4 ms·

I think it's fine for parents to decide. If deaf parents want deaf kids and hearing parents want hearing kids those are both valid. Their kids their choice.

by klipt 5y ago

esyir 5y ago
Hell no. You're telling me that it's in the domain of parents to knowingly cripple their kids sensory function? That's absurd.
- klipt 5y ago
  Would you say people with a gene for deafness shouldn't be allowed to reproduce? That would open a whole can of worms. What if some society says black skin is a disability so black people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?
  - esyir 5y ago
    There's a clear line between stopping reproduction and intentionally inducing disabilities. I'm going to put it another way. Does this really pass your own personal sanity check? That parents should be allowed to: - Amputate their children's limbs (Various developmental defects - Remove their children's eyes (Blindness) - Perforate their children's eardrums (Deafness) - Remove their tongue / vocal chords (Mutes) - Paralyze their kids (Various forms of musculoskeletal issues) - Inflict brain damage on their kids (various forms of intellectual disabilities)
    - ghuin 5y ago
      Or remove their foreskins :')
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        There are medical reasons for the removal of foreskins such as phimosis [1]. Inasmuch as I would agree that religious justifications for circumcision are the ramblings of a cargo cult, circumcision itself was and is (for now at least) not without value. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
        ghuin 5y ago
        There also could be medical reasons for the removal of arms. That doesn't mean parents should be allowed to remove the arms of their children as they are born.
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        If there's a medical reason to amputate an arm and if it would be appropriate to attend to it immediately after birth so that no long-term complications arise from a delay in action, a parent should acquiesce to it. If parents shouldn't make that decision then who should?
      - esyir 5y ago
        That too. I left it out intentionally as while I personally think it's in the same category, it's unfortunately sufficiently normalized as to pass without question.
    - klipt 5y ago
      No, but should a deaf woman be allowed to choose sperm from a deaf donor? That's actually happened, the baby was born deaf, and the mom was thrilled.
      - esyir 5y ago
        Fantastic grey area. Here, I'd probably have that be legal. Not because I approve of it, but because the alternative, regulating who gets to reproduce, is worse.
- fragmede 5y ago
  I mean, we trust parents around kids and they can do all sorts of semi-permanent and permanent things to damage their kids. And then, this will shock you, but we just let those kids grow up and be around other people. If you really want a head trip, we let those kids have their own kids (after the age of 18). And raise them! If you've not read any stories of parents abusing their children, you really shouldn't, some of that shit is real nightmare fuel. That some well-loved children are hard of hearing after childhood? Real parents obviously don't bare their actual feelings to you. (I am not a parent. I am endlessly grateful to state run sex education for that. No offense to those that would choose that path for themselves but I definitely was not capable of making that decision at 13 or 15 or 18. Giving teenagers that choice is ludicrous but then again, I don't run that department of society.)
  - esyir 5y ago
    There's a difference between parents screwing up and giving them a blank check to cripple their kids. If my parents knowingly and intentionally crippled my sense of sight/hearing/touch/taste for the sake of crippling me, that goes far enough into "sufficient abuse" that retributive murder suddenly appears in my "appropriate response" options. As for the existing cases of child abuse, we've already got things for that. We have anti-child abuse laws and their like. They're not perfect, but they denote a line of behavior beyond which is not tolerated.
lifeplusplus 5y ago
If parents aren't allowed to harm kids after birth why should they be allowed harm their kids before birth... counter argument needs to be mind blowing and i'm all ears.
- fragmede 5y ago
  Well, or shift the overtones window leftward - if parents can do whatever they like beforehand, why not let them do whatever they like afterwards? If we trust both parents to know what's best in not getting blackout drunk before having the kid, then we should trust that the parents know what they're doing until the kid is 10, and not question anything the parents do until then (including, say, I don't know, chosen vaccination schedule)
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > why not let them do whatever they like afterwards It worked like that a few hundred thousand years ago and we seem to have mostly collectively decided as a species that this was not the way to go
robbedpeter 5y ago
Nope. Absolutely no. Mostly deaf person here. It is utter insanity to inflict this on a person, and so-called parents who do should be sterilized and imprisoned until the child becomes an adult. The child should then be allowed to choose whether their biological parents ever get to communicate with them as adults. You don't get to mutilate a child and continue to participate in raising that child, or produce any more. Inflicting deafness is absolute, unmitigated cruelty. The so called "deaf culture" is a sick cult-like group with extremist memes that glorify a defect. Deafness isn't a feature, it's a bug. It's a crippling disability, and destroys any chance at normal social interactions from birth, requiring significant extra effort by every individual in the deaf person's life to accommodate. It easily leads to depression, antisocial behavior, and other psychological issues. Worst of all, it restricts the person from experiencing all of the music, conversation, nature and warning alerts and laughter and the vast beautiful landscape of sound there is to experience in the world. Don't enable monsters by trying to be accepting of differences. It's not cosmetic or trivial or cultural, hearing is a fundamental feature of the human experience.
- someguydave 5y ago
  Agreed. Presumably the same logic applies to harming a child before birth as well.

