The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Reverse Eugenics
Not Sarastro
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
Betting that most people here have seen Gattaca...or if not, go do so, it's top. Also imagine that most people are familiar with the principle of genetic engineering to select ideal characteristics - but what about the reverse?
I agree with the commentator, except that I'm not sure this guy is courageous so much as either deluded or extraordinarily selfish. Advocacy for equal treatment of deaf people = good. This nonsensical definition of 'equality' = bizarre and, in this case, selfish and cruel. In no possible way is being born lacking a sense commonly possessed by most people an advantage or extra ability - it is the lack of an ability, it is obviously a disability. If his child really wanted to be deaf, I'm sure rock'n'roll will still be around to oblige. But surely that is the choice of the child, not the parent.
Also, presumably this makes all other disabilities equal / nonexistent / whatever bizarre definition is being used. Is it therefore fine to select your child to be deaf, limbless, blind, stupid...is this really what is meant when parents say they want the best for their kids?
So, political correctness gone mad olol? Activism losing the plot? Or thoroughly sensible & laudible fight for equality NS you evil 'cist?
And...discuss.
The poet/comedian John Hegley hates people who wear contact lenses. He thinks they are traitors. Glasses, he says, are “a symbolic celebration of the wider imperfection that is the human condition”. Contact lenses are “a betrayal of humanity”. Don't laugh. There is probably someone out there who takes him seriously and thinks he's right.
On Monday morning the Today programme featured a deaf activist by the name of Tomato Lichy. Mr Lichy opposes a new law that will forbid people undergoing IVF from deliberately choosing a deaf child. Why? Because he believes that deafness is not a disability. He said he felt sorry for hearing people. In a deaf club “you would be the one with the disability”, he told John Humphrys, “because you can't use sign language”. He said that he and his deaf wife actively hoped that their child would be deaf and were pleased when it turned out she was. And listening to him I thought - this man is immensely articulate, immensely courageous and immensely, terribly, wrong.
I don't want you to think, however, that he is immensely alone. At the end of the interview, Mr Lichy claimed that his position on deafness and disability was the official stance of many of the big mainstream organisations for deaf people. And you know what? On that, he's right.
Just to take one example, the mission statement of the Royal Association for Deaf People (patron, the Queen; president, the Archbishop of Canterbury) states: “Deaf people are only ‘disabled' by the effects of discrimination and exclusion.” Meanwhile, the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People strongly support the right of deaf people deliberately to select a deaf child. So why would big, well-meaning organisations adopt such an extreme position? One that, if they could persuade the rest of us to accept it, would lead to poor defenceless babies coming into the world purposefully made deaf by their parents. It is because of three separate serious pieces of muddled thinking.
The first one was right there in Mr Lichy's interview - he has confused a serious long-term physical disability with a temporary inability. Mr Humphrys can learn sign language, should he wish, while Mr Lichy cannot, sadly, learn hearing.
The second is a confusion about the new law. The Human Fertility and Embryology Bill going through Parliament contains a clause that says that embryos with a significant risk of serious disability “must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality”. Deaf campaigners say that this is eugenics. Wrong. The aim is to prevent eugenics, a warped eugenics that deliberately selects deafness. The law forbids parents with a political or cultural agenda from screening the embryos and then perversely ensuring that their child cannot hear. I am afraid that making such a choice is child abuse.
The biggest confusion, however, is the third one - their muddled thinking about equality. They are confused between the idea of being equal and being treated equally. The mission statement of the Royal Association for Deaf People asserts that: “Deaf and Hearing people are equal and should receive the same levels of opportunity, access and respect.” The second half of this sentence is obviously right. Of course deaf and hearing people should receive the same levels of opportunity, access and respect - none of these things should vary with your ability to hear.
But what does the first part of the sentence, the idea that deaf and hearing people are equal, even mean? That deaf and hearing people are exactly the same? Obviously they aren't. Take two deaf people and they won't be equal to each other let alone to someone else. We are all different. This confusion is a very common one. The idea is that in order to protect the ideas of equal respect and equality under the law we must believe that every human being is born the same and that differences between them are entirely created by the environment, and the way we humans relate to each other.
The alternative view - we are all born different from each other in personality as well as physical attributes and that genes account for a great deal of the variability of our behaviour - is regarded with a mixture of fear, revulsion and denial. When I dared to raise this in a political discussion recently, one person called me Dr Mengele while others looked at me as if I had gone mad. In his magnificent book The Blank Slate, the Harvard professor Steven Pinker, untangles this mess. That we are the product of our nature and not just the environment is now, scientifically, beyond question. Our genetic make-up heavily influences who we turn out to be.
Is this an argument for eugenics? Of course not. To start with, there is nothing to say that such engineering is possible, anyway. George Wald put it brilliantly when he was asked to donate to a bank of sperm from Nobel scientists: “You should be contacting people like my father, a poor immigrant tailor. What have my sperm given the world? Two guitarists!” But even if it were possible, that wouldn't make it right. As Tomato Lichy suggests, people might want to select some pretty odd characteristics.
