[In 2002,] a deaf female couple... used sperm from a donor with a family history of deafness to conceive and give birth to a hearing-disabled son; they explained that they wanted the baby to be deaf like themselves and their older child. This past December the London Times wrote on controversial genetic-screening legislation then making its way through the UK's House of Lords. As drafted, the law would bar parents from using screening to deliberately select an embryo with a disability. The chairperson of the British Deaf Association said, "If hearing and other people are allowed to choose embryos that will be 'like them,' sharing the same characteristics, language and culture, then we believe that deaf people should have the same right."Chuck Shepherd, Chicago Reader, 1/24/08 p. 99.
One, whatever happened to the practice of adopting? I know it's expensive and a red-tape nightmare, but we should work on that system, instead of artificially creating babies when too many that are alive already are neglected (and yes, my wife and I have talked about the possibility of adopting. It's not a yet, but it is an open door that we've been considering).
Two, I know, understand and sympathize that many hearing-impaired have built a large and tight-knit community amongst themselves. I'm not against that preference - although I believe that we could all benefit from more positive interaction and integration with all types of people. What I find troubling is this belief that we should choose a deficit (and I'm sorry, it is a deficit. Just like my severe near-sightedness) for a baby in order to make it a part of your family.
As a limited metaphor, my baby is MUCH more attractive than I am or ever was. I would never think of uglifying her to make her more relatable to me.
Now, for a good politically-correct idea, how about No Name-Calling Week? (h/t to YPulse)
*Cheap joke, I know. Sorry.