« 2006 Weblog Awards | Main | The ISG report »

December 07, 2006

Best for your child, or best for you?

Patterico highlights this story of an ugly twist to "designer children"

In other words, some parents had the painful and expensive fertility procedure for the express purpose of having children with a defective gene. It turns out that some mothers and fathers don’t view certain genetic conditions as disabilities but as a way to enter into a rich, shared culture. [...]

Born five years ago on Thanksgiving Day, the couple’s son, Gauvin, was mostly deaf, and his parents chose to withhold any hearing aids.

Controlling a child’s genetic makeup, even to preserve what some would consider a disease, is the latest tactic of parents in an increasingly globalized society where identity seems besieged and in need of aggressive preservation.

That "some" consider a disease? What kind of weaselly sentence is that? Deafness is an unnatural condition that is overcome... either with surgery, mechanical aids or use of extraordinary steps like sign language.

Deafness is a physical anomaly not a "cultural identity", regardless of the social circles the "Deaf community" has developed. I could point to the "rich, shared culture" of the drug culture, it doesn't make drug addiction desirable.

It's a wonder that these people haven't organized to protest and destroy The March of Dimes.


Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at December 7, 2006 07:06 AM

Comments

It was inevitable, with the whole designer kids thing, that parents would come to see children, not as human beings, but as accessories---even little dollies, they can dress, play with and do whatever they like with.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 7, 2006 08:09 AM

Curious to know how sign language is an 'extraordinary step'?

Posted by: himbly at December 10, 2006 06:57 PM

Darleen, As a deaf guy that benefits from hearing aids, this sort of crap pisses me off. My parents did the opposite of these people. Once they discovered I was deaf, they fitted me with hearing aids and refused a doctor's suggestion that I learn sign language and attend "special" education. As a result, I learned how to speak normally and function in the real world. These parents are despicable people who are putting their son's future at risk. Gauvin will hate them once he realizes what they've done to him.

(Btw, you might recognize my name from commenting at RWS.)

Posted by: Blake at December 10, 2006 10:09 PM

himbly

Sign language is "extraordinary" because it is a non-verbal way to communicate ... and non-deaf (the vast majority of humans) use verbal communication. Sign is a way to bridge between the verbal and non-verbal worlds. Many many hearing people learn and use American sign.

Posted by: Darleen at December 10, 2006 10:24 PM

Welcome, Blake!

I miss Sparkle's posting.

Posted by: Darleen at December 10, 2006 10:25 PM

Darleen,

Actually, you are quite wrong about sign language. It is not used to bridge the gap between verbal and non-verbal worlds, it is used for deaf people to communicate. It is not as common as verbal communication, but it follows the same structures as any other natural language.

There are numerous instances of spontaneous sign language in deaf communities. Two examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sayyid_Bedouin_Sign_Language

I think your use of the word 'extraordinary' is the culprit here. It implies that sign would be more taxing on a learner than any verbal language, but it is not.

Posted by: himbly at December 10, 2006 11:45 PM

Thanks for the welcome, Darleen! Sorry to go OT, but I'm sure you remember dorita at RWS, right? Well, I was reading Ann Althouse's blog and she's now commenting there as michilines. In one comment, she claimed to have personally shut down RWS and her Chronicle blog! Insane as ever.

Posted by: Blake at December 11, 2006 11:39 AM