Dear Charlotte can't access Journalspace, so here is the text of the current post:
Have You Heard?
On: February 3, 2008 | At: 8:10 AM | In: medicine, science/technology
British deaf rights organizations want to give parents the right to choose deaf embryos from in-vitro fertilization. That eye-opening news comes courtesy of gold bug/dancin' fool and witticism king allan, who checked in to the comments section to give the news. The writer allan quoted likened the proposal to Blade Runner, where genetically altered humans called replicants were created for the amusement of normal humans. From allan's newsletter:
"Right now, in the U.K., a pair of deaf-rights organizations — the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People and the British Deaf Association — are lobbying to give deaf prospective parents (and presumably, hearing parents as well) the right to genetically engineer deaf children. Their efforts are focused on amending a bill currently passing through the legislative process in the House of Lords, the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which currently would prohibit the screening of embryos for the purpose of choosing one with an abnormality. According to the U.K.’s The Sunday Times, a broader coalition of organizations representing people with disabilities will also begin campaigning for this amendment to the bill, starting this month."
Some deaf parents would rather have deaf children, the rationale goes, as explained in the Sunday (UK) Times, so they would fit better into the household.
A clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist.
In America a deaf couple deliberately created a baby with hearing difficulties by choosing a sperm donor with generations of deafness in his family.
This would be impossible under the bill in its present form in the UK. Disability charities say this makes the proposed legislation discriminatory, because it gives parents the right to create “designer babies” free from genetic conditions while banning couples from deliberately creating a baby with a disability.
Technically speaking, this won't be genetic engineering. The embryos are not being altered. Generally speaking, IVF creates multiple embryos, and only one usually gets chosen. But we are already edging close to outright genetic manipulation. The Times article mentions a case where an American deaf couple chose a sperm donor whose family line has a history of genetic deafness. I'm reminded of the Ellen Jamesians from The World According To Garp. The novel describes the EJs as a group of radical feminists who react to a girl being raped and having her tongue cut out, by cutting out their own tongues.
Is that analogy fair? I can imagine how some deaf-rights advocates must feel about the current IVF standards, which call for discarding embryos with abnormalities such as deafness. Could that be viewed as a form of genocide against the genetically deaf? But is choosing an embryo that has a genetic defect, merely for the convenience of the parents, morally right? For that matter, is choosing to abort a fetus (or not implant an embryo), with a genetic defect also a case of convenience for the parents?
But is choosing an embryo that has a genetic defect, merely for the convenience of the parents, morally right?
No. It's grotesque. As grotesque as the girl who aborted her baby in her senior year of high school because the pregnancy would mess up the fit of her prom dress. (True story. I knew the girl, she was telling me about her decision before she found out I was pregnant. She stopped speaking to me as soon as she found out, which was fine with me. I wasn't speaking to her anymore either.)
For that matter, is choosing to abort a fetus (or not implant an embryo), with a genetic defect also a case of convenience for the parents?
Gross. I'm against eugenics of all kinds. Always.
Not being a parent, I have no experience in the matter - but don't parents want the best for their children in the end? If so, then how is wanting deaf children a better outcome? That seems perverse in the extreme.
While the Deaf's premise that there's nothing wrong with being deaf is understandable, personal egotism seems to be the only justification for claiming there's something preferable about it. But there are some genetic defects that no one should have to be born with, deafness just isn't one of them.
In other news, I've been out of commission lately after an unrecoverable hard drive failure. My essential data was backed up from a month ago, but reinstalling all the non-essential stuff is a pain.
By the way, the forth installment of What do real thugs think of The Wire is up.
ReJeKt,
In other news, I've been out of commission lately after an unrecoverable hard drive failure.
Ack. My sympathies to you. And good that your essential data was backed up. What OS(s) do you use?
Vivian Louise and all,
I'm against eugenics of all kinds. Always.
Just to muddy the waters a bit, here is another example of eugenics, one that does not involve aborting fetuses or selecting embryos.
Rabbi Joseph Eckstein pioneered an entirely new approach to Tay-Sachs disease in 1985, in light of the fact that he found all the available options either unappealing or irreconcilable with halachic (Jewish) law. His solution: to eliminate the gene from the Jewish population entirely. Eckstein is the founder of an international genetic testing program called Dor Yeshorim, the "generation of the righteous." In the program, Orthodox Jewish high school students are given blood tests to determine if they have the Tay-Sachs gene. Instead of receiving direct results as to their carrier status, each person is given a six-digit identification number. Couples can call a hotline, if both are carriers, they will be deemed "incompatible." Individuals are not told they are carriers directly to avoid any possibility of stigmatization or discrimination. If the information were released, carriers could potentially become unmarriageable within the community. During 1993, 8000 couples were tested, and eighty-seven couples who were previously considering marriage decided against it as they were at risk for having a child with the disease. The program then, aims to eradicate the disease through the venue of choice of mate.
Jewish writings contain references to genetics and eugenics as far back as the Bible and Talmud. In Jewish law, it is prohibited to "marry a woman from a family of epileptics or lepers lest the illness be transmitted to future generations." Avoidance of genetic disease by choice of mate has been accepted since the biblical era. Do the Jewish ancient writings thus indirectly sanction the approach of Dor Yeshorim?
Bradley, I use Windows XP pro mainly because I like to play video games on my computer. By essential data, I was of course referring to all my saved games. 
But there are some genetic defects that no one should have to be born with, deafness just isn't one of them.
I hope you mean that "deafness is one of them." Otherwise, to wish such a condition onto that of a new human life is rather vindictive, even sadistic.
