moment that you actually mean to say what you appear to be saying, that anything is allowable as long as the baby will live.

But in that context, If some form of regulation is not placed, I can guess some scenarios such as the following:

A person wants a baby who will be quadriplegic, so they don't have to 'chase' it around.
Or someone wants a baby that is severely retarded, because it would be easier to manipulate, and even abuse.
Maybe somebody wants a baby that is blind and deaf, just for the hell of it.

I personally find these prospects very alarming, and I -know- that these cases will be seen if some form of regulation is not in place. Not all parents are nice and responsible. Some are downright cruel, or insane.

Actually, its not redundant at all. If screening is done,then the only embryos that are screened out are those that have genetic defects so severe that they are incompatible with life. Screening allows for destruction of the embryo prior to implantation. In fact, that is the entire purpose behind screening. Not to allow for choice but to destroy those embryos considered to be genetically defective.
 
Actually, its not redundant at all. If screening is done,then the only embryos that are screened out are those that have genetic defects so severe that they are incompatible with life.

You are not being specific. We just went in a circle.
I -still- don't know what you mean by 'incompatible with life'.

Do you mean anything that won't die almost as soon as it's born?
Or something else? If else, then what?

Also, are you avoiding me? Your past couple of responses seem almost flippant.
Maybe we should drop this... if you would rather not discuss it with me, then simply ignore my posting, please.

Edit:
Perhaps I am not clear enough.
Let's put it this way...

Barring 'quality of life' and anything else, what life expectancy counts as 'incompatible'?
1. Dead at birth to death after one hour
2. Up to one year.
3. To ten years.
4. Twenty years
5. Forty years or longer?

Also, if one of those could be raised to average life expectancy by using a life supporting machine, does it still count?
 
Last edited:
You are not being specific. We just went in a circle.
I -still- don't know what you mean by 'incompatible with life'.

Do you mean anything that won't die almost as soon as it's born?
Or something else? If else, then what?

Also, are you avoiding me? Your past couple of responses seem almost flippant.
Maybe we should drop this... if you would rather not discuss it with me, then simply ignore my posting, please.

Edit:
Perhaps I am not clear enough.
Let's put it this way...

Barring 'quality of life' and anything else, what life expectancy counts as 'incompatible'?
1. Dead at birth to death after one hour
2. Up to one year.
3. To ten years.
4. Twenty years
5. Forty years or longer?

Also, if one of those could be raised to average life expectancy by using a life supporting machine, does it still count?

When I say incompatible with life that is exactly what I mean. Unable to live. Death will occur. The organism cannot sustain life.

A life span of 40 years is not incompatible with life. That may be considered a shortened life span, but as the individual was able to sustain life from conception through birth, and up to 40 years, it cannot be considered to be incompatible with life. Likewise with 10 years, 20 years, or any number of years.

You are attempting to complicate a very simple concept. Incompatible with life means never being able to achieve that which constitutes independent life....respiratory function, cardiac function, brain function. It means having genetic mutation so severe that one is incapable of living, period. Quality of life does not enter into it, as that is a subjective concept.

I'm not avoiding you at all. Why are you so defensive?

Nor am I being flippant. Personally, I consider it a bit flippant of the British government to decide that a deaf embryo should be destroyed, and to deny the rights of a deaf couple to choose a deaf embryo when hearing couples are permitted to choose hearing embryos. I take any form of eugenics very seriously, and this is most definately not just a civil rights issue, but an issue of the majority deciding that life can only be valued when it meets the standards of the majority.
 
I wish people would stop making these specific demands. I wouldn't wish for a deaf child. That's like saying, "I hope my kid is handicapped!" Imagine what the kid would feel when he/she grows up. "OMG! My mom is glad that I'm handicapped!" *sobbing*
 
I wish people would stop making these specific demands. I wouldn't wish for a deaf child. That's like saying, "I hope my kid is handicapped!" Imagine what the kid would feel when he/she grows up. "OMG! My mom is glad that I'm handicapped!" *sobbing*


If my mom had told me that she chose me over a hearing embroyo, I would be happy cuz I would have never been born.
 
