Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
To: Notwithstanding
I think this is sick!
To: Notwithstanding
Absolutely sickening.
3 posted on
04/08/2002 11:33:10 AM PDT by
zoso82t
To: Notwithstanding
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.
To: Notwithstanding
There isn't a place in Hell hot enough... Joseph Mengele would be proud.
To: Notwithstanding
These bull-dykes should be shot. What the hell are they thinking?
Designer children, the end of life as we know it.
EBUCK
6 posted on
04/08/2002 11:34:57 AM PDT by
EBUCK
To: Notwithstanding
God Damned, evil, sick, twisted, immoral, degenerate......I don't have the words to express my disgust!
To: Notwithstanding
What is new. Dr.Mengele would be proud of this duo.
Why is it that homosexuals can get away with experiments on humans, is beyond my comprehension. America is looking more and more like the nation of cults screaming for evil recognition, identity and entitlements, as in Roman of old.
8 posted on
04/08/2002 11:35:44 AM PDT by
lavaroise
To: Notwithstanding
Theyre trying to make a baby deaf? And, theyre trying to make a baby gay too. Child abuse times two!
To: patent; father_elijah; dr. brian kopp; lady doc; ladydoc
Please ping far and wide. Everyone shouldhave this factoid in their arsenal when unfairly accused of pointing to a slippery slope.
To: Notwithstanding
If the kid grows up and assaults these two monsters, I will rush to her defense. What's the difference between this and severing a leg in utero? These two dykes can take solace in one last, fitting irony: no one will hear their screams in Hell.
11 posted on
04/08/2002 11:38:16 AM PDT by
Mr. Bird
To: Notwithstanding
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. That's grounds for taking this little boy away from these witches, imho.
To: Notwithstanding
Tie their tubes, and take their tots!
13 posted on
04/08/2002 11:41:26 AM PDT by
meandog
To: Notwithstanding
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". Wonder what she thinks of stupidity?
While I see no reason to be upset that this couple would want to "bring a handicapped child into the world" (the alternative raises the specter of eugenics) I do see a reason to be upset that this couple would deliberately attempt to handicap a child. If two deaf people (of the opposite sex) want a child, and the child will have a 50% or greater chance of being deaf, then I have no problem. But this case is not that case.
Shalom.
14 posted on
04/08/2002 11:41:38 AM PDT by
ArGee
To: Notwithstanding
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. Anyone else besides me having a mental image of this child in a lawyer's office in about 15 years?
To: Notwithstanding
This is perhaps the most disturbing post I've read on FR.
To: Notwithstanding
What a couple of MORONS! Just proves that the Dyke gene replaces the common sense gene!
To: Notwithstanding
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". 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.
To: Notwithstanding;khepera
Too bad they couldn't find a perverted, IQ challenged donor also. Homosexuals shoudln't have children and shouldn't be allowed to raise them either. What are they going to do with a boy? I know what they intend for the poor girl...
21 posted on
04/08/2002 11:45:23 AM PDT by
wwjdn
To: Notwithstanding
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. Their daughter attends a special kindergarten for children with hearing problems.
Anyone else besides me see a contradiction here? It's not a handicap, see, but she's in special ed because of her 'non-handicap'.
To: Notwithstanding
What a loving thing for a parent to do, intentionally deprive a child of one of their senses.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson