I agree very strongly with the first two, and certainly the third, on the proviso that no monkeys, bunnies, etc, will be harmed, etc.

Not so big on the rights of people to actively select in favour of disability. Who the hell really wants to do that? And is selecting in favour of gender that far a walk from there? I have an heriditary partial paralysis disability myself (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=paramyotoniacongenita) It is thankfully now controlled by daily medication so you wouldn’t know it to look at me, but I spent quite a lot of my life until the age of 18 (when the drug solution was found) unable to walk or move properly and falling over in front of large groups of people, etc. Great comic effect, etc, but not something I would actively have chosen and not something I’d particularly wish on my offspring. Anyone who does wish that kind of thing on their offspring probably shouldn’t breed. They’re already too selfish.

Would also note that I think too much attention has been paid to that particular case (the deaf parents), though. Those people were one-offs, really. It’s like our Christian mates/pro-life friends trying to centre the abortion debate around the 24 week limit. Actually, almost nobody has an abortion at that late stage, so trying to pretend that the time limit ought to be the focal point of the argument is disingenuous.

So – those are my points….

Sunny:

But I also think deaf people should be allowed the choice, if they have one between an ambryo who can hear and one known to have a hearing problem, to choose the embryo that will turn out to be deaf.

Why should they have that choice? This isn’t a restaurant.

I don’t see at all why it is right for would-be parents to intentionally select for deafness, and so far the arguments presented in favour of this make the parents look selfish, in my view.

Right now the policy is that embryos known to have ‘defects’ are discarded. Don’t you find that a bit creepy? I do. We are defining what is an acceptable human, essentially, and even if deaf parents want to give a deaf child the opportunity to be born, we don’t allow that.

Well it’s creepy if you word it that way, of course it is. On the other hand I think it’s creepy to deliberately deprive a child of one of its senses.

It seems more reasonable to look at the language of the Bill: “a serious physical or mental disability”, “a serious illness”, or “any other serious medical condition”. In other words, we aren’t selecting in favour of people with blond hair and blue eyes.

I must also add that it reads to me as if you cannot deliberately select for deafness, but you could randomly pick an embyro and take your chances.

Kate:

Not so big on the rights of people to actively select in favour of disability. Who the hell really wants to do that?

Some deaf people claim they do.

Would also note that I think too much attention has been paid to that particular case (the deaf parents), though.

I’m not aware of any other disabled would-be parents (the blind, the partially paralysed) commenting on it.

‘Would also note that I think too much attention has been paid to that particular case (the deaf parents), though.

I’m not aware of any other disabled would-be parents (the blind, the partially paralysed) commenting on it.’

I meant the press.

For the most part, I have no issues but one the selection of embryos question I think that the idea of actively selecting for deafness won’t fly. Tactically, it is better to go for an opt-out position position in which parents could elect no to have a foetus screened for deafness and take their chances the same as everyone else.

I’m going to start by briefly laying out my position on the bill.

Heh you’ve been saying that a lot lately, one would think you’ve been offered a safe seat by the Labour party and are in the process of setting out your policy positions ahead of an announcement…:D

now that is news.

is there such a thing as a safe seat in the Labour party?

Yep, well just about!

Wow man. I would have thought you could put a dead dog up against any of them now and the dog would win every time.

Very strongly with you on the first three, not at all on the last. A hearing child can participate fully in deaf culture; a deaf child cannot participate in hearing culture. Intentionally restricting the options your child will have is (at best) very selfish and (at worst) downright cruel.

yep with you there Jennie. why would anyone wish even a mild disability on their kid? you cope with it if it comes along, but you don’t choose it for them. what tits.

“what tits.”

Thank you! They were better pre-childbirth, though

* runs away *

good thing i didn’t write:

what big tits

Indeed. They’re only a D cup.

Only…?

LOL you want to meet the other members of the Jenny collective. My chest is tiny.

Oh dear, I appear to have completely deraailed this thread… Oh well. At least it’s friendlier than what’s going on over in the Hillary thread…

Fancy a nice brandy? I’ve got a bottle here

* proffers *

Brandy? Heh this is one of the more diverse thread derails I’ve seen lately…

Lol, no plans to run for a Labour seat (or that of any other party) any time soon!

I didn’t expect anyone to agree with my position on deaf children, but my view is that not giving children who we know will be born deaf even the chance to be born is more inhumane than giving them that chance.

The problem is that we think being born deaf is inhumane, while deaf people think its not. Given they have more experience on the matter, I think I’d take their side.

Besides, right now we are deliberately screening out ‘abnormalities’. Deaf people are not in favour of actively wanting a deaf kid but saying that if the choice arises then they should be allowed to state a preference. What is wrong with that?

Surely the only value judgement being made is: ‘allowing deaf people to be born is inflicting pain on them‘? I can see why deaf people don’t agree with that, since they don’t see themselves as abnormal etc.

I don’t think being born deaf is inhumane and i don’t think allowing deaf people to be born is inflicting pain on them. Sunny, with respect, those seem absurd comments to make. And your paragraph about choice seems just plain wrong given that there are deaf would-be parents in the media saying they want the right to deliberately select for deafness.

ukliberty

the question on deafness isn’t about “alowing deaf people to be born” – its about using IVF technology to make your child deaf.

That means (to be blunt) inflicting disability. It is not the same as choosing not to abort a pregnancy because the child will be deaf when born.

And while deaf culture has moved recently towards considering itself a unique culture rather than a mere product of disability – being deaf removes the right to choose a different culture when the child is born and grows up.

M4E, that’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to say – see comment 2.

Sorry UK Liberty – I said far more than I needed to and got confused about who was arguing what.

I just don’t like the straw man notion that this is about allowing deaf children to be born.

I fully support your first three points Sunny. On point #4, I’m with Unity:

it is better to go for an opt-out position position in which parents could elect no to have a foetus screened for deafness and take their chances the same as everyone else.

not giving children who we know will be born deaf even the chance to be born is more inhumane

In doing so, you are still discarding a bunch of (hearing) embryos. Either way you work it, some embryos die. Nobody wants to be born deaf, or blind, or paralyzed. Give it up already.

If my parents had made me deaf purposefully I would sue them, the state that allowed it and any-one else in sight. Absolutely dispicable crime to that childs life.

Sunny,

I agree with your first three points. I don’t think the last point should ever be part of a Liberal Manifesto. I have much the same opinion as Mund @ 24 on that. No-one has the ‘right’ to inflict a disability on another.

If hearing parents want to ensure a hearing child, do they get the same rights as deaf parents to pursue this?

Sunny,

I fully support points two (current rules on paternal responsibility need to change accordingly to encourage this) and three, but I think some more thought needs to be had about how the issue of choice impacts upon the possible contradiction between points one and four.

In an ideal world abortion would not be necessary, but that is pure utopianism so we must consider where we are. I agree that it is ultimately the woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but an informed choice which takes into consideration all sides of the equation results in a better outcome with fewer negative consequences – mediation and consultation are the only ways to resolve the imbalance of rights.

The subject of deaf children is a false choice based upon a theoretical position of either/or, whereas reality is a case of one/the other or not – even in a case of twins each must be considered seperately, as they are each distinct individuals – so the issue only arises in legalities, not practice.

Why reduce questions of human existence down to defining doctrinaire political philosophy as a basis for campaigning action when doctors are taught to treat the patient (as Mund will tell us)? That is why this is an area requiring a free vote – the dangers of turning this into a totemic partisan rallying point are all to apparent on the other side of the Atlantic