I wish people would stop making these specific demands. I wouldn't wish for a deaf child. That's like saying, "I hope my kid is handicapped!" Imagine what the kid would feel when he/she grows up. "OMG! My mom is glad that I'm handicapped!" *sobbing*

I doubt seriously that a deaf child raised by 2 deaf parents with close ties to the deaf community, who provide constant examples of success would ever grow up to view themselves as "handicapped."
 
You are attempting to complicate a very simple concept.

Perhaps, but we must 'complicate' things, and think of ramifications, because someone else certainly will, if we don't first.

I'm not avoiding you at all. Why are you so defensive?

Because I couldn't get a straight answer out of you, it did not seem like you were reading my posts...
I think I get you now, not that it matters anymore, but I still feel a reduncancy here. Also my question about supported life still has not been answered.

I don't know of anyone who is going to choose to IVF a baby that will die within hours anyway, so it is a bit pointless to me. Also, it wouldn't matter much anyway, if they could do it, because the baby is still going to die anyway.

Someone would surely complain if the 'cutoff' is by hours that if the baby is expected to live at least one year, they should be able to have it. The scenario is a bit absurd, yes, but that's how things tend to work. If the limit is one year, someone will want to slip by with slightly less than a year, because it is 'close enough' and others will want to do away with ones lasting say two years, because that is also 'close enough'. Then if they manage to get away with that, someone will want to stop it at three years, then four, and so on.

But now I can say I agree, at least, including your previous statement about genetic counseling. As long as there are regulations in place to prevent child abuse, I'm ok with it. (and things like this -do- happen not as much as this country, but... many children have been raised for the sole purpose of exploitation...)
 
You are attempting to complicate a very simple concept.

Perhaps, but we must 'complicate' things, and think of ramifications, because someone else certainly will, if we don't first.

I'm not avoiding you at all. Why are you so defensive?

Because I couldn't get a straight answer out of you, it did not seem like you were reading my posts...
I think I get you now, not that it matters anymore, but I still feel a reduncancy here. Also my question about supported life still has not been answered.

I don't know of anyone who is going to choose to IVF a baby that will die within hours anyway, so it is a bit pointless to me. Also, it wouldn't matter much anyway, if they could do it, because the baby is still going to die anyway.

Someone would surely complain if the 'cutoff' is by hours that if the baby is expected to live at least one year, they should be able to have it. The scenario is a bit absurd, yes, but that's how things tend to work. If the limit is one year, someone will want to slip by with slightly less than a year, because it is 'close enough' and others will want to do away with ones lasting say two years, because that is also 'close enough'. Then if they manage to get away with that, someone will want to stop it at three years, then four, and so on.

But now I can say I agree, at least, including your previous statement about genetic counseling. As long as there are regulations in place to prevent child abuse, I'm ok with it. (and things like this -do- happen not as much as this country, but... many children have been raised for the sole purpose of exploitation...)

My answers have been very straight and very specific. One does not have the opportunity to "choose" an embryo with genetic defects incompatible with life, because those embryos that would not survive are already screened out. The problem is, they are attempting to screen out embryos, as well, with any form of genetic "defect", in particular,those defects that are not incompatible with life, but simply deviate from the norm, i.e. deafness.

I don't exactly get your point, First you say that a couple should not be allowed to select a deaf embryo because it is moving backwards genetically, and then you argue about the cut off line for the designation "incompatible with life." Are you against all IVF, or do you think it is acceptable to destroy deaf embryos and not allow a parent the choice, but think they should be allowed the choice of choosing an embryo that is incompatibile with life? You have brought issues into the topic that are totally unrelated in an attempt to support the evolutionary theory you originally proposed that was flawed.

