Maybe I Should Move to California

[sirs]

The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.

Yea, your mind isn't made up........no, not at all

Yes, exactly. Again, that your arguments are weak and flimsy does not mean my mind is inflexible. 

LOL.....riiiiiiight.  I reference the medical support, the functional component, and Ami even provides dictionary back-up, and there you are questioning the dictionary.  Naaaaa, no inflexibility there          Just for my curiosity, what would it take to prove to you, that it's cruel and selfish to want to make a perfectly hearing child, hearing impaired?

[Amianthus]

Ah. Now see, there is a good start for an argument. So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.

I guess if words are to have meaning, then we must agree to a definition. If anyone can just say "that word means something different to me" then all discussion will break down.

A disability is when part of your body does not work as normal. If a person cannot hear, they are disabled. They are denied the use of a sense organ that other humans have.

Whether or not they consider it a disability is irrelevant.

[Cynthia]

I doubt anyone's making that claim Xo.     

XO:
Not less human, but please, don;t tell us that Stevie Wonder is no less able a driver, please.
Rich's statement clearly reads;

 However, a handicap doesn't mean you are any less human or less able.

When, in fact it DOES mean that one is less able.

So, it seems to me that you ARE in agreement  with Rich that a human is no "less able" if said human has a handicap.

You did, afterall, salute Rich's statement with "well said".

One point in this argument that has not been addressed, as I have read so far is
THE CHILD HAS his/her OWN HUMAN RIGHTS. period. The child is NOT THE PROPERTY of the biological parent(s).  

Sure, absolutely, the child is being manipulated and blantantly mistreated if said birthmother choses anything less in terms of what is potentially available for that child. The fact that the parent gives birth does not make that parent the determiner for LIFE and all that goes along with it. There is no GOd complex rule here. Parents do not own the child. Parents do not have the right to chose for another human being. imo.
I am also reading on this thread that the child will not be able to function or work normally within the "Society".
That matters not, either. It's not about functioning within a society.
This issue (aside from the silly argument that "said who" Said I? Who said what on first base" crap) ...this issue is more about judgement from those who have already been given life without any sort of medical manipulation.

it seems to me that the bottom line here is more about the rights of the unborn child. A "being" (like Sirs is trying to say here, Prince) has certain biological points of function that makes the human FULLY 100% functioning as a being....not as something to fit in, or look good, etc. Phyically complete as complete can be.
All human beings deserve to be given what is statistically equality-----an average/normal/medically or biologically equal playing field to land his/her feet upon in this world of ours.

To have a less than perfect chance in one's starting gate is one thing. To chose to slow that process down, or change it in anyway to meet a selfish need of a human being who is capable of making such manipulative choices.....is selfish, and almost criminal, imo.


I agree with Sirs on this one.

[Cynthia]

"So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple."


The 'deaf couple" has no right to make the choice for the unborn.

Dictionaries are not going to solve this one.

This issue is more about what a couple of adults want...and why?

Who cares!

Not their life...it's the child's life.

Since the child can not speak for self......the human body speaks for child instead.

Human body denies the wishes of said couple with screwed up brains.

My god. . . this is silly.

Prince??

[Cynthia]

Ah. Now see, there is a good start for an argument. So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.

I guess if words are to have meaning, then we must agree to a definition. If anyone can just say "that word means something different to me" then all discussion will break down.

A disability is when part of your body does not work as normal. If a person cannot hear, they are disabled. They are denied the use of a sense organ that other humans have.

Whether or not they consider it a disability is irrelevant.

Whether or not they consider it a disability is irrelevant.


Right!

[Universe Prince]

I reference the medical support,

When?

and Ami even provides dictionary back-up, and there you are questioning the dictionary.

Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder. It is not so considered today. At some point, someone has to question. That you are unwilling does not mean I am wrong or inflexible for doing so.

Naaaaa, no inflexibility there

Asking challenging questions is a sign of inflexibility? I think it is not. And I'll repeat what I said before. For you to criticize me for supposedly having made up my mind is certainly a bit of a double standard.

Just for my curiosity, what would it take to prove to you, that it's cruel and selfish to want to make a perfectly hearing child, hearing impaired?

Well, if you're going to prove it, you'd have to prove there was something inherently bad about being deaf. You haven't even come remotely close to that.

[Universe Prince]

I guess if words are to have meaning, then we must agree to a definition. If anyone can just say "that word means something different to me" then all discussion will break down.

I agree. But the deaf couple is not in disagreement about the meaning of "disability". They are in disagreement that deafness is a disability.

A disability is when part of your body does not work as normal.

But for them, deafness is normal.

If a person cannot hear, they are disabled. They are denied the use of a sense organ that other humans have.

Whether or not they consider it a disability is irrelevant.

So your argument is that they are not allowed to decide if they are disabled?

