Dave Beethoven - Didn't like being deaf much.
Some extreme members of the Deaf (capital D) community are upset that deafness is being viewed as a disability. They want their children to be Deaf (capital D).
What a bunch of elitist, selfish, deluded, fuckwittery.
If you are not disabled, then give us back all the fucking money we spent on loop induction systems, brail, and all the other special stuff. And what's more, why don't you fucking talk properly? Eh? When I ask a question in ENGLISH (being in ENGLAND - capital E), why don't you fucking answer? What? Are you fucking deaf as well as stupid?
See my point?
People who wish misfortune on their children are too selfish to be parents. Anti-hearing fascists wanting to 'share' their 'culture' (ie: disability) should be told exactly where to get off. In writing, obviously. Or sign,
Perhaps blind parents should gouge their children's eyes out. Perhaps mute parents should cut their children's tongues out. Perhaps female circumcised mothers should have their daughters female circumcised (as they so often do).
Take home message: being a parent is not about what the parent wants. It's about what is best for the child.
Oh, and every IVF parent I have met simply falls down on the ground in thanks and wonder at being fortunate enough to have a child - they don't bitch about how it ain't 'disabled enough'.
Selfish fucks.
[First sentence edited to correct the impression that this rant was aimed at the wider deaf community rather than just the views of the people in the original article and at least one of the people on the BBC comments section - Ed.]
Dr Rant
Dr Cardigan
Dr Blue
Dr Brown
Rev Dr Green
Dr Mustard
Mr Orange
Dr Pink
Dr Purple
Mr Salmon
Dr White
Mr Beige
Ms Scarlet
Dr Informed
Posts
14 comments:
Wow. I realise this is a blog for a group of people to let off steam (the clue being in the 'rant') but the tone of this post makes me deeply uncomfortable.
I quite agree with you that the parents in question are 'selfish fucks' but in fairness this is about one couple, not the Deaf community as a whole, which is made quite clear in the more in depth article on the BBC site rather than the discussion one you've linked to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7287508.stm
It's a bit like referring to all GP's as greedy and moneygrabbing. I'm sure you all know just how true that statement is, and how well it reflects every GP it purports to represent. No different here.
Bendy Girl
Apologies.
The writer confirms that the post is meant to refer to the members of the deaf community in the story and supporting this view on the BBC discussion page.
I'll edit the piece to correct the opening line, which I think is where the error is.
-Ed. (Asleep at the switch!)
Once again , you've beaten me to it. These farquars need a rapid induction of reality check. To favour disability in one's child is abuse once removed. So why don't they just LISTEN!
Thank you, BG
Er, you know, they aren't creating a deaf embryo. The embryo is already deaf.
The goverment is saying they must by law pick a hearing embryo and throw away the deaf one. Which is eugenics.
If you read the other interview, they say they'd prefer to pick one at random, and not have people picking 'perfect babies'.
And sorry, but you're shouting at a deaf guy cos he can't speak english? Yes some deaf people speak, but there's a reason most use sign language rather than speaking. I'm sure you'll think of it eventually.
And by the way, there are 4 recognised, government funded languages in the UK. They're English, Welsh, Cornish, and BSL (British Sign Language).
BSL is a language in its own right, with a lot of research on it, and it grew and evolved right here in England, so it's much more an ENGLISH language than say Cornish or Welsh.
What you call English is mostly a dogbag of french / latin / greek / saxon / etc imports.
On some definitions, BSL is more english than the English language.
Yes I'm stretching a point, but my general message is:
You fail.
The worrying bit is the idea that deafness is a 'wonderful thing':
"Deaf is not a disability, regardless of popular views out there! I am Deaf and from Deaf family. I do not see myself disabled and I would love to have Deaf child to share my folklore, culture, pride, stories etc just as much as other cultural group would love to pass on their experiences and culture."
My emphasis.
If Long John Silver was my Dad, and he wanted me born with a wooden leg so that I could become immersed in 'the rich cultural background of 18th century high seas piracy' and learn its 'history and traditions'....
....I'd be well pissed off I can tell you!
You only have to watch the 3 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films to be an expert in all that - you don't have to 'live the dream' and drink rum for fuck's sake!
Likewise, the hearing can still watch 'See Hear' on TV and learn sign language, but (at the risk of sounding like a ponce) also experience things like Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony and Mozart.