The whole purpose of IVF is to allow a woman to become pregnant, and carry to term a child that will survive. IVF is a procedure to facillatate conception and gestation for a woman that has difficulty in these specific areas. An embryo that is incompatible with life is contradicitory to the entire process, as the large majority of embryos that are this genetically flawed will result in a miscarraige. In the rare case that they do complete gestation, the largest portion of those will result in still births, with death occurring in utero. The whole concept is totally contradicitory to the purpose of IVF. Incompatible with life is medical terminology that is widely accepted, and it means exactly what it states. Incompatible with life. There are no hidden meanings there, no implications at all. The topic of life support is not even an issue in the definition of incompatible with life. One has to survived at some point in order to be placed on life support.

The whole point of the issue, and the fight these parents are undertaking, is that deafness is not incomptible with life, and therefore, embryos that carry a genetic form of deafness should not be destroyed simply because they are deaf. That is what the British government is proposing to do. These parents are fighting against that proposal. This is no less eugenics than A.G. Bell's proposal that ALL deaf individuals be sterilized to promote the concept of the well born. His genetic theories were terribly flawed, as is the practice of destroying deaf embryos based on no other criteria other than deafness.

The fact of the matter is, the largest proportion deafness is not caused by genetic transmission. Therefore, your argument would be better based in the ethics of what to do with a deaf infant after it is born. If we find it acceptable to destroy deaf embryos simply because they are deaf, what should we do with a deaf infant after birth? Are they to be considered less viable than a hearing infant? Waht about deaf adults? Are they considered to be subhuman, and not deserving of the same rights as hearing adults? Do we relegate deaf individuals to second class citizenry simply because they are deaf?

That is the issue here. The enitre question is if a parent is allowed to choose a hearing embryo, why is it that a deaf couple cannot choose a deaf embryo? What exactly is it about deafness that would place a deaf embryo in the category of being incompatible with life. Your oringinal position was that a deaf couple should not be able to choose a deaf embryo through IVF based ont he fact that deafness is a genetic regression. Your theory of regression is flawed. You then moved on to the fact that no embryos should be destroyed because incompatible with life is too broad a definition. Incompatibile with life is not broad and, in fact, is very specific. We are discussing the ethics as applied to IVF only, not natural conception and birth. You have gone way off topic with issues that do not even apply to the process of IVF.

So let's go back to the oringinal questions. Should a deaf couple be prevented from selecting a deaf embryo? Should deaf embryos be destroyed? If a hearing couple is permitted to select an embryo based on hearing status, then why isn't a deaf couple afforded the same right?

And I have been reading your posts. I have been giving straight forward answers, as well. You have simply done a 180 degree turnaround in your position.
 
My answers have been very straight and very specific. One does not have the opportunity to "choose" an embryo with genetic defects incompatible with life, because those embryos that would not survive are already screened out. The problem is, they are attempting to screen out embryos, as well, with any form of genetic "defect", in particular,those defects that are not incompatible with life, but simply deviate from the norm, i.e. deafness.

I understand this, and it is ENTIRELY MY POINT. Is it always wrong to do this? Is it always right? Should we just let it go because it's "too subjective?"


I don't exactly get your point, First you say that a couple should not be allowed to select a deaf embryo because it is moving backwards genetically,


No, I never did. Somebody ELSE said that, I just simply agreed that it is moving backwards, I never said they shouldn't selected because of that. Have you read my posts as much as you say?


The whole purpose of IVF is to allow a woman to become pregnant, and carry to term a child that will survive. IVF is a procedure to facillatate conception and gestation for a woman that has difficulty in these specific areas. An embryo that is incompatible with life is contradicitory to the entire process, as the large majority of embryos that are this genetically flawed will result in a miscarraige.


Well, yes. Therefore they are screened out. We already know this:

I would personally say that we draw the line at genetic conditions that are incompatible with life when it comes to embryo selection for IVF. When it comes to natural conception, an individual should undergo genetic counseling, have full understanding of what their chances are of passing a condition on to offspring, and then make a fully informed decision whether they want to risk it or not.

1. Why specify with IVF is already the norm apparently, and unlikely to change. That confuses me.
2. You say with natural conception, there should be genetic counseling. Yet you want to allow anything with IVF that isn't "incompatible with life" (This would include things like SEDC, Downs Syndrome, Spina Biffida, etc. Except with IVF, it would be a conscious decision already. DO you not SEE the possibility of bad choices happening if this is not checked in some way?


In the rare case that they do complete gestation, the largest portion of those will result in still births, with death occurring in utero. The whole concept is totally contradicitory to the purpose of IVF. Incompatible with life is medical terminology that is widely accepted, and it means exactly what it states. Incompatible with life. There are no hidden meanings there, no implications at all. The topic of life support is not even an issue in the definition of incompatible with life. One has to survived at some point in order to be placed on life support.

Again, see above. You want to idly sit by simply because you don't want to make a 'moral' or 'subjective' decision? Is that what this is?

The whole point of the issue, and the fight these parents are undertaking, is that deafness is not incomptible with life, and therefore, embryos that carry a genetic form of deafness should not be destroyed simply because they are deaf.

I already know this, and it is THE SAME with a host of other things that I have brought up and you have left unanswered.

That is what the British government is proposing to do. These parents are fighting against that proposal. This is no less eugenics than A.G. Bell's proposal that ALL deaf individuals be sterilized to promote the concept of the well born. His genetic theories were terribly flawed, as is the practice of destroying deaf embryos based on no other criteria other than deafness.

Good information, but doesn't relate to what I am trying to get across...

The fact of the matter is, the largest proportion deafness is not caused by genetic transmission. Therefore, your argument would be better based in the ethics of what to do with a deaf infant after it is born.

It already IS based on ethics, and has nothing to do with genetic transmission at all. It has to do with whether it is right to choose MORE SEVERE conditions (which you apparently are already willing to allow)

That is the issue here. The enitre question is if a parent is allowed to choose a hearing embryo, why is it that a deaf couple cannot choose a deaf embryo?

Hello, I know this, where did I say I did not?

So let's go back to the oringinal questions. Should a deaf couple be prevented from selecting a deaf embryo? Should deaf embryos be destroyed? If a hearing couple is permitted to select an embryo based on hearing status, then why isn't a deaf couple afforded the same right?


I already answered that question!!!


And I have been reading your posts. I have been giving straight forward answers, as well. You have simply done a 180 degree turnaround in your position.

No I did not, I can guarantee you will not be able to show me a point where I actually do this, and this tells me you did NOT read them as well as you say.

I know I don't communicate very well, it is hard for me to convey my thoughts a lot of times. But I have NOT reversed myself not once. Perhaps you simply misread my intentions?

I brought up a couple moral/ethical dilemmas, in my past few posts, and each time you overlooked them in favor of another part of the post. Like one time you correct me on my statement about redundancy, and ignore everything else, ignored the entire main point of my post. You have done this several times already. It seems to me like you do not want to tale a controversial stance of any kind, you only want to say "well, this is the only objective way we can do it, we can't go by quality of life etc." Well, I ask, why not?? Are you willing to sit by while people possibly create actual SUFFERING in children? I'm all for allowing IVF of a deaf baby, I NEVER said I wasn't. But the way you are telling it, you seem to want to allow EVERYTHING that can possibly survive, to be CHOSEN with IVF. I must say, I do not agree!

Edit:
I think I know where this went wrong, my first post.
Best thing I have read in a while.
I believe babies should be left alone, they are born how they are born... whether they are hearing, or deaf, or have no arms, or whatever. That is part of nature.

As an aside, and I am still on the fence about this... I think it might be ok, maybe, to =prevent- a harmful genetic trait that is known in advance from being passed. Like with me, I have a 50% chance of passing my mutated collagen gene to my child, if I have one, and the baby would then inherit my condition, which I would not want to happen.

I was not saying this as "no, it should never be done!". It was my own personal BELIEF (which I say) I was in no way saying it should be made law, one person cannot decide that alone. I WOULD prefer babies be left alone. But I also understand people who would want to make the choice, you see? Where *I* get 'upset' is not necessarily with deafness, but things that are 'worse'.
 
Last edited:
I know I don't communicate very well, it is hard for me to convey my thoughts a lot of times. But I have NOT reversed myself not once. Perhaps you simply misread my intentions?

