Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lesbians: We Made Our Baby Deaf on Purpose [we've reached the bottom of the slippery slope]
This Is London ^ | 4-8-2002 | James Langton

Posted on 04/08/2002 11:29:29 AM PDT by Notwithstanding


News
  Lesbians: We made our baby deaf on purpose

by James Langton in New York

A deaf lesbian couple have admitted deliberately creating what are believed to be the world's first designer handicapped babies.

The two women tracked down a deaf sperm donor to ensure that their daughter, who is now five, would inherit the same inherited hearing disabilty that they both share.

The couple were so pleased with the result that they have just had a second child, called Gauvin, using the same technique. Doctors who examined the boy say he is completely deaf in one ear and has only partial hearing in the other.

In an interview with the Washington Post, the women - Sharon Duchesneau, who gave birth, and Candace McCullough, her lesbian lover - say that they believe deafness is "an identity not a medical affliction that needs to be fixed".

They were so desperate to have children who share their handicap that the women asked their local sperm bank to provide a deaf donor, but were told congential hearing loss immediately disqualifies candidates.

Instead they turned to a deaf male friend for help, producing what they call their first "perfect baby" - their five-year-old daughter Jehanne. Before their son was born, the women said: "A hearing baby would be a blessing; a deaf baby would be a special blessing.''

Both women, who are in their mid thirties, belong to a radical school of thought that believes deafness is a "cultural identity" not a handicap.

They want their children to share the same "experiences" including learning, sign language and going to special schools for the deaf.

They also consulted a "genetic counsellor" before getting pregnant who told them that with Miss Duchesneau's background, that includes four generations of deafness on her mother's side, any child conceived with a deaf sperm donor would have a 50 per cent chance of having the same handicap.

After their daughter's first hearing test, the couple wrote happily in her baby book: "Oct 11, 1996 - no response at 95 decibels - DEAF!'' Their daughter attends a special kindergarten for children with hearing problems.

After tests on their baby son showed he also had severe problems, they decided against giving him a deaf aid in the one ear that still has some hearing, saying they will leave the decision to him when he is older.

The couple's behaviour has appalled children's rights groups in the United States. The conservative Family Research Council said their decision to "intentionally give a child a disability" was "incredibly selfish".

The council's spokesman, Fred Connor, said: "These women are taking the idea of creating so-called designer babies to a horrible new level.''

Even a leading member of the American National Association for the Deaf, Nancy Rarus, said she "can't understand why anyone would want to bring a disabled child into the world".


Email this article to a friend</ a>


© Associated Newspapers Ltd., 08 April 2002
Terms and Conditions
This Is London

 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Free Republic; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cultureofdeath; deaf; homosexual; homosexualagenda; sasu; socalledlesbian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-213 next last

1 posted on 04/08/2002 11:29:29 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I think this is sick!


2 posted on 04/08/2002 11:32:38 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Absolutely sickening.
3 posted on 04/08/2002 11:33:10 AM PDT by zoso82t
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I think they should pay for all the special schooling and grants and rehabs their child will need instead of the taxpayers. Those services are for people, who through no fault of their own, need a helping hand, not for someone who was delibrately created so with the knowledge that everybody else will have to pay for their problem.
4 posted on 04/08/2002 11:34:03 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
There isn't a place in Hell hot enough... Joseph Mengele would be proud.
5 posted on 04/08/2002 11:34:14 AM PDT by WALLACE212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
These bull-dykes should be shot. What the hell are they thinking?

Designer children, the end of life as we know it.

EBUCK

6 posted on 04/08/2002 11:34:57 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
God Damned, evil, sick, twisted, immoral, degenerate......I don't have the words to express my disgust!
7 posted on 04/08/2002 11:35:15 AM PDT by Hitlerys uterus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

What is new. Dr.Mengele would be proud of this duo.

Why is it that homosexuals can get away with experiments on humans, is beyond my comprehension. America is looking more and more like the nation of cults screaming for evil recognition, identity and entitlements, as in Roman of old.

8 posted on 04/08/2002 11:35:44 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
They’re trying to make a baby deaf? And, they’re trying to make a baby “gay” too. Child abuse times two!
9 posted on 04/08/2002 11:36:09 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patent; father_elijah; dr. brian kopp; lady doc; ladydoc
Please ping far and wide. Everyone shouldhave this factoid in their arsenal when unfairly accused of pointing to a slippery slope.
10 posted on 04/08/2002 11:37:47 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
If the kid grows up and assaults these two monsters, I will rush to her defense. What's the difference between this and severing a leg in utero? These two dykes can take solace in one last, fitting irony: no one will hear their screams in Hell.
11 posted on 04/08/2002 11:38:16 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
After tests on their baby son showed he also had severe problems, they decided against giving him a deaf aid in the one ear that still has some hearing, saying they will leave the decision to him when he is older.

That's grounds for taking this little boy away from these witches, imho.

12 posted on 04/08/2002 11:39:46 AM PDT by vikingchick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Tie their tubes, and take their tots!
13 posted on 04/08/2002 11:41:26 AM PDT by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
In an interview with the Washington Post, the women - Sharon Duchesneau, who gave birth, and Candace McCullough, her lesbian lover - say that they believe deafness is "an identity not a medical affliction that needs to be fixed".

Wonder what she thinks of stupidity?

While I see no reason to be upset that this couple would want to "bring a handicapped child into the world" (the alternative raises the specter of eugenics) I do see a reason to be upset that this couple would deliberately attempt to handicap a child. If two deaf people (of the opposite sex) want a child, and the child will have a 50% or greater chance of being deaf, then I have no problem. But this case is not that case.

Shalom.

14 posted on 04/08/2002 11:41:38 AM PDT by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
This is f^&*ing disgusting.
15 posted on 04/08/2002 11:42:01 AM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
After their daughter's first hearing test, the couple wrote happily in her baby book: "Oct 11, 1996 - no response at 95 decibels - DEAF!'' Their daughter attends a special kindergarten for children with hearing problems.

Anyone else besides me having a mental image of this child in a lawyer's office in about 15 years?

16 posted on 04/08/2002 11:42:24 AM PDT by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
This is perhaps the most disturbing post I've read on FR.
17 posted on 04/08/2002 11:42:30 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
call me crazy here, but shooting these two misguided fools leaves the world with 2 deaf orphans and you in jail. Lets please think before we post such reactionary nonsense
18 posted on 04/08/2002 11:43:37 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
What a couple of MORONS! Just proves that the Dyke gene replaces the common sense gene!
19 posted on 04/08/2002 11:44:32 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Even a leading member of the American National Association for the Deaf, Nancy Rarus, said she "can't understand why anyone would want to bring a disabled child into the world".

I would hope that Ms. Rarus's statement was taken out of context, and that she was not talking, in general, about aborting children that might be born with a disability, but instead talking about someone deliberately trying to create a disabled child.

20 posted on 04/08/2002 11:44:50 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-213 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson