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

[Digger]

No No. This isn't as disturbing as Bubba elected president. Most evil/bad things have come from that creature's administration. This is just a consequence of that.

[spunkets]

This is truly sad.

[Notwithstanding]

Funny - I searched on the word deaf and then the word lesbian and nothing came up.

[rdb3]

Wouldn't this normally be called child-abuse? I mean, they intentionally caused harm to a child, right?

[SoftballMominVA]

What in the world would working for the government or teaching special education have to do with this? My husband works for the U.S. Courts system and I teach children with learning disabilities and I can't imagine in my wildest dreams of anyone I know creating a child to teach.

What a sick accusation!

[Metal4Ever]

I think they should pay for all the special schooling and grants and rehabs their child will need instead of the taxpayers. Those services are for people, who through no fault of their own, need a helping hand, not for someone who was delibrately created so with the knowledge that everybody else will have to pay for their problem.

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.

[tracer]

This is absolutely monstrous and evil. If ever there was a situation that cried out for making the children a wards of the state (pending adoption) -- and later helping them to file lawsuits akin to the increasingly popular "wrongful birth" actions -- this is the poster case.

Do any FReeper lawyers have views on who would have legal standing to initiate civil and criminal action in this case??

[gridlock]

Not so new...

Deaf Lesbians Criticized For Efforts to Create Deaf Child

[Boxsford]

Yours is an incredible excellent point! You are so right!!

[nina0113]

I would hope that Ms. Rarus's statement was taken out of context, and that she was not talking, in general, about aborting children that might be born with a disability, but instead talking about someone deliberately trying to create a disabled child.

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.

[Notwithstanding]

See 35 and 43. Your info, too, is not so new. ;0]

[Mo1]

UN!*(&!@%!#&$(*$BELIEVABLE

[firebrand]

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 was bad enough. This is another dimension. Actually sadism. Sadistic childbearing.

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.

[lavaroise]

Wanna bet that both work for the government....or that one is a special ed teacher...

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.

[Boxsford]

These two dykes can take solace in one last, fitting irony: no one will hear their screams in Hell.

Yikes! What a thought!!!

[Nataku X]

The way I see it, it only could come down to two points:

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.

[Mo1]

They want their children to share the same "experiences" including learning, sign language

Did it ever occur to these morons that a hearing person can also learn sign language

These people are SICK!!!

[eastsider]

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.

[Kaslin]

It's more then sick. It's revolting

[Boxsford]

A better response would be to have Child Protective Services come in and rule the mothers unfit and take the children away.

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.