Couples Argument For Deafness

Title When Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough decided they wanted to have a child, they made the decision that they would like to have a child that was deaf. This was because both Sharon and Candy were deaf, along with their first child, and they wanted to be able to raise their second child, and not have him or her feel isolated from the rest of the family. The issue was, when they went to a sperm bank and asked for a deaf donor, the officials said that deafness is just the type of condition that will cause a sperm donor to be turned away (Spriggs). After news of the couples plan spread, many people said that purposefully having a deaf child was wrong, but the couple completely defended their choice saying it was morally justified. A reconstruction of couples argument for justification starts with the first premise that, if it is wrong to purposefully have a

But in my opinion the best response would be to say that the disabilities that deaf people face, with the exception of ones cause by society, are very unimportant and don’t really effect the day to day life of the average person. I had trouble even making examples, as many disabilities associated with deafness, when actually analyzed, are really just caused by society not being accommodating. Deafness is less of a disability and more of another culture that isn't as understood or thought of. Therefore, the couples choice to create a deaf child is only wrong because of the harms that society puts on deaf people. After looking at both sides of the argument, I can genuinely say that I have changed my opinion. Originally I thought the parents were just cruel and wrong to purposefully make a child who was deaf, I sincerely thought there were many more disabilities a deaf person would deal with in life. But after careful thought, I agree with the parents that it is morally justified for them to at least try to have a child that will be born deaf