|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2002 : 12:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
If the parents had taken a pencil and poked out the eardrums of the child, I could agree with you.
Let's try to explore this hypothetically. If the child were just born, given proper medical procedures so that the child didn't experience one iota of discomfort, and had their hearing permanently disabled, how would this be different?
Why is this not a parent's right, if pain is not involved?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Considering some of the things that are legal or at least done often this is not so far of. Parents do disfigure their children regularly for cultural/religious reasons and few people complain including the children.
If you question the parents rights to mutiliate their childrens bodies then the next step would be to question their rights in forming and shaping their psyches and perspectives.
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 13:18:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In answer to your bracketed question. "putting known social and physical impediments in front of their children for the selfish reason of preference." I think that nicely sums up what I think you object to.
Yes indeed, thank you! 
Though in truth, I meant in a general sense, what kind of qualifier could I use to differentiate between bad selfishness, and non-bad selfishness, without sounding silly by saying "they are being non-bad selfish!" Or maybe I've just had too much rum...
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 04/09/2002 18:42:04 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2002 : 19:47:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
what kind of qualifier could I use to differentiate between bad selfishness, and non-bad selfishness
I generally use the term 'self-interested' to indicate non-bad selfishness.
-me. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2002 : 18:49:32 [Permalink]
|
I see a difference between green and brown eyes, and being able to hear or not. The eyes see the same sunset, the same piece of art and the same starry night. The eye-colour doesn't matter.
But the children will never hear Mozart or rain drumming on the roof.
What will be next? Blind people wanting blind children?
A handicap is still a handicap, no matter what we call it. It's not an identity. Should I introduce myself with “Hello, I'm Omega, I can hear?”
However, I do understand the parents to a certain point. When a minority groups together, with their own culture and norm and make their disability or (insert whatever makes the minority such) their identity, the parents want their children to belong to their own culture. If society as a whole didn't view people with disabilities as “disabled”, if we, say, were all taught sign-language at school (isn't it international by the way?) then it probably wouldn't have happened.
Do parents not always want children for "selfish" reasons?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2002 : 22:02:06 [Permalink]
|
*shakes his head*
People like that should never be allowed to have children. I can understand if the trait is passed involuntarily, but this?!
No...nonononononono!! Such actions are not called for by any reason!
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 02:26:39 [Permalink]
|
What if they had not been deaf but short.
If a couple of midgets/dwarfs/whatever-the-PC-term-is had wanted a child with their disability because they consider it their cultural identity, would you think of it the same way?
There is no fine line between a cultural identity and a inehritebla handicap. If you wanted to you could make a good argument for white skin color being a disadventage in some environments. We live in a world where being physically perfect adapted to our environment becomes less and less important and we have more and more room for being different.
|
|
|
|
jec96
Skeptic Friend
USA
61 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 02:35:01 [Permalink]
|
I am sorry, but I have to side with those who are abhorred by this. Deafness is an affliction, despite this strange couples percieved notions. Suffering from hearing loss due to an accident myself, every time I miss hearing something, or sound seems muffled, I get depressed at what I may miss. I do belive that never having done something, you can miss it. To know there is sound, and to not hear it, to see people talking to you, and not to hear, to have a child of your own and never hear it's voice,because your parents wanted to make a "statement" is as irresponsible as women who bring the so-called "crack babies" into the world. This right to due as you wish in this world is a wonderful thing, but this couple should NEVER be allowed to reproduce again, and this child should be taken away from them. What if they get the idea that blindness is great, and put out the childs eyes? No, again, something is basically wrong with these woman, and the last thing they need control of is a human life.
-It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2002 : 02:19:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_id=545846&in_review_text_id=511810
Thoughts? Comments?
(on a side note, it's a bit curious why they seem to emphasize the fact that they are lesbians.)
Reminds me of that classic Twlight Zone episode about that girl who was being operated on to make her look 'normal', like everyone else. If you know which one I mean, then you know it addressed the issue of what one considers beautiful another finds odd. Looks like that's what we have here.
I also find it curious that they emphasize the couple are lezbos. That might explain why they want a child that most others would think wouldn't fit in.
* * * * *
**"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."
(-- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.)
What a witch, with a 'B'. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