[Universe Prince]

My god. . . this is silly.

Prince??

Is it silly to challenge preconceived notions?

[Religious Dick]

Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder. It is not so considered today. At some point, someone has to question. That you are unwilling does not mean I am wrong or inflexible for doing so.

Hardly the same thing. If you're a libertarian, you've probably heard of Dr. Thomas Szasz. He points out that the flaw in diagnosing mental  disorders is that there's no objective standard for quantifying them. That is, a lab technician can identify cancer from a sample of a tumor without knowing anything else about the patient. You cannot diagnose a schizophrenic or a homosexual with a lab test, a diagnoses is purely the subjective opinion of the therapist.

I don't think that problem exists in this case. Deafness can be very much be objectively diagnosed. There's no "considered" about it.

[Universe Prince]

If you're a libertarian, you've probably heard of Dr. Thomas Szasz. He points out that the flaw in diagnosing mental  disorders is that there's no objective standard for quantifying them. That is, a lab technician can identify cancer from a sample of a tumor without knowing anything else about the patient. You cannot diagnose a schizophrenic or a homosexual with a lab test, a diagnoses is purely the subjective opinion of the therapist.

I don't think that problem exists in this case. Deafness can be very much be objectively diagnosed. There's no "considered" about it.

But that is part of my point. Homosexuality is not mental illness that is subjectively diagnosed. At least, not any more it isn't. And no one is arguing that deaf people might not really be deaf. The question, at this point, is whether or not deafness is necessarily a disability. So far, Amianthus is the only one making a reasonable argument that it is. Anyway, I still say at some point someone has to question. Dr. Szasz did not reach his conclusions because he was unwilling to ask challenging questions.

[Cynthia]

My god. . . this is silly.

Prince??

Is it silly to challenge preconceived notions?

You have challenged more than preconceived notions.

You are a rep for the very parents and you don't even know them.

Your position therefore holds only a biased "notion".

But, this might be the thread of argument here....what does prince think? How does prince feel about this term, disabled.

Subjective as your posts are reading between the lines, if you are going to stand for the very truth that is the subject of this issue--the parent's "notions".....then you better be able to interview them and ask them the questions that have been presented here on this board. Don't you think that this silliness is all about your own interpretaton of a word/meaning.....Disabled, handicap and what that means to the folks at the heart of this whole thing?

If you are going to go so deep argue with determination, then you better be prepared to speak for the subjects at the center of this article/issue.

You can't unless they are your relatives/friends.

Bottom line is that you can argue till the cows give birth to quads making a double milkshake......

otherwise.....let people have their points here too.

conjectured? preconceived? ....the Notion is that you are actually taking on an attorney's role. You don't even know these people. You can't with all factual essence win on this one unless you are either their relative, friend or attorney.

This is a debate group not a court room.

I hear you challenge people here as if you are trying to get people off of death row.

Silly?
YEp, Prince....come on.

shake loose, dude.

[Cynthia]

If you're a libertarian, you've probably heard of Dr. Thomas Szasz. He points out that the flaw in diagnosing mental  disorders is that there's no objective standard for quantifying them. That is, a lab technician can identify cancer from a sample of a tumor without knowing anything else about the patient. You cannot diagnose a schizophrenic or a homosexual with a lab test, a diagnoses is purely the subjective opinion of the therapist.

I don't think that problem exists in this case. Deafness can be very much be objectively diagnosed. There's no "considered" about it.

But that is part of my point. Homosexuality is not mental illness that is subjectively diagnosed. At least, not any more it isn't. And no one is arguing that deaf people might not really be deaf. The question, at this point, is whether or not deafness is necessarily a disability. So far, Amianthus is the only one making a reasonable argument that it is. Anyway, I still say at some point someone has to question. Dr. Szasz did not reach his conclusions because he was unwilling to ask challenging questions.

"So far, Amianthus is the only one making a reasonable argument that it is. "

Oh, I see, so when Ami carefully brings in a dictionary definition, suddenly everyone elses opinions, even though they are valid as hell..matter not??

Ok, here's a word for you, Prince.

Silly.

Sure, we could have looked up the def. on deafness or disability and such....but this is a debate forum where people are alive and well, with many disabilities.....but we are not walking dictionaries.
I admire Ami's ability to find facts, but I also highly admire the other folks here on the board who have opinions that are generated from common sense.

Are we going to turn this board into a prove it with WIKI,  ENCYCLOPEDIA, ERIC ETC?

Then, we will become as disabled ----and not able to form honest thoughts and facts from experience (Sirs did that tonight, and well I might add)

Recently, my students were given a test and one of the multiple choice questions focused on whether or not the internet is a valid resource for TRUTH and FACTs.   It is NOT as valid as one might think. The answer was NO.
However, a real book or encyclopedia is more reliable.
I was, frankly, shocked to find out such "facts". I am not saying that the definition of the word Ami posted is incorrect, but we have become a venue of "**prove it with DICTIONARIES AND LINKS"**.??