Is it an argument for racism? Of course not. Even supposing anybody could convincingly show systematic racial differences in an attribute like intelligence, which they have not, this would not justify treating someobody as a category rather than as a person.
Is it an argument for discriminating against the disabled? Of course not. In fact, the opposite. And that is what the deaf campaigners don't appear to understand. It is precisely because deafness is, of course it is, a disability, that equality of treatment is difficult to guarantee and has to be fought for so hard.
I said Mr Lichy was courageous. It is courageous to refuse to lie down and be a victim. I can only admire that. But it is one thing to be strong, almost heroic, about his own misfortune, quite another to want it imposed upon a child.
I agree with the commentator, except that I'm not sure this guy is courageous so much as either deluded or extraordinarily selfish. Advocacy for equal treatment of deaf people = good. This nonsensical definition of 'equality' = bizarre and, in this case, selfish and cruel. In no possible way is being born lacking a sense commonly possessed by most people an advantage or extra ability - it is the lack of an ability, it is obviously a disability. If his child really wanted to be deaf, I'm sure rock'n'roll will still be around to oblige. But surely that is the choice of the child, not the parent.
Also, presumably this makes all other disabilities equal / nonexistent / whatever bizarre definition is being used. Is it therefore fine to select your child to be deaf, limbless, blind, stupid...is this really what is meant when parents say they want the best for their kids?
So, political correctness gone mad olol? Activism losing the plot? Or thoroughly sensible & laudible fight for equality NS you evil 'cist?
And...discuss.
Not Sarastro on
0
Posts
Though that statement about contacts is neither funny, nor does it have any discernible rhyming structure to it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
No one agrees that the sun rises in the east and they should give me a million dollars, either.
The nature/nurture debate is just inane, though. If you've picked a side, you're already missing the point.
Disregarding what I find silly about deaf culture (good fucking god, if I could get a new sense for a reasonable price?), I think the point being made should be that not having a deaf child because you catch it in the womb is a bad idea.
I don't really know that that makes a ton of sense, but it does hold more water as an argument. I mean, you don't know what the result of eliminating a given mutation is. I can't think of a situation when deafness would come in handy, but I know that when the Triffids come, our blind friends will be leading the revolution.
The other bit, about not getting surgery after the fact? I'm already alive, my kids will have shitty eyes whether I have LASIK or not. That's stupid to argue about.
Unfortunately not. The bill in question doesn't force you to make any eugenic choice at all - it simply prevents you making the eugenic choice to select deafness.
The activist bloke is arguing that he should be allowed to select deafness in his child, not that eugenics itself is bad.
Er, didn't the blind one die by eventually wandering into a Triffid?
Edit: Not that the two are comparable. One is promoting mandatory eugenics and the other is promoting private freedom to make a (really dumb) choice.
No, once again, it isn't. Technically the law is giving the choice between: no eugenics, or a certain type of eugenics. The option for having no eugenic choice at all still allows for there to be deaf children, so it isn't in fact demanding "normal" zygotes. It is saying that if you do go the eugenic route, you cannot choose something that demonstrably disables your child.
The 'no eugenics' choice is the important bit, and though the whole Gattaca 'would this inevitably lead to everyone practicing eugenics' question is interesting, since it is a bit OT could we leave it for a little later in the topic?
Stand-up philosopher. He coalesces the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
I cannot believe that there is even a serious dispute about this. There is surely no doubt whatsoever that deafness is a serious disability, that parents would actually WANT to pass this kind of disability on to thier kids is appalling imo.
I suspect that this 'deafness is not a disability' assertion is simply something of an inspirational catchphrase passed around the deaf community, if it helps people cool, more power to them but this is taking it too far.
But I can't really get on the bandwagon that it's ok for them to choose, since on the one hand I put myself in the parents shoes, but on the other I put myself in the theorhetical childs shoes and it might really anger me that my parents opted for me to be deaf. Notwithstanding the state-related issues, if the state needs to utilize resources to specially support a deaf person, then opting to have a deaf child would directly impinge upon the state (and upon taxpayers who don't get any say in the matter).
I do wonder if the deaf in the developing world would ever opt to have a deaf child if they could have a non-deaf child.
But choosing to disable your child's hearing because of some sense of community? That's some fucked up shit right there.
Muh? Where else is it acceptable to treat your child as a small toy version of yourself that you can accessorise like a Barbie doll. I know people try to do this all the time (pushy parents, religious nuts, etc) but they usually get pilloried for doing it, and rightly so. I believe the principle is: what is best for the child, not what is best for the parent.
Why different for the deaf folks?
So, I've encountered deaf culture quite a bit in my time. I have to say the vast majority of them are annoying and deluded about their disability (yes, it is a disability). It was because of my experiences that I learned how to sign, "There's this great song you should hear. Oh wait..."