I brought up a couple moral/ethical dilemmas, in my past few posts, and each time you overlooked them in favor of another part of the post. Like one time you correct me on my statement about redundancy, and ignore everything else, ignored the entire main point of my post. You have done this several times already. It seems to me like you do not want to tale a controversial stance of any kind, you only want to say "well, this is the only objective way we can do it, we can't go by quality of life etc." Well, I ask, why not?? Are you willing to sit by while people possibly create actual SUFFERING in children? I'm all for allowing IVF of a deaf baby, I NEVER said I wasn't. But the way you are telling it, you seem to want to allow EVERYTHING that can possibly survive, to be CHOSEN with IVF. I must say, I do not agree!

Edit:
I think I know where this went wrong, my first post.


I was not saying this as "no, it should never be done!". It was my own personal BELIEF (which I say) I was in no way saying it should be made law, one person cannot decide that alone. I WOULD prefer babies be left alone. But I also understand people who would want to make the choice, you see? Where *I* get 'upset' is not necessarily with deafness, but things that are 'worse'.

You are still confusing the concept of "incompatible with life." The conditions you listed, such as Down's Syndrome, are not incompatible with life. That is where the subjectivity comes in, and why sticking to the strict definition of incompatible with life is so necessary as a criterion.

What are you talking about: "intentionally creates suffering in a child"? That has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Deafness is not necessarily the equivilent of suffering. There are numerous hearing parents with hearing children that create a great deal of suffering in thier offspring. The creation of suffering in a child's life has absolutely nothing to do with hearing status. I would much rather see 2 deaf parents select a deaf embryo and raise it a a loving, nurturing home that see 2 hearing parents take their chances with natural conception only to end up abusing the child.

And if I fail to address a point, it is either because it is not pertinent, or I have already addressed it previously.
 
well said Ocean breeze, a friend of mine says it this way, "just because you can,, doesn't mean you should".
 
I agree with Jillo, Oceanbreeze and Buffalo.

Why are all the rights given to hearing people but denied to deaf people? Come on people!

This shouldnt be approved at all but since it is, might as well give deaf people the same rights.

If it was about making the embroyo deaf, then that's a different story. This is about destroying embroyos that carry the deaf gene. It is a powerful message saying that deaf people arent good enough to be born.

I totally agree. I'm very concerned about this bill and the implications for the disabled and unborn children. I hope it never passes.
 
You are still confusing the concept of "incompatible with life." The conditions you listed, such as Down's Syndrome, are not incompatible with life. That is where the subjectivity comes in, and why sticking to the strict definition of incompatible with life is so necessary as a criterion.

I know that, and that is why I bring them up. Am I speaking Greek? This PROVES that you don't read my posts, as I stated pretty much the same thing.

What are you talking about: "intentionally creates suffering in a child"? That has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Deafness is not necessarily the equivilent of suffering.


Again, here we go. I never said it was, and in fact stated quite the opposite, at least once. And it has a lot to with the OP, by ramifications.

The thing is, here... I feel your sole criterion of 'survivability' is in conflict with the best interests of children, which is why I am bringing them up. If you can choose deafness, then you can also choose SEDC, because they both fit the criteria which you are stating! So it has a LOT to do with this discussion as a decision here paves the way for a lot of other things, it creates a precedent!


There are numerous hearing parents with hearing children that create a great deal of suffering in thier offspring. The creation of suffering in a child's life has absolutely nothing to do with hearing status. I would much rather see 2 deaf parents select a deaf embryo and raise it a a loving, nurturing home that see 2 hearing parents take their chances with natural conception only to end up abusing the child.

Once again, I never said it did, and said the opposite, even.

Here we go again. This is getting tedious. I am done after this.
 
Here we go again. This is getting tedious. I am done after this.

To address just the one issue: this is cut and pasted from your post:

Are you willing to sit by while people possibly create actual SUFFERING in children? I'm all for allowing IVF of a deaf baby, I NEVER said I wasn't. But the way you are telling it, you seem to want to allow EVERYTHING that can possibly survive, to be CHOSEN with IVF. I must say, I do not agree!

