Maybe I Should Move to California

[Universe Prince]

And for the record, that we've moved from same-sex marriage to deafness as disability or not is one of the stranger thread turns I've seen in my years with this group. Including the PIC days.

[Universe Prince]

and to want to impart a disabililty on a child is simply cruel

If we get to the point where disabilities can detected and fixed in the womb, is a parent then cruel not to have them fixed if found? Negligent if not having a doctor look for them? And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?

[sirs]

So, it's a disability because you consider hearing a normal bodily sense, and normal is good while not normal is a disability. Basically, because you say so.

No, because science says so.  Having all 10 fingers is normal.  Having all your senses functioning is normal.  Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal.  Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.  Not because I say so, but because that's the body's say so.  And for someone to WANT less for their child than the most optimally funtioning body is absolutely cruel.  Your train of thought is why can't someone want a child with Down's syndrome?  As long as the parent doesn't think it's a disability, it isn't, right?  How about wanting a child with Spina Bifida?  Muscular Dystrophy?  I mean, if the parent doesn't think anything is wrong......then there isn't, right?

Now, before that gets twisted, if a person were to give birth to a deaf child or a child with any kind of disability, that's entirely different, and the child would be loved regardless of their disability, just as much as if they were perfectly healthy.  But to want a disability for a child is far beyond selfish & cruel, in my book. 

Perhaps they have a different idea about what constitutes "normal".

Perhaps their idea of "normal", has been distorted by their disability.  It makes perfect sense, because to a person born with a disability, that's "normal" to them

[sirs]

and to want to impart a disabililty on a child is simply cruel

If we get to the point where disabilities can detected and fixed in the womb, is a parent then cruel not to have them fixed if found? Negligent if not having a doctor look for them?

Depends on the risk of the procedure, to both the child and mother.  also depends on what kind of procedures are being employed to look for disabilities, and the risk such procedures also have on both mother & child

And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?

Since there is no scientific proof of such a "disposition" that question is largely moot, and completely speculative

[Plane]

and to want to impart a disabililty on a child is simply cruel

And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?

Why wait for that?

What would be wrong with causeing the Child to be homosexual?

If theere is a genetic predisposition , then the genetic marker can be implanted or simulated with medications.

[Universe Prince]

No, because science says so.  Having all 10 fingers is normal.  Having all your senses functioning is normal.  Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal.  Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.

So someone without an appendix is disabled?

Your train of thought is why can't someone want a child with Down's syndrome?

Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing.

Deafness is not crippling, debilitating or disfiguring. I believe I mentioned that.

Perhaps their idea of "normal", has been distorted by their disability.  It makes perfect sense, because to a person born with a disability, that's "normal" to them

Which takes me back to the "because you say so". To you hearing is normal, so therefore their opinion must be distorted.

[Universe Prince]

If we get to the point where disabilities can detected and fixed in the womb, is a parent then cruel not to have them fixed if found? Negligent if not having a doctor look for them?

Depends on the risk of the procedure, to both the child and mother.  also depends on what kind of procedures are being employed to look for disabilities, and the risk such procedures also have on both mother & child

That doesn't answer the question. Obviously, if there was a major risk involved for mother and/or child the question would be pointless. Sheesh. So if we get to the point where disabilities can detected and fixed in the womb, in a manner completely safe for the mother and the child and the doctor and the nurse and the mother of the friend of the person who works in the flower shop downstairs, is a parent then cruel not to have them fixed if found? Negligent if not having a doctor look for them?

And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?

Since there is no scientific proof of such a "disposition" that question is largely moot, and completely speculative

Actually, it's merely hypothetical.

[Universe Prince]

And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?

Why wait for that?

What would be wrong with causeing the Child to be homosexual?

If theere is a genetic predisposition , then the genetic marker can be implanted or simulated with medications.

You did not answer the question. Try starting with answering the question.

[Universe Prince]

No, because science says so.  Having all 10 fingers is normal.  Having all your senses functioning is normal.  Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal.  Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.

So someone without an appendix is disabled?

For that matter, what about someone who has had his tonsils removed?

[sirs]

No, because science says so.  Having all 10 fingers is normal.  Having all your senses functioning is normal.  Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal.  Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.

So someone without an appendix is disabled?

For that matter, what about someone who has had his tonsils removed?

Those procedures were done not because the parent or person for that matter didn't want them, it was because there was serious risk to the person if they weren't removed. 

Weak, Prince

[Universe Prince]

Those procedures were done not because the parent or person for that matter didn't want them, it was because there was serious risk to the person if they weren't removed. 

Weak, Prince

You're both missing the point and not answering the question. The question was not whether or not removing an appendix or tonsils was advisable. The question is do you consider someone without tonsils and/or an appendix disabled. This is not a hard question.

And you still haven't answered the previous question either. It too was not difficult.

[sirs]

Probably because you didn't like the answer, or that it didn't fit your predisposition of what is, is supposed to be.  Point remains that removing functional senses from a child, that would better their ability to work within our enviroment, simply because someone doesn't believe its not a handicap, is indeed unusally cruel

[Universe Prince]

Probably because you didn't like the answer, or that it didn't fit your predisposition of what is, is supposed to be.

No. And no, it has nothing to do with the definition of "is" or any other word except perhaps the word "answer". Because you did not actually answer the questions. Yes, you replied, but your replies in no way answer the questions. Let me put this another way. The questions were basically yes or no questions and at no point in your replies to the questions did you provide any form of a yes or a no. So, in point of fact, you did not answer the questions.

And obviously, you're not going to answer them, or you wouldn't have started in with the "you didn't like the answer" bit. And since I am apparently supposed to take your say so as the truth, but I'm unwilling to do so, there is no point in continuing. We're done.

[sirs]

Being that I've been argueing from the side of science and functional abilites, and you've been argueing from the perception of a disabled person believing they're not disabled, because they say so, I'd say we've been done for a long time

[Universe Prince]

Being that I've been argueing from the side of science and functional abilites,

Have you? Mostly you've argued that you say so. Hearing is good, you say, so not having hearing and not being 100% functioning, is disabled. Why, because you say so. When challenged, you evaded, you ducked, but you did not provide scientific answers of any sort.

and you've been argueing from the perception of a disabled person believing they're not disabled, because they say so,

No, I've been arguing that it isn't a disability just because you or Plane say it is. You say it is. The deaf couple says it isn't. I ask, why should I believe you? And all you can muster is, basically, because you know it is. That is not good enough.