The Deaf are however largely insulated from the rigours of the Eurovision Song contest, so it's not all doom and gloom.
Brilliant article, Rant. Just one thing to amend (to save you face).
In the first paragraph - I'm not sure how Braille would aid the deaf. Sorry to be a pedant, but it's a bit of a howler.
Chris BSc MD MRCP(UK)
Good point about Braille.
Clearly, we meant 'talking books' and all that kind of deaffy stuff.
The Deaf community have picked up Dr Rant's piece and listed it amongst many others as being ignorant (no pun intended):
Instead, they list this as being the lone 'sane voice':
It includes this classic:
"If you have never been able to hear music, then you can not be said to miss it, or suffer from its absence from your life. "
Really?
Presumably then it is ok to be born in poverty or in a totalitarian state because if you have never experienced freedom or lack of fear then you won't miss it.
Stupid, stupid, stupid, dangerous bastards.
I was intrigued by the response from Mr Cholmondley-Warner, Uxbridge, United Kingdom on the linked page:
1. It sounds like a rant team member kinda name.
2. It states:
They're not inflicting the disability - the embryo is already genetically defective.Given the alternative is destruction of the embryo and never being born at all,I fail to see why the child would feel resentment towards its parents.
This furthers the debate of eugenics. Picking an embryo at random is as equal to the chances of having a naturally acquired disabled child (or child with diability).
If the state are able to prevent such embryos being selected - why do they not have the same conferred powers to force a termination of someone who has a dodgy aminiocentesis?
Having read the more fuller article(thx BG); the fact that screening is not compulsory and they may chance getting a deaf baby is acceptable to me. However, the suggestion is that if they screen for a deaf child - they won't be allowed to select it if found, in preference to a hearing child.
I don't agree in selecting a 'deaf child' as being culturally or otherwise appropriate - but then I don't agree with being so selective at all.
Choosing to not fertilise a known defective embryo is depriving a potential human of life and is very much promoting the use of selective engineering.
Is this not playing God?
It ties in a lot for me with the 'equality' vs 'elitism' debate.
The upset within the deaf communiTy (capital T for no reason) is that they are slighted by the notion that deaf embryos (and ergo deaf children) are considered second-rate and that such a disability can not provide as enriched a life as a hearing person. I would agree with them. There is no credence to the suggestion that being deaf gives you a second rate quality of life.
If people really want to play eugenics - being of black skin increases the likelihood of you being incarcerated for a crime - even when the same crime commited by a white skinned person attracts a non-custodial sentence - or even an acquittal. Are we going to be skin colour specific too in our embryo selection?
Two further comments on the original fuller article in response to this line:
"Tomato Lichy and his partner already have one deaf child, for which they are profoundly grateful."
1. Good play on the word 'profoundly'
2. Why are we debating the right of the deaf/hearing child to be selected when surely we should debate whether a father with a first name of Tomato has the right to bear any children at all?
Hear, hear!
Dr Rant, with all due respect, you are one ignorant SOB.
Observe, Robert A. Crouch:
In the Country of the Blind the On-eye Man is King, or so thought Nunez, the protagonist of an H.G. Wells story who finds himself the sole person with sight in a community of people who have all been blind for fifteen generations.
Surrounded by persons he considers disabled, Nunez sets out to convince the inhabitants of the country of the blind that they are missing out on a great deal because of their blindness. Despite his best efforts, however, the blind are not persuaded by his rhetoric, and Nunez, exasperated by their lack of understanding, shouts: "You don't understand...You are blind, and I can see." Broken, Nunez gives up his attempts to convince the blind of his superiority and in an interesting role reversal he himself becomes the subject of an attempt to be assimilated into the community of the blind. Convinced that all of Nunez's talk about such obvious nonsense as "sigh" and "blindness" is due to the effect of Nunez;s prominent eyes on his brain function, the community doctor proclaims: "And I think I may say with reasonable certainty that, in order t cure him completely, all that we need do is a simple and easy surgical operation -- namely, to remove these irritant bodies" -- his eyes. To which a blind elder replies: "Thank Heaven for science!"
We cannot judge them entirely based on our perspective alone. You are only seeing the things they miss, but you fail to see that which they love.
Correction to line 5: "...One-eyed man..."
Correction to line 21: "...nonsense as "...sight..."
Correction to line 22: "...Nunez's..."
Correction to line 24: "...to..."
Post a Comment