Leaving aside my own beliefs
and approaching it from objectors view points, their main problem is that potentially there could be no restrictions. An example I've heard is that of a deaf couple who want their baby to be born deaf. Obviously those are extremes, but people who partake in these debates don't generally want reasoned opposition and it's all part and parcel in their mind
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:34, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

Yep: the deaf couple case is frequently touted.
They were lesbian, and wanted IVF using sperm from a genetically deaf father to maximise the chances of having a deaf child.

That's fine by me.

(Look at it this way: they could have had sex with him and conceived a deaf child naturally. Unless you're willing to say that genetically deaf people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce with other genetically deaf people, it's hard to see what the objection could be. The future child won't be harmed, since this arrangement of this sperm and this egg is the only chance it has of coming to exist to begin with.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:16, Reply)

I think
that consciously trying to have a deaf child is more than a mite selfish on the part of the prospective parents. It's not a million miles away from deliberately trying to have a Downs baby - why the fuck would you WANT your child to be missing a sense?
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:25, Reply)

They had several reasons.
I happen to think they weren't strong, but they weren't insane either; and since noone was harmed by being created deaf - since the alternative was not to be created at all - where's the problem?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:06, Reply)