Tuesday, December 1, 2009

A quick ethical puzzle

I've been pretty busy lately with grading and such, so here's a quick ethical puzzle for you to chew over. 

Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough aren't you're average couple, both are deaf, and obviously they are gay.  But they wanted a child anyways, so they actively sought out a sperm donor to help them conceive a child.  However, they also wanted their child to be deaf, so that their child would be able to experience the rich culture that deaf culture provides them. 

There is lots of anecdotal evidence that suggests that hearing children of deaf couples tend not to be able to relate as well to their parents as deaf children to deaf parents, since they can experience the world in a way that their parents can't, and consequently don't share the same unifying experiences of the deaf community. 

On the other hand, these women are actively bringing about a child with a disability (is deafness a disability?  Some argue that it isn't).  Is this any more responsible than actively drinking during a pregnancy to get a baby with Fetal alcohol syndrome, because they really like children with FAS?

I'd love to hear what you guys think, so please comment!!

1 comment:

  1. The deaf community is fairly exclusive. Hearing people are not really welcome. Would it be wrong for someone who lives in a racist community to make sure that their sperm donor was the same color? Non-hearing people have more trouble finding jobs and often make less money when they do, but the same can be said for any minority. I have heard relatively intelligent people argue that dark skin pigmentation reduces the absorbtion (synthesis)of vitamin D which can cause developmental problems in colder climates. Does this mean it is immoral for black people to procreate in San Fancisco? Selecting a breeding partner according to desireable traits is a perfectly natural act, poisoning or mutilating a child for personal reasons is something else entirely.