A doozie of a moral conundrum

I actually find this British debate over what is and is not allowed when performing IVF to be fascinating. This seems one of the first real-world examples of what has traditionally been merely an amusing topic for the philosophically inclined over cups of chai.

The issue is this: a deaf couple wants to ensure, via IVF, that their next child is also deaf. The question is simple: should that be allowed?

Seems simple. The more you think about it, though, the more your brain gets tied in knots. Shouldn't a couple be able to control their ability to reproduce? Does it really matter whether they use scientific tools to more carefully control the nature of their child? Aren't they already doing that just by using IVF in the first place? Why shouldn't they be able to manipulate specific features of the embryo? Wouldn't you want to be able to ensure your child is healthy? Is ensuring your child is deaf, if you think deafness is important for the child, no different?

And yet, it's different. I'm sorry, but deafness is a disability. It's great that the deaf community has found energy and power in their disability by embracing it rather than let it impair them, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a disability. The anatomy of human beings is structured to allow hearing. If the sense of hearing doesn't work, that's a malfunction. And it seems wrong to intentionally damage a child in that way from the get-go. Would we let a parents ask a doctor to sever aural nerves? Fuck no. That would be child abuse. How is this any different?

If they are proud of deaf culture, fine. Physically disabling a child in order to force it to have to participate in that culture is wrong. If it's that important, the child gets to hear by default. When it reaches an age where it's capable of consent, it can choose to become deaf if it really wants to.

And that's what I think about that.