The lunacy of people who want to bring children into the world so that they have certain defects in order to fit in with their parents is the height of selfishness and ultra-neurotic victimization-rights thinking.
And I can kind of guess the political slant of most of those people----they're probably the same ones who, based on a recent article about European interest in the US presidential election, contend that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton should be upheld as the most wonderful, wise and beautiful White House administrations over the past 30-plus years.
The whole deaf thing can get ridiculous -- there was a documentary a few years back about deaf parents whose children could be cured of their deafness if given a cochlear implant at a young age, but only at a young age, since it would have to be given before language fully develops.
The parents, and their entire community, were against it on the grounds that to do so would be depriving the kids of "deaf culture" (which seems to mean sign language). The thrust of their argument was that there was nothing wrong or defective about being deaf.
As I wrote then, there may be nothing "wrong" with it, but there IS something defective -- their freakin' ears don't work!
Hey Bradley (and everyone), speaking of your vote for prez, I have a conundrum Tuesday. I have a *very exclusive* vote in our state caucus, and since FT dropped out I don't have a candidate. Should I:
1) vote for McCain because that's the only discernable preference I could come up with in a quick straw poll of my precinct's republicans, or
2) vote for Romney as my own preference for someone more conservative than McCain, or
3) vote for Ron Paul, because with as many supporters as he has loading up our central committees to vote, he could very well take the state and wouldn't that be freaky? We'd be the Nuthouse State once again (since they caught the Unibomer) and I bet the state GOP would never have another closed caucus.
cassandra,
That's a tough call! The salient question is what has the highest call on your political and moral obligations? Is it the wishes of the precinct you were chosen to represent? Or your own beliefs?
If it's the wishes of the precinct, then vote McCain. (Of course, this depends on how sure you are that your straw poll is accurate.)
If it's your own belief as to who, besides FT, would be best, then vote Romney. If Thompson has endorsed someone, or indicated a preference without an outright endorsement, that should play a role.
Also, what do the party bylaws saw about your discretion to vote for another candidate if the one you supported has dropped out?
I would advise not to vote for Ron Paul, because that would violate both your wishes and the wishes of your precinct. I say this sadly, because I have a residual affection for Paul.
What the heck is going on with the comment section??? I keep getting a front page with comments showing there (cassandra, followed by VL, and then nothing...). This is the fourth time trying to get something current. Is my computer in death throes?
"...but don't parents want the best for their children in the end?"
Yes, they do. Apparently, the problem is the need to define the terms - what constitutes 'best'?
Eugenics is not only grotesque but we only have to look at Nazi Germany to see the end result in playing God. Nothing good can come from something with such selfish, self-serving motives. I'm with VL. Wrong, always.
cassandra, Thomas Sowell writes an eye-opening clarifier re McCain, its worth the read:
http://
article.nationalreview.co...GM5NDZhYmI2ZGM=
Dana,
The fault is not in the stars or your computer. It is in HaloSatan. I've had the same problem.
Dana,
Also, just to repeat: We do want you to be a co-blogger on The Festering Swamp. If you're interested, email me at bradley (at) sandiego (dot) com and I'll get you set up.
To All Swampers (especially Charlotte):
We've once again been having troubles with people accessing TFS. So I have enlisted my long-neglected Southwest Left Coast blog into service as a backup. You can read the current entry and get to the current Haloscan thread from there (assuming Haloscan is working).
I'm going to ask my fellow wizards about a more permanent backup solution. I don't want to move away from Journalspace, but we do need a good backup blog site everyone can find. I am thinking of TypePad or WordPress.
Or, we can just continue to use Southwest Left Coast for the time being, and see if people are okay with that. BTW, others are invited to do the same thing -- they can copy the current Festering Swamp post to their own blog -- and link to the Haloscan discussion. If you don't have the post, I can email it to you.
Together, we can get Charlotte back in the loop again, and make sure none of use are left out!
I hope you mean that "deafness is one of them." Otherwise, to wish such a condition onto that of a new human life is rather vindictive, even sadistic.
That's interesting Mark, does that mean you would support the termination of a fetus because it was genetically deaf?
There are some genetic conditions and birth defects that I think would be inhumane to bring to term, and thank goodness people have a say in the matter. I'd be pretty surprised if many considered deafness to be one of those conditions, though.
Aayyyyyeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiii
cassandra,
I heard that all the way from Missoula! What did that yell signify?
Oh I came in the other way, after trying the main post comments...not sure where anyone was. It's all been very maze-like this weekend.
Anyway, thanks for your answer. I'm fighting the urge to get RP a win. He was nice to me once long ago. But his followers are as tenacious and as humorless as Kossacks. It's scary. And his local point man was inquiring at hubby's business about setting up large political signs - planning long-range - and I wonder if there's a 3rd-party run in the works.
Sorry to be OT. I do think the push to genetically design offspring is despicable and morally disordered.
cassandra,
OT is what we do best! I try to find conversation-starters, but as happened with Cathy's World, the thread spread like kudzu with no discernible theme or plan. It just happened there - and just happens here.
As long as the readers are interested, I'm happy.
And in my reader capacity, I am most anxiously awaiting what Lewis Fein will cook up for his inaugural post.
Deafness is certainly not a reason to end a pregnancy. But of course, I don't think anything is.
"Deaf culture". Yeah, that's so totally insane. Victim as victor thinking gone horribly awry.
BJF: I actually don't have a problem with the Tay-Sachs thing. If you know that you and your potential spouse are both carriers for an awful disease you can choose to do several things - Not marry, adopt or damn the topedos and take your chances.
Commenting by HaloScan
