Lesbians: We Made Our Baby Deaf on Purpose [we've reached the bottom of the slippery slope]

This Is London ^ | 4-8-2002 | James Langton

[Notwithstanding]

	Lesbians: We made our baby deaf on purpose by James Langton in New York A deaf lesbian couple have admitted deliberately creating what are believed to be the world's first designer handicapped babies. The two women tracked down a deaf sperm donor to ensure that their daughter, who is now five, would inherit the same inherited hearing disabilty that they both share. The couple were so pleased with the result that they have just had a second child, called Gauvin, using the same technique. Doctors who examined the boy say he is completely deaf in one ear and has only partial hearing in the other. In an interview with the Washington Post, the women - Sharon Duchesneau, who gave birth, and Candace McCullough, her lesbian lover - say that they believe deafness is "an identity not a medical affliction that needs to be fixed". They were so desperate to have children who share their handicap that the women asked their local sperm bank to provide a deaf donor, but were told congential hearing loss immediately disqualifies candidates. Instead they turned to a deaf male friend for help, producing what they call their first "perfect baby" - their five-year-old daughter Jehanne. Before their son was born, the women said: "A hearing baby would be a blessing; a deaf baby would be a special blessing.'' Both women, who are in their mid thirties, belong to a radical school of thought that believes deafness is a "cultural identity" not a handicap. They want their children to share the same "experiences" including learning, sign language and going to special schools for the deaf. They also consulted a "genetic counsellor" before getting pregnant who told them that with Miss Duchesneau's background, that includes four generations of deafness on her mother's side, any child conceived with a deaf sperm donor would have a 50 per cent chance of having the same handicap. After their daughter's first hearing test, the couple wrote happily in her baby book: "Oct 11, 1996 - no response at 95 decibels - DEAF!'' Their daughter attends a special kindergarten for children with hearing problems. After tests on their baby son showed he also had severe problems, they decided against giving him a deaf aid in the one ear that still has some hearing, saying they will leave the decision to him when he is older. The couple's behaviour has appalled children's rights groups in the United States. The conservative Family Research Council said their decision to "intentionally give a child a disability" was "incredibly selfish". The council's spokesman, Fred Connor, said: "These women are taking the idea of creating so-called designer babies to a horrible new level.'' Even a leading member of the American National Association for the Deaf, Nancy Rarus, said she "can't understand why anyone would want to bring a disabled child into the world". Email this article to a friend</ a> © Associated Newspapers Ltd., 08 April 2002 Terms and Conditions This Is London

[Bullish]

Uh, gee thanks Mom!

Just goes to show you that stupidity is the worst handicap of all. Let's hope they didn't pass that one along to.

[Boxsford]

I suspect God will have the final word on whether or not the kids will get to hear.

What a lovely, positive, beautiful thought--I pray you are right. Thanks for reminding us all of God's grace and His goodness.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I hope when the lesbian mothers get old and get sent to retirement homes, the kids will force them to get their hearing restored.

[capitan_refugio]

About 20 years ago there was a female televison newscaster in the Los Angeles market. I think her name was Christine Lund. I believe the newscaster was married to the national sports reporter Jim Lampley. This gal had a congenital deformity of her fingers. I recall that there was a 50% chance that any of her offspring would also have the disease, and the others would carry the gene.

This is all from distant memory. The point is, this couple knew there was a chance that their children would be deformed. I am pretty sure some were. It is a similar plight that many parents find themselves in when the give birth to a handicapped child, to find out there is a genetic problem in one or both parents - do we have more children? My wife teaches special education children and deals with this issue frequently. It is gut-wrenching for the parents, and some of them do go on to have normal, and sometimes, abnormal children. Others make the decision to not have more children.

I do not sit in judgement of any of these parents. However, when people purposely procreate a disabled child, I find that barbaric.

[capitan_refugio]

My bad. It was not Christine Lund, but rather, a gal named Bree Walker. I had to search the net for a few minutes, but I finally got it right.

[dougherty]

These people are sick and unfit to be parents.

[Caipirabob]

This is so criminal, inhumane and sick I have no words to describe it.

Think of all the things this poor innocent child will miss be intention of the sick, derangede efforts of these bull dykes.

This child will never hear the words "I love you".

This child will never hear the sound of rain.

This child will never know what the ocean sounds like

This child will never know of God's gift of music.

I can go on and on. People who do this should be annihilated wherever we find them. They are no better than the NAZI beasts who inflicted such monstrous experiments on innocents in the mid 20th century.

[The Raven]

The dark side of liberalism

[SubMareener]

There is a VERY SPECIAL place in Hell for these folks, and all who helped them.

[Wrigley]

And they will hear the other's anguish tenfold.

[wwjdn]

America was a great country. America is now...

Home of the Pervert,
Land of the Liberal!

[firebrand]

Bree Walker sounds right; someone freepmailed me about it and spelled it Brie.

It was her attitude that got to me, and the fact that she kept having kids. Maybe she kept trying for a normal one, but there was something repugnant in her point of view. It was quite a while ago but it stuck with me. A kind of "I'll have my children no matter what" arrogance. Never would I want legislation about such things, just some sense of personal responsibility. Having kids is not the be-all-and-end-all that some people make it into.

[headsonpikes]

You should pick your spots more carefully.

I'd hardly think any principled defense of these narcissistic monsters would be possible.

[capitan_refugio]

"Bree" came up on my google search. "Brie" is a cheese! I did not take sides on the issue, in my earlier post, but my personal view is that responsible adults who know they are carrying a deleterious gene, knowing that the gene has a chance of being expressed and of producing a severely disabled child, should takes themselves "out of the gene pool." To intentionally produce a disabled child is not some sort of "free expression," "social engineering," or "political statement" - it's abuse.

[headsonpikes]

"Where have I defended them?"

Well, you view as hyberbolic the intense revulsion felt by most people towards these Mengelean moral monsters.

People like these 'twisted sisters' should be held in contempt by anyone who sees himself as a moral agent.

Uttering a single word in their defense is a violation of decency, in my view.

As I said, 'pick your spots'.