Latest post of the previous page:
Interesting idea. I'm not a parent but I would have thought that most parents want what they perceive is best for their prospective child. Within the deaf community the assumption 'deaf is bad' need not always apply.When you choose to have a child it is a selfish act anyway. This is them selfishly wanting to choose that their kid be deaf.
But I think there is a wider principle at stake here as I said. Who should determine what characteristics are desirable? the parents? the courts? the HFEA? legislation?
What counts as a disability? People with ginger hair have a higher chance of skin cancer so if I have two embryos, one ginger, do I go for the one with the lower risk? If I can find an IQ gene how could I allow an embryo with an IQ potential of 90 to be born rather than one with an IQ potential of 150?
Forgive the facetious examples but I do have concerns with a 'slippery slope' argument.
As a humanist I believe that all human life has value. Our genetic diversity is to be celebrated. Not only from the the point of view of genomic utility (variable resistance to disease, use as an evolutionary engine etc) but also in out shared ethic. The fact that you can do something that I can't and I can do something that you can't increases out interdependence on each other and that increases our chance of behaving towards one another in a mutually beneficial way.
We are lucky that we live in a time when technology can redefine the boarders of disability.
The assumptions of normal should be challenged! That is what this couple are doing.
Viv la difference.