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

[headsonpikes]

"...distort, misrepresent, lie..."

Hey, I was trying to be friendly; I won't make that error again.

[BlessedBeGod]

I hope their kids sue them when they're old enough.

[Salvation]

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".

Agreed. What would Jesus do? Heal the deafness or cure the couple? Or both? Just a thought.

[ColdSteelTalon]

This is sick, sick, sick. It has to be a joke right ???

[MadRobotArtist]

This is exactly why God created hell. For people like this. Hell is supposed to be a deterrent to doing bad things, yet our nation glorifies those who would tell us it's okay to do evil. I despise the media for what it chooses to cover, and make headlines. It's never about goodness or truth, but the lie that tolerance will make us all better people. I am tired of being told what I must tolerate. If it were easily tolerated chances are it wouldn't be considered evil. It is difficult to tolerate since their agenda has limitless reach, and no-one can speak against them, else be called haters. It's okay to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Unfortunately, after reading this, I see how deep the evil runs.

Not only have these two deviants, had a child, but have made this child deaf by design. What other behaviors will they design for it? Being Deaf is a birth defect. Homosexuality is a learned behavior, and NOT a genetic predisposition. This child will be not only deaf by choice, but chances are be taught that homosexuality is the norm, and that heterosexuality is wrong. It's their agenda, and these two women who say that their deaf culture is more important, will surely deem their sexual preference as more important than the child's well being. The sickness in our country runs deep. It's a cancer that is going to kill our nation, and our people.

[ArGee]

What a loving thing for a parent to do, intentionally deprive a child of one of their senses.

Obviously the parents have taken leave of theirs.

But they're not sick! Nope! Nope! Nope!!

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Why take chances?

My point was that sometimes the unborn are handicapped. If an unborn is handicapped, I want to see that child brought into the world.

That is a far cry from what these two idiots did, but I didn't want the pro-abortion sentiment to slip by uncommented on.

Shalom.

[wwjdn]

If statistically 80% of criminals come from a single parent home of the mother, what will a family of two women produce? God Help Us...

[Rytwyng]

I didn't think it was possible to get worse than Nazis. But the homosexual/identity politics axis has succeeded.

How is this one cracked couple worse than the Nazi holocaust of the Jews?

Of course, due to numerical disparity, legions of Nazis did far more damage than these two. But on a PER PERSON basis, yes, these 2 are worse than 2 similarly situated Nazis -- Nazis would try to give the kid the best chance for good health, etc., and would never deliberately create disability just to satisfy identity politics.

Granted, legions of godless Nazis satisfied their identity politics by committing the Holocaust, among other things. But at least the Nazis tried to do right by their own children -- a basic animal natural law which these 2 women have sunk below. Then again, they're lesbians -- why on earth should we expect them to follow natural law?

[Rytwyng]

I saw a woman on TV years ago who had a deformity of the hands, and she kept having children, who all inherited the problem, and she was proud of herself

That's a bit different.... the woman didn't choose her disability, and nobody has the right to tell her and her husband not to reproduce (as long as it's not at taxpayer's expense.) I'm sure, however, that she'd be glad to be rid of her disability if she could, that she hoped and prayed that it would NOT be passed on... and she didn't go out looking for a sperm donor with the same defect to reinforce her "identity"!!!

Besides, if you look carefully, nearly all of us have some innate weakness or defect, somewhere. To avoid reproduction based on such factors, would wipe out our fallen race completely.

But there's something different, and profoundly sick, about deliberately creating a disability. Why make things worse than they need to be?

[OldFriend]

These people belong in jail.

[Alexandre]

No tolerance. If this will be allowed to go unpunished, next will be Blind On Purpose, Paralized On Purpose, HIV-positive On Purpose. In few generations healthy heterosexuals will be hunted like rabbits during rabbit season - hunted by mad crowds of mentally and physically retarded GLs.

[EBUCK]

The dark side of liberalism

Indeed, the dark side of the P.C. monstrosity that is growing in our backyards. I went to a link provided on this thread. Something like "Queer, Deaf Alliance" or some such. The people on the message board were actually celebrating the birth!! You can bet that there are quite a few Deaf-Queers that know this is soooo wrong as to make their stomachs turn but don't say anything for fear of being non-P.C.. They are bound by their own code just like the rest of the country.

EBUCK

[PetiteMericco]

While I agree with you that having children is indeed a legal right, I'm not so sure it is a moral one. Of course, people who believe in a transcendent moral Lawgiver would see things this way, too. Just a thought. =)

[patriot_wes]

What an ideal....defective "psuedo parents" breeding defective children.

[Rytwyng]

...you, who thinks that the Nazis with their Final Solution have higher moral ground over them, simply because they were hetero (hey, what about the Pink Swastika?)

First, you're putting words in my mouth. The fact that they're lesbians -- by definition, violating nature --does not BY ITSELF make them lower than the Nazis... And I didn't claim that it did.

What makes them lower than Nazis, is their act of DELIBERATELY disabling their child... that is DEFINITELY something that even Nazis wouldn't stoop to. If you want to accuse me of giving the Nazis "higher" moral ground, well, go ahead -- if you consider any of the levels of Hell to be "high". The fact that that Nazi parents remained slightly more in touch with their natural animal nature than these women (who are "without 'storge'", check the Greek new testament), does not make them good guys, and I never claimed that it did.

And yes, I'm well aware that many early Nazis were homosexuals... Rohm & his brownshirts, particularly. The Nazi leaders used homosexuals as tools in their bid for power, then killed them off when they were done with them. (Make a deal with the devil, he eventually collects the debt.)