I think it's fine for parents to decide. If deaf parents want deaf kids and hearing parents want hearing kids those are both valid. Their kids their choice.

by klipt 5y ago

I think it's fine for parents to decide. If deaf parents want deaf kids and hearing parents want hearing kids those are both valid. Their kids their choice.

esyir 5y ago

Hell no. You're telling me that it's in the domain of parents to knowingly cripple their kids sensory function? That's absurd.

klipt 5y ago
Would you say people with a gene for deafness shouldn't be allowed to reproduce? That would open a whole can of worms. What if some society says black skin is a disability so black people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?
- esyir 5y ago
  There's a clear line between stopping reproduction and intentionally inducing disabilities. I'm going to put it another way. Does this really pass your own personal sanity check? That parents should be allowed to: - Amputate their children's limbs (Various developmental defects - Remove their children's eyes (Blindness) - Perforate their children's eardrums (Deafness) - Remove their tongue / vocal chords (Mutes) - Paralyze their kids (Various forms of musculoskeletal issues) - Inflict brain damage on their kids (various forms of intellectual disabilities)
  - ghuin 5y ago
    Or remove their foreskins :')
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      There are medical reasons for the removal of foreskins such as phimosis [1]. Inasmuch as I would agree that religious justifications for circumcision are the ramblings of a cargo cult, circumcision itself was and is (for now at least) not without value. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
      - ghuin 5y ago
        There also could be medical reasons for the removal of arms. That doesn't mean parents should be allowed to remove the arms of their children as they are born.
        Dracophoenix 5y ago
        If there's a medical reason to amputate an arm and if it would be appropriate to attend to it immediately after birth so that no long-term complications arise from a delay in action, a parent should acquiesce to it. If parents shouldn't make that decision then who should?
    - esyir 5y ago
      That too. I left it out intentionally as while I personally think it's in the same category, it's unfortunately sufficiently normalized as to pass without question.
  - klipt 5y ago
    No, but should a deaf woman be allowed to choose sperm from a deaf donor? That's actually happened, the baby was born deaf, and the mom was thrilled.
    - esyir 5y ago
      Fantastic grey area. Here, I'd probably have that be legal. Not because I approve of it, but because the alternative, regulating who gets to reproduce, is worse.
fragmede 5y ago
I mean, we trust parents around kids and they can do all sorts of semi-permanent and permanent things to damage their kids. And then, this will shock you, but we just let those kids grow up and be around other people. If you really want a head trip, we let those kids have their own kids (after the age of 18). And raise them! If you've not read any stories of parents abusing their children, you really shouldn't, some of that shit is real nightmare fuel. That some well-loved children are hard of hearing after childhood? Real parents obviously don't bare their actual feelings to you. (I am not a parent. I am endlessly grateful to state run sex education for that. No offense to those that would choose that path for themselves but I definitely was not capable of making that decision at 13 or 15 or 18. Giving teenagers that choice is ludicrous but then again, I don't run that department of society.)
- esyir 5y ago
  There's a difference between parents screwing up and giving them a blank check to cripple their kids. If my parents knowingly and intentionally crippled my sense of sight/hearing/touch/taste for the sake of crippling me, that goes far enough into "sufficient abuse" that retributive murder suddenly appears in my "appropriate response" options. As for the existing cases of child abuse, we've already got things for that. We have anti-child abuse laws and their like. They're not perfect, but they denote a line of behavior beyond which is not tolerated.

lifeplusplus 5y ago

If parents aren't allowed to harm kids after birth why should they be allowed harm their kids before birth... counter argument needs to be mind blowing and i'm all ears.

fragmede 5y ago
Well, or shift the overtones window leftward - if parents can do whatever they like beforehand, why not let them do whatever they like afterwards? If we trust both parents to know what's best in not getting blackout drunk before having the kid, then we should trust that the parents know what they're doing until the kid is 10, and not question anything the parents do until then (including, say, I don't know, chosen vaccination schedule)
- jcelerier 5y ago
  > why not let them do whatever they like afterwards It worked like that a few hundred thousand years ago and we seem to have mostly collectively decided as a species that this was not the way to go

robbedpeter 5y ago

Nope. Absolutely no. Mostly deaf person here. It is utter insanity to inflict this on a person, and so-called parents who do should be sterilized and imprisoned until the child becomes an adult. The child should then be allowed to choose whether their biological parents ever get to communicate with them as adults. You don't get to mutilate a child and continue to participate in raising that child, or produce any more. Inflicting deafness is absolute, unmitigated cruelty. The so called "deaf culture" is a sick cult-like group with extremist memes that glorify a defect. Deafness isn't a feature, it's a bug. It's a crippling disability, and destroys any chance at normal social interactions from birth, requiring significant extra effort by every individual in the deaf person's life to accommodate. It easily leads to depression, antisocial behavior, and other psychological issues. Worst of all, it restricts the person from experiencing all of the music, conversation, nature and warning alerts and laughter and the vast beautiful landscape of sound there is to experience in the world. Don't enable monsters by trying to be accepting of differences. It's not cosmetic or trivial or cultural, hearing is a fundamental feature of the human experience.

someguydave 5y ago
Agreed. Presumably the same logic applies to harming a child before birth as well.