morriswalters wrote:The only important child is the one who is born.
Then why are you obsessing over the imaginary child who was born not
morriswalters wrote:Deafness is a liability. Anyone who wishes to argue the point is an idiot. You can live with it and even prosper but you are not whole.
I wear glasses. I've had the opportunity to get laser eye surgery--I turned it down because I much prefer wearing glasses. Am I not whole? Does the fact that I decided to live with this disability make me an idiot? Do you feel comfortable designating me as 'incomplete'? Does the fact that, were I to have children, I'd much prefer them to also be near-sighted strike you as amoral?
morriswalters wrote:Your last statement would imply that anything we do to the egg or the sperm before conception is okay, is that what you mean to say?
I said it was another moral discussion. I'd contend that yes, we have the right to modify an egg and sperm shortly before or after conception--I don't think human life or human rights begin at that point. But that's neither here nor there; ultimately, wherever human rights start is irrelevant, so long as we agree that human rights do not start before
morriswalters wrote:The vanity is in wanting a mirror reflection of themselves, without regard to the impact on the child. Choosing a partner and having a child by normal methods is one thing, genetic manipulation is something else. The first may show poor judgment but has to remain in the realm of acceptable behavior. This is because both the people are presumed competent to make a choice, that the pair may produce a child with a disability is a secondary effect. The direct genetic manipulation to reproduce a deaf child would be a primary effect or an overt act, no different then make a child deaf with surgery.
This is arbitrary. Two people for whom deafness is a dominant trait will not possibly
have a deaf child. They will
have a deaf child. So, which is it--do you think they shouldn't be allowed to breed (thereby putting you in the eugenics
camp)? Or is it magically okay for them to breed because they have the ability to do it without interference (putting you in the Naturalistic Fallacy
Your problem here seems to amount to the fact that these people have choices you perceive as being superior (they could chose to not have a deaf child), and the fact that they're not picking those choices strikes you as amoral. Of course, everyone always has these sorts of choices--a fertile heterosexual couple with a deaf-dominant trait in both could choose to adopt, or seek out alternative means to have a non-deaf child. Why is this particular situation magically wrong but all the others magically not?
As a matter of full disclosure I should say that I am against designer babies of any type. The only genetic manipulations that I would allow would be purely medical. I suppose though that we won't be happy until to be successful in society you have to be 6 foot 2 inches tall with a square jaw and a steely blue eyes, blond hair and a vapid intellect, or 6 foot tall with large breasts, long blond hair, a wasp figure and no intellect.
'Purely medical' is a poor designation. There is no clear and crisp line between medical concerns and sociological ones. We all agree that harlequin-type ichthyosis
is an abhorrent syndrome and we should completely eliminate it; one reason for this is that there are not many suffers of this affliction who are clamoring for us to stop trying to eliminate it. Yet many autistics
would rather you not
eliminate autism. The same goes for deafness.
I think the most important thing here is what a significant number of people with the affliction you're talking about are saying. Listening to the people who possess the traits you are trying to eliminate is very
important. Traits and disabilities that no one wants are safe to remove; ones that people identify with--ones that people want to keep
morriswalters wrote:They certainly seem to realize that that life will be harder for the child but they seem to think that deafness is a cultural or racial characteristic. Normal in a specific population. But at no time in the article did I read that they believed their child's life would be better for their choice.
Having parents who connect with you more deeply does not correlate with an improvement in your general quality of life?