mickeyfan2
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
I would not do this either to get a defect or a perfect child. I prefer to let nature do the picking.
I would like to see Little People/Big World touch on the difficulties that Matt and Amy might or might not have had with their three average height children as babies and toddlers. FWIW, I think the Roloff kids all look like their parents, just not in height.rhiannonwales said:The ONLY (and i am saying this VERY figuratively) reason that i can see a dwarf wanting a child who was a dwarf would simply be physics: Can you imagine trying to carry a 30 lb. toddler when you are only a little larger? At 2 a toddler cannot be trusted to walk everywhere on their own, but it might be physically challenging for a little person to do what we do without thinking: pick the kid up. IT would also get difficult for said parent to restrain a child who is out of control as all kids are at some point or another. In blended marriages, where one parent is "normal" (i hate saying that) this would be less of an issue, but if both parents are little people then i could see a real and genuine concern.
However the person in the article has said none of those reasons.I find her reasoning a little elitist and frightening.
brasswillow said:I know very little about the dwarf community, but I do know that the deaf community has a rich history and strong culture. I'm not sure I could support a couple choosing if their child was deaf or hearing, but I don't think I could look down upon someone who does. What's to prevent a couple with a "disability" from selecting a child that is "normal," within their parent's community that child would be different, but no one in the mainstream world would look down upon them then.
mickeyfan2 said:I would not do this either to get a defect or a perfect child. I prefer to let nature do the picking.
cardaway said:Why not a perfect one? If we can get to the point where we can insure there will not be babies born without genetic defects, why not do just that? Why should we allow kids to be born with terrible things that could have been prevented?
BTW: I'm not talking making sure they are a boy, or have blonde hair, I'm talking about eliminating some birth defects.
mrsltg said:Not being able to hear is dangerous.
brasswillow said:Why is it dangerous?
Some people believe they have a sixth sense, does that mean that people who dont are disabled. Or if your sense of smell is weak, or, as mentioned in the article, you need glasses, is that dangerous, is there something wrong with you?
There is a standard of normal that doesnt leave room for the differences that people have.
If I had the ability of passing on a know birth defect I would just choose to adopt. I would not abort an "imperfect" baby. So for me nature is the only way.cardaway said:Why not a perfect one? If we can get to the point where we can insure there will not be babies born without genetic defects, why not do just that? Why should we allow kids to be born with terrible things that could have been prevented?
BTW: I'm not talking making sure they are a boy, or have blonde hair, I'm talking about eliminating some birth defects.
How do you know that for sure? You don't.People assume that humanity is in its permanent state, but who's to say that we arent still evolving?Normal is having five senses. There is a standard. It's not necessarily bad to be abnormal and clearly people find ways of coping with various abnormalities, but they are abnormalities.
Have you ever known a hearing impaired person? They can feel the vibrations that are so small we tend to ignore them - they probably could sense a lot of the things you mention. And being a hearing person is no guarantee that we would hear any of those things - if your radio is too loud, or a truck passes by you might miss any of those things. I think that no one should say that they represent "normality" since normality is a subjective thing. What is normal to you is completley alien to someone else with different experiences.Let's see the ability to hear a fire alarm, an intruder in your home, a crying baby, a car behind you, a person coming behind you, inability to communicate a problem to a policeman or fireman or doctor, the list goes on and on.
Just about every single human being has the ability to pass on some kind of defect.If I had the ability of passing on a know birth defect I would just choose to adopt.
mrsltg said:Let's see the ability to hear a fire alarm, an intruder in your home, a crying baby, a car behind you, a person coming behind you, inability to communicate a problem to a policeman or fireman or doctor, the list goes on and on. Your sense of taste is not nearly as important as your ability to hear, feel, and see. Needing to wear glasses is a correction of a disability - not wearing the needed glasses would be dangerous.
Normal is having five senses. There is a standard. It's not necessarily bad to be abnormal and clearly people find ways of coping with various abnormalities, but they are abnormalities.
mrsltg said:I don't think it could be done short of aborting all "imperfect" fetuses. Some things go wrong during development regardless of whether or not everything was fine to begin with.
I am talking about ones that would severly hurt the child's life for ability to become an adult. Having a kid born who would wear glasses is not a problem, but having the ability to pass on a gene to have s child born with a defect that will end their life by 3 (for example) would prevent me from having a child.rhiannonwales said:Just about every single human being has the ability to pass on some kind of defect.
Should we all live in GATTACA where all couple who want kids should be genetically screened to make sure they are acceptable for reproduction??
mickeyfan2 said:What imperfections should we allow? I wear glasses but function fine all day long. Should only babies with perfect eye sight be allowed to be born?