Adoption for homosexual couples

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 12:42 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
All the advantages I can really think of off the top of my head are that all of the child's other senses (sight, taste, touch, smell) will naturally adjust and become stronger to compensate for the loss of hearing. If I come up with any more I'll post them.

BTW, I'm not saying that these are the only advantages, I'm just trying to see both sides of the issue here.

I'm not sure what all the advantages would be, either. My main reason for arguing against those who are saying what that couple did was wrong is that everytime I hear the word "deaf" I think of that girl I mentioned who was born deaf and has a wonderful life.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 1:03 am

@SS: Probably you can understand my point if we move away from the point of deafness to the fact that the "parents" (and I use the term loosely !) decided that they wanted a handicapped child.

So what if they wanted a blind child ? Or a child without hands ? Or without feet - just because THEY (the parents) also had no hands. Would you still approve ?
Or if they decided that only a boy was a "good" child and would abort any female child ? Would you still approve ?

I just don't like the thought of parents deciding about the (dis-) abilites of their future child.

No worries,

Beldin

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 3:02 am

Originally posted by Beldin
@SS: Probably you can understand my point if we move away from the point of deafness to the fact that the "parents" (and I use the term loosely !) decided that they wanted a handicapped child.

So what if they wanted a blind child ? Or a child without hands ? Or without feet - just because THEY (the parents) also had no hands. Would you still approve ?
Or if they decided that only a boy was a "good" child and would abort any female child ? Would you still approve ?

I just don't like the thought of parents deciding about the (dis-) abilites of their future child.

No worries,

Beldin

If you look at what I've said, I'm pretty sure you'll see that I never specifically said I approve. What I'm saying is that I understand their view, and with something like deafness, I don't have a problem with because I really don't view deafness as a disability. It may prevent them from doing a few things, but there are other benefits. With blindness, the same applies. An example is Debrouche, the ranger Drizzt met in one of the Dark Elf Trilogy books. Sure, he's a literary char, but still, we only view those things as a disability because have the ability. Being blind or deaf doesn't make someone any less of a human being. Physical defects such as lacking hands or feet is bit extreme, Beldin. I'm not even going to comment on it.

As for the male/female thing, I don't approve of that purely because I don't approve of abortion at all. I wouldn't approve of aborting a baby that you knew would be deaf or blind.

And, btw, one of my main goals in life is to have daughters(biological or adopted, either works), but I would not get rid of sons just because they're not girls. And I highly doubt that couple would've gotten rid of their child if he had been born with the ability to hear.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 3:16 am

@SS: I know (at least I THINK I know) what you're trying to get across.
Deafness or blindness MIGHT not be handicaps in the way of living your life as "normal" person, but who am I as a parent to decide that MY CHILD will never have the possibility to listen to music (he/she might have liked it if he/she KNEW how it was) or to see the sun ?

I'm not ranting against the right of "handicapped" children to be born (for the record: I'm basically against abortion - except in cases of danger for the mother.)- Im ranting against people playing "god" and taking away something from the child - which would make it "incomplete". You can view it how ever you like, but even if other senses compensate for the lack of hearing or seeing there are still things that the child will NEVER KNOW in it's life.

I think it's a Nazi like thinking on the part of the parents if THEY decide to deprive their child of something that is rightfully his/hers.

(Mind you I'm not calling anyone HERE in SYM a Nazi - just the parents who decide that a deaf child is "better" than a child with hearing..)

Beldin

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:16 am

Originally posted by Beldin
@SS: I know (at least I THINK I know) what you're trying to get across.
Deafness or blindness MIGHT not be handicaps in the way of living your life as "normal" person, but who am I as a parent to decide that MY CHILD will never have the possibility to listen to music (he/she might have liked it if he/she KNEW how it was) or to see the sun ?

I'm not ranting against the right of "handicapped" children to be born (for the record: I'm basically against abortion - except in cases of danger for the mother.)- Im ranting against people playing "god" and taking away something from the child - which would make it "incomplete". You can view it how ever you like, but even if other senses compensate for the lack of hearing or seeing there are still things that the child will NEVER KNOW in it's life.

I think it's a Nazi like thinking on the part of the parents if THEY decide to deprive their child of something that is rightfully his/hers.

(Mind you I'm not calling anyone HERE in SYM a Nazi - just the parents who decide that a deaf child is "better" than a child with hearing..)

