Posted on 04/08/2002 11:29:29 AM PDT by 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
|
|||
What a sick accusation!
What these two "women" (and I use the term loosely) did is unconscionable. But what you are recommending is punishing the child for the sins of the parent. These kids had no say in how they were born or conceived. It's not their fault that they are deaf. To deny them any services that other similar children would get only because they had "normal" parents is just plain wrong and misses the point.
A better response would be to have Child Protective Services come in and rule the mothers unfit and take the children away. Any legal action that can be taken against the mothers should be taken. But I doubt there's anything on the books to cover something like this.
Do any FReeper lawyers have views on who would have legal standing to initiate civil and criminal action in this case??
Concur. "Would want to" does not equal "would be willing to". Nobody in their right minds (which these two harpies obviously are NOT) would desire that their child be disabled.
When Sonny Mehta became head of Knopf, the first book he published was Geek Love, a novel about a woman who takes all sorts of drugs with side effects when she's pregnant, purposely, so that she can have deformed children, who she thinks are special. One has a tail, etc. Now life imitates "art." I don't know whether to cry or smash something.
Sadly the government is home of the heinous cults instead of separating from them. This is what the culture of entitlements brings us: cult competition and wars. Somehow I am not so sure about gay republicans and compassionate conservatism anymore.
Yikes! What a thought!!!
1. Disabled people should not reproduce with each other if it is very likely that a deaf child would result from their union. You know that if they hadn't been homosexual, they would've each found some deaf spouse & had deaf children for themselves.
OR
2. The right to choose one's own egg/sperm donor. At my college I saw an advertisement for an egg donor who was a honor student & at least 5'10", so I'm assuming that there's no law against choosing a donor based on specific trait.
What they did was sick, just saying that I don't really see a legal basis involved unless they actually physically hurt the child to induce deafness... #1 would open up too many cans of worms.
Did it ever occur to these morons that a hearing person can also learn sign language
These people are SICK!!!
What are they going to do with a boy? I know what they intend for the poor girl.He'll grow up to be her "special" sperm donor and curator of the Toon's library.
Yes, but that's not likely going to happen. It's probably legal to do what those women did. By making these two women pay their own way is not hurting the children. No one is asking the children be denied services, just that these women pay for it themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.