Since we are discussing deafness in particular as related to IVF, and I have attempted to bring you back to the topic at hand on numerous occasions, your question can be interpreted to mean that you feel that choosing a deaf embryo is creating suffering....especially as, if you will go back and read all of my posts, you will find in this thread, as well as in other threads that have been started regarding the topic, I have never wavered in my postition regarding the rights of a deaf couple to choose a deaf embryo when a hearing couple is given the right to choose a hearing embryo.

Where it became confusing is where you switched your position be agreeing with another post that deafness was a step backwards in genetic progression. To agree with that stance is to state that deaf are genetically inferior to hearing, and nothing could be further from the truth, scientifically, medically, morally, and ethically.

You are the one that brought other genetic defects into the discussion. And, unfortunately, your comparison of deafness to these other situations is fallicious, and has therefore only served to cloud you perceptions of what I have been saying all along.

And you are correct. It is getting tedious. Things tend to do that when one goes off on unrelated tangents.

Here is where your position became confusing. To my post:

Deafness is not regression any more than hearing is progression. Deafness is not caused by a regression in genetics. Human hearing is not the result of progression in genetics. For that assumption to be true, all humans at the far end of the phylogenetic scale would have once been deaf, and only became hearing through genetic progression and adaptation. Unless you can prove that all humans were once deaf, your theory is invalid.

which was clearly in support of allowing a deaf couple to choose a deaf embryo through IVF, you replied:

I have to disagree, in part, here.
Just think about it a moment and look at the 'big picture'. Yes, being deaf does not prevent one from having a full life. However, it IS 'one less' of the 5 senses, one less ability. That is not progress. It may not be an -extreme- setback either, but where do you draw the line? I'm all for the right for a person to live as they are, but come on... we have to be realistic some times. It is not completely benign.

And yes, -humans- may have never been deaf, but I think we can assume that EVERYTHING was 'deaf' at some point, before humans and other more advanced species existed.


You disagree that deafness is not a regression. You state that it is not progress. You completely miss the point that deafness is not a matter of evolutionaryregression or progression. You have disagreed with me when I say it is not a regression. That statement says that you believe it is a regression. If you believe that deafness is a regression in evolution, then you also believe that deaf individuals are not as advanced as hearing people. have not progressed along the evolutionary scale as far as hearing people have, and are therefore, evolutionarily and gentically inferior.

Perhaps you should reread your posts, because your wording is definately in opposition to the deaf couple being permitted to choose a deaf infant. You have equated deafness, through your disagreement with the one statement that deafness is not a regression, as evolutionary regression.
 
To address just the one issue: this is cut and pasted from your post:

Are you willing to sit by while people possibly create actual SUFFERING in children? I'm all for allowing IVF of a deaf baby, I NEVER said I wasn't. But the way you are telling it, you seem to want to allow EVERYTHING that can possibly survive, to be CHOSEN with IVF. I must say, I do not agree!

Since we are discussing deafness in particular as related to IVF, and I have attempted to bring you back to the topic at hand on numerous occasions, your question can be interpreted to mean that you feel that choosing a deaf embryo is creating suffering....especially as, if you will go back and read all of my posts, you will find in this thread, as well as in other threads that have been started regarding the topic, I have never wavered in my postition regarding the rights of a deaf couple to choose a deaf embryo when a hearing couple is given the right to choose a hearing embryo.

Where it became confusing is where you switched your position be agreeing with another post that deafness was a step backwards in genetic progression. To agree with that stance is to state that deaf are genetically inferior to hearing, and nothing could be further from the truth, scientifically, medically, morally, and ethically.

You are the one that brought other genetic defects into the discussion. And, unfortunately, your comparison of deafness to these other situations is fallicious, and has therefore only served to cloud you perceptions of what I have been saying all along.

And you are correct. It is getting tedious. Things tend to do that when one goes off on unrelated tangents.

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'.
 
Back
Top