Hahaha. I suddenly like you a lot more.
I don't see why a deaf couple couldn't share "deaf culture" with their hearing-enabled child. Teach him sign-language. Pop some ear plugs in his ears to let him know what it's like to go without hearing. If deaf culture is really that bloody awesome, then maybe when the kid gets old enough he'll willingly wander about with corks in his ears and pretend he really is deaf.
But shit, give the kid a choice. Yeah, selecting for deafness is pretty much child-abuse. I mean, what's the functional difference between choosing to have a kid that's deaf and just waiting until your hearing-capable child is born and stabbing out his ear-drums with an icepick while he's sleeping?
First, I didn't say anything about Barbie-type customizations (or are we extending this to hair color, skin color, skin color, and other superficial shit, because I'm not for that). Deafness isn't a superficial difference, and I give deaf culture (like GLBT culture) the benefit of the doubt that there is something to it that gives aid and comfort to the the members of the community.
I think your religion example is somewhat apropos though, the parents are plugged into this community, they greatly value it, they want to bring in a child within it. Or say parents raising their kids in the mother language, the community we're plugged into gives a great deal of context to ones life. I do think opting to choose a deaf child has icky repercussions (you can learn another language, and you can leave a religion, but becoming un-deaf is problematic).
I also said I'm split on the matter, I'm not anti or pro this legislation (though typically I'm anti-legislation); I just don't think that there's absolutely no value in the opinions of those who are against this legislation.
You have to buy the ice-pick, oil the ice-pick, clean the ice-pick...it's just so much extra work.
But you're right - I see no defensible position for choosing him to be deaf when it is quite possible for the kid to choose to be deaf itself. Surely if it's so fantastic, they should believe that this is a possibility & let their child choose?
Does it say "Don't select for deafness when genetically messing with your embryos" or does it say something like "if you find your child is deaf while doing genetic testing early in pregnancy you have to get rid of it and try again"?
The former.
The first one according to the article.
Barbie-type in that the parents are customising their kid to be little versions of themselves, or how they would like it to be, rather than accepting & allowing the child to be itself.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. By 'icky repercussions' you mean 'permanent disability', and by 'problematic', you mean 'currently impossible'. So: "opting to choose a deaf child gives them a permanent disability which is currently impossible to reverse".
I think that is kinda the problem.
I am perfectly willing to accept that "deaf culture" exists - it's a community with their own language. We don't call a Frenchman disabled (okay, most of us don't) if they can't understand English, they simply have their own language. However, a Frenchman can hear the truck behind him.
Plenty of other communities allow their children to assimilate into the wider population (analogy - those of us who can hear) while preserving their own culture and language and tradition at home (i.e. sign language). In likely any other context we'd call a group that refused to associate or communicate with the wider community, or learn any of its language or culture, ignorant and highly insular.
Also, pro-deaf people are seriously fucked. I've seen stuff like this before, but it always gets to me. Wishing your kid has your disability so he won't be different than you? It reeks of . . I don't know. Bad.
I'm still amazed British and American sign-language are different.
Okay, but personally jesus fuck man, removing a sense? Jeez.
Yeah that was a bit weaselly, sorry.
I think it's likely a side-effect of a couple decades of cramming euphemisms like "differently-abled" and "handi-capable" down people's throats. If you have no legs, you're not "differently abled", you're fucking crippled, dammit. It is a bad thing. Sure, you can mitigate the inconvenience such that it doesn't seriously impact the quality of your life, but it's still a goddamned disability.
In this context, there's no such thing as "selecting for." To say you are "selecting for" a deaf child really just means selecting against (discarding) embyros until you find one that is deaf.
As was already pointed out, the entire purpose of this bill is to prevent eugenics - to disallow parents from "selecting for" hair color, eye color, height, etc. Again, to "select for" would be shorthand for "discarding until one meets your criteria". (Re-rolling until CHA>16?)
This group of parents wants to pretend that they are being discriminated against because they can't choose to make their child deaf, when in actual fact, to allow parents to choose anything about their child would be against the law under this bill. The purpose of this bill is basically to encode into law the idea that parents cannot evaluate embryos during IVF unless they are doing so in order to weed out embryos with genetically inherited diseases, conditions or disabilities. Because being deaf is a disability, parents are allowed to weed out this trait.
This whole "is being deaf a valid lifestyle choice and are they being discriminated against as a community" thing is a complete red herring. Many people in wheelchairs live fulfilling lives and have supportive communities, and as a society we need to ensure they aren't discriminated against because of their disabilities. That doesn't mean we pretend it isn't a disability, and it definitely doesn't mean we let them roll through embryos until they find a crippled one.
Respectfully, I think there is absolutely no value in the opinions of those who are against this legislation.
Nobody wants to be born gay if they have the option. It's just one more thing to worry about in current society.
...Really?