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
|
|||
(Got the book to Romulus yesterday.)
I agree with you, these sick people must foot the bill for every expense associated with their diseased handiwork.
But I would go further, this should be treated as an act of violence identical to plunging an ice pick into a baby's ear to achieve the same result.
What's the difference?
Child abuse is child abuse by whatever means, this is actionable and a message must be sent that designing children to produce handicaps will not be tolerated by society.
That's what the law is for IMHO.
Indeed, and nobody in their right mind would think that having children or being able to adopt children is a "right." These twisted, evil, selfish, self-centered whores have succumbed to the mindset that having children is about them, not the children. It seems that people with a leftist viewpoint, especially homosexuals, think that children are a tool, a weapon, in the cultural battles over behavior and identity politics. It's not about what's best for children anymore.
Here are two women who have been brainwashed to think that their handicap has no downside, even though they have had to overcome that handicap. It's the valueless society that exists today. One condition is no better than the next.
This mindset is so pervasive that people are actually unable to discern that Israel has the moral obligation to stop terrorism perpetrated against it. Why both the Palestinians and Israelis are equal, how can we approve of Israel's military actions against it's neighbor. It's as if the terrorism had no value at all. It's value neutral. But occupation in an effort to end it, is evil.
Whew, we have a bunch of loons out there.
Actually, I think that this is a bit harsh.
Just make sure that all of the 'goodies' that their intentionally-deaf offspring get are paid for by the parents. No government subsidies, no handouts, none.
Things like this make me want to stamp out freeby-handouts by the government. Just another reason for that to stop. Sickening.
Once upon a time, everyone thought that the greatest potential abuse of genetic engineering was to create "perfect" babies -- strong, smart, healthy, attractive, etc -- but the Sapphites are now deliberately creating disabled babies instead. They actually make the Nazi eugenists look good by comparison. Sad.
I am reminded of certain beggars in India that deliberately amputate limbs from their children to gain sympathy and, of course, handouts of money. Is that, perhaps, what these women are really about? Is deliberate creation of disability the next wave in governmental dependence and social demands?
I think "spaying" is the word that would apply to these to animals. Well, maybe not. Animals aren't as cruel.
The Nuns always taught me that that was something you did to yourself! Talk about abuse!
ugh to these two
...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.
This decision isn't being made on religious grounds, the typical reason cited for denying aid. They are deliberately hobbling this child. No better than the Eastern Europeans who break a kid's legs before sending him out on a career begging for money (you're damned if you do give because it only rewards the vicious parents, and you're damned if you don't give because the kids starve and get beaten for not eaning their keep).
Rush Limbaugh encountered this train of thought when he was seeking treatment for his deafness.
EBUCK
Why take chances? Adopt or offer foster care for a deaf child. If their child had not been born deaf, they would have forever distanced their child (even if it was never "spoken") because that child never met their expectations.
Have they thought about offering their services to a deaf community center? Helping the kids to feel "empowered"? Or do they not care about other peoples' kids?
A couple of control freaks, this lot is.
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.