Beldin

I don't think it's playing god. There's still a whole lot left totally to chance. And, if you viewed deafness as a blessing, why wouldn't you want your children to be blessed as well?

Oh, and to counter the "never get to hear music" thing, one advantage would be not having to worry about being disturbed by people playing their music too loud.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:41 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

Oh, and to counter the "never get to hear music" thing, one advantage would be not having to worry about being disturbed by people playing their music too loud.

How about hearing the birds sing ?

Ok, before this gets out of hand and drifts off into ridicule let's just say that in MY POV people who see deafness, blindness or some other handicap as "blessing" should go and have their head examined...preferably by someone with sharp instruments....maybe C E will volunteer...

No worries,

Beldin

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Apr 17, 2002 11:32 pm

I think the worst part about being deaf would be not being able to "hear" other people unless you were directly looking at them. On the plus side, you could save money by not having a telephone and could turn up your music to annoy your neighbours and they couldn't do anything about it.

I'm nitpicking here, but IIRC Mooshie was blind, not deaf. That's why he was able to fight Drizzt in a globe of darkness. So there.

(ooh, I'm not ranking high on the maturity scale today.)

On a more serious note, if you had a choice of either losing your sight or your hearing, which would you rather give up?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 11:57 pm

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I'm nitpicking here, but IIRC Mooshie was blind, not deaf. That's why he was able to fight Drizzt in a globe of darkness. So there. (ooh, I'm not ranking high on the maturity scale today.)

You're right, he was blind. But, if you look back, I never said either way. And, if you wanna go by context, the last sentence before the one about Debrouche was specificying Blindness, so there.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 17, 2002 11:58 pm

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
On a more serious note, if you had a choice of either losing your sight or your hearing, which would you rather give up?

Either way, I'd have to change my lifestyle. If I went blind, I'd have difficult with the net. If I went deaf, I'd suffer severe headaches all the time because of never having any kind of sound going on. Silence makes my already constant minor headaches much worse.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Apr 18, 2002 12:14 am

Originally posted by SS
You're right, he was blind. But, if you look back, I never said either way. And, if you wanna go by context, the last sentence before the one about Debrouche was specificying Blindness, so there.

You're right. Bugger. I (grudgingly) concede defeat.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 2:23 pm

Good news from Sweden!

A few minutes ago, it was reported that the Swedish parliament has voted yes to adoption for homosexual couples.

Duramath · Post by **Duramath** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 12:48 pm

When i come here I usually lurk, and I haven't been here for some time due to upcoming exams, but when reading some of the posts on the off topic discussion of the deaf child, I thought that I what I had to say was relevant enough to post.

(I'll be the first to admit that what I've said is a repetition of previous posts, but its also my opinion...sorry about that)

I view deafness as a disability. If we really wanted to be pedantic about it, Stedman's medical dictionary defines a disability as "an impariment or defect of one or more organs or members severe enough to be a handicap".

It goes on to define a handicap as "a physical, mental, or emotioal conditon that interferes with an individual's normal functioning".

Now the key word here is normal, and I have no real desire to turn this into a debate on what defines "normality". But as someone who *can* hear, I tend to think that the loss of one of my five senses would be a grave disadvantage, not just in terms of it making living in today's world more difficult, but also because I would be missing out on full aspect of sensory stimuli that I greatly enjoy.

Now I can understand that the parents of this child do not see deafness as a disability. They may see it as a blessing. What i can't do is understand the *why* part.

I can further believe that there are many many people out there who are deaf and who live rich, fulfilling lives. But let's be realistic, shall we? You can be deaf and very very happy, but you still have a disability. Now it may be one that you have grown to live with, even one which may be *happy* to live with, but it is still a *disability*.

But I think the vital crux of this issue, is, what is the child's view going to be? It is the child who will have to live with his or her disability or blessing. In my view it is the child's choice in the matter which is being horribly violated. I wonder if it has occured to the parents that their child may not want to be deaf. What will these parents do if twenty years from now, the young man or woman wants the ability to hear. It may be a generalization, but its a truthful one to say that hearing is easier to take away then it is to restore.

If deafness is a blessing, and it is a blessing that the parents wanted to share with their child, they should have let the child make the decesion for his or her self. Surely if it is as wonderful an alternate lifestyle as the parents seem to believe then the child would have chosen to become deaf in time. To deny them this choice reeks of selfishness and arrogance on the part of the parents, and unfortunately I think it may be the child who will have to pay for their mistake.