This thread is diving into the surreal.

 But if the fact is--- that facts are weak on the net...then our discussions can't hold water for gold unless we meet at a round table with book in hand, and the very purity of truth under our belt buckle.


Chill and let others speak without resting your case on one definition to WIN a point. That's where I find this board stuffy. It's folks like you guys who, frankly scare away others from posting here. There are so many guests on this board...might as well call them ghosts. Why havent' we seen newbies come, stay a while,  and then -------- GO? My gosh, we can't even keep them around long enough to wink;)

Fear of not reading the dictionary? Do they have fear of running up against the likes of the "is" and the definition of "is" factor?
Give me a break.

The discussion ended way back when Sirs made his point, Prince.
I am not trying to be meanspirited here, but you are beating the death out of the horse.
NOw, you are saying that Ami, (who i might add is brilliant) is the FINAL ANSWER?

sHEESH.....this gate has to offer more. 

[Universe Prince]

You have challenged more than preconceived notions.

You are a rep for the very parents and you don't even know them.

You're making assumptions.

Subjective as your posts are reading between the lines, if you are going to stand for the very truth that is the subject of this issue--the parent's "notions"

That is not my argument.

otherwise.....let people have their points here too.

I don't recall stopping anyone.

I hear you challenge people here as if you are trying to get people off of death row.

Not at all. Just asking for more than the usual. Not sure why this is so disturbing to people.

shake loose, dude.

I thought I was.

[Cynthia]

Give it a rest, Prince.

But, then again, I love to read a good debate between you and Sirs.

He has been intrumental in posting his passion and thought into this thread, as have you, I'll agree...and as much as I disagree with him on some issues, at least he isn't quoting the Websters. . . on the WEB.  ( again , not to bash Ami) He's gifted beyond...mind you.
BUt your willingness to settle the entire debate on one set of defined lines. . . not so princely.
Not so priceless.



Clinton did that and he was shaking his finger at us all. Disgusting.

Disabilities......defined by  the dictionary. Disabled...not able to give a child the opportunities she/he deserves in life.

LIFE?..ah ---now LOOK that one up.

 Be it a fraction of a life. A full life. Well,somewhere in between there is room for the most we can be. That's not enough when there is potential for more.

Those people are robbing the child of such potentials.---thus  Criminals.
Sirs defines that as cruel. I say more like robbing of life's potential..Robbing...."Criminal"
Anyone who wants less for a human ..a human being who relies on the intelligence and maturity of such adults to offer said abilities....THEY* are disasbled ones in my eye.

[Universe Prince]

Oh, I see, so when Ami carefully brings in a dictionary definition, suddenly everyone elses opinions, even though they are valid as hell..matter not??

That is not remotely close to what I said.

Are we going to turn this board into a prove it with WIKI,  ENCYCLOPEDIA, ERIC ETC?

I don't recall suggesting anyone had to prove anything with a dictionary or an encycolpedia.

Then, we will become as disabled ----and not able to form honest thoughts and facts from experience (Sirs did that tonight, and well I might add)

I'm not sure why Sirs honest thoughts and experience outweigh the honest thoughts and experience of the deaf couple.

I am not saying that the definition of the word Ami posted is incorrect, but we have become a venue of "**prove it with DICTIONARIES AND LINKS"**.??

I don't recall demanding anyone prove anything with dictionaries and links.

This thread is diving into the surreal.

Perhaps, but that would not be my fault.

Chill and let others speak without resting your case on one definition to WIN a point.

I am.

It's folks like you guys who, frankly scare away others from posting here.

You want me to take a weak and easily swayed stance so that other people won't scared away?

Fear of not reading the dictionary? Do they have fear of running up against the likes of the "is" and the definition of "is" factor?
Give me a break.

I don't know. Do they?

The discussion ended way back when Sirs made his point, Prince.
I am not trying to be meanspirited here, but you are beating the death out of the horse.

I see. So you think I should have shut up and been silent, regardless of what I think.

NOw, you are saying that Ami, (who i might add is brilliant) is the FINAL ANSWER?

No, Cynthia, that is not what I said.

sHEESH.....this gate has to offer more.

More? I thought you were just arguing it should offer less. Or maybe just that I should offer less. I confess, I was not aware that my expectations of something better than "because I say so" arguments was a threat to newcomers, or that such was an inferior position. While I certainly see no reason to sacrifice my standards for being persuaded, I will certainly be willing to sacrifice my presence here if it is an undue burden on the Saloon. I'll step aside and let the "better" members get back to important matters without my apparently grievous comments to drag the forum down and scaring people away.