Excellent Debate....
Shahib Shahab's posting on diversity has sparked an interesting debate. For those of you who haven't been keeping up, I've included an excerpt below. If you've got an opinion on the subject, click on the "Comments" section of Shahib's original post and join in!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Shahib's essay, "Truly embracing the beauty of diversity", Neal said....
I think it's important to note that the main reason cited in the article for parents making this choice was that the parents themselves were born with the genetic trait in question and wanted their children to be born with the same traits. As the article notes, "many parents share a touching faith that having children similar to them will strengthen family and social bonds." So with this fact in mind, I wonder whether this is truly an example of diversity being embraced. Isn't this more similar to people deciding to marry within their own race or ethnicity in the hopes that their children will carry on that tradition? Does attempting to guarantee that your children will be similar to you, even by going to such lengths are intentionally causing genetic abnormalities, show a real acceptance of diversity?I do share the author's sentiments on the importance of diversity and the fact that what makes someone different is often what defines their life and gives it deeper meaning. However, I question whether the choices made my the parents in this article are in fact a reflection of their understanding and acceptance of diversity. I think that a more genuine respect for diversity would be shown by these parents if they were to accept their children however they may be given to them by nature, whether they are similar to themselves or not.
December 6, 2006 7:43:00 AM PST
Jason Falls said...
Call me old-fashioned, non-enlightened, or maybe this is the one area of my life where conservativism shines through, but I see no value or purpose in genetically engineering a process that should only be handled and manipulated by God himself. Of course, I would also never dye my hair, pierce myself or get a tattoo. I don't condemn others for their choice in doing so, but it's not my cup of tea.Intentionally inflicting a disability on another human being is paramount to taking a sledge hammer to their knees after birth in my mind. I am a father and I can't fathom anyone -- afflicted or not -- wishing genetic deficiencies (should they add to the diversity of our world or not) upon their children.The only solice I can take from this is that the parents will be prepared to deal with the adversity they've caused in their choice. I only hope they are also prepared to look into their grown child's eyes one day and answer the question, "Why did you do this to me?"
December 6, 2006 10:06:00 AM PST
Shahib Shahab said...
Neal & Jason,I want to thank you both for your sincere and thoughtful response to my posting. And Neal, I think your response was right on point. I agree with you that if a parents' primary motivation in choosing a child with a genetic defect is solely to “raise a child like them,” then no diversity interest has been served. For example, suppose a dwarf parent was uncomfortable with the idea of raising a child of average-height, and instead choose to implant in her child a genetic defect causing the child also to be a dwarf. I completely agree with you that the parent's motivation here serves no diversity interest. In fact, the parent’s actions seem to be motivated by nothing more than selfishness - wanting a child like them so that they may avoid the difficulties of raising an average-height child. This hardly serves a legitimate commitment to embracing diversity. So, in that regard, I completely agree with you.But would you agree with me that parents might also be motivated by other desires? For example, by the desire to give their children a unique experience? A character-building experience? An experience that will mold and shape their core? I posit that these are also motivations that prompt parents to make such decisions, and that these motivations may in fact serve legitimate diversity interests.For example, many parents go to great lengths to ensure that their children lead rich lives that expose them to the beauty of diversity. They move to cities where blacks, whites, Indians, Africans, Caribbeans, etc. live among one another. They live in neighborhoods where ethnic eateries are widely available. They enroll their children in schools where they can take Spanish and Japanese. And WHY? All for the purpose of giving their children a diverse range of experiences intended to mold them into intelligent, compassionate, tolerant people who likewise appreciate diversity.But, some might argue, “giving a child lessons in Japanese is a far cry from making them deaf! One is an external opportunity, the other a permanent trait imposed upon the child.” Well, not really.
With surgery both dwarfism and deafness can be corrected (cochlear implants and leg-lengthening procedures, should the child so choose).But still, some might argue, “With those other things, at least children have a choice about what extra-curricular activity (ballet or banjo) they want to embrace, but by imposing a genetic defect, you are forcing the choice upon them!” Okay, good point, but don’t millions of people already do this? The black woman who chooses to marry the white man. Aren’t they imposing a life-long, irreversible identity upon their child? Some might likewise argue that this is an unfortunate situation in which to place a child, but think of the richness of that child’s experience. Being raised with an appreciation for county music and collard greens! (smile) Being able to approach a racially-sensitive issue with sympathy for and an understanding of both sides of the issue.In my mind, it’s all about education. We offer our children a range of educational experiences intended to mold them into people who appreciate diversity (in music, in language, in food, in cultures, in life). Is it really so absurd to extend this educational lesson to their bodies? To their physical abilities? We have the potential to teach them invaluable lessons this way – what it feels like to be looked upon with pity; what it feels like to be rejected by a society that refuses to make reasonable accommodations for your hearing limitation; AND what it feels like to be completely loved and adored and accepted by someone in spite or (or because of) your limitation. These are priceless lessons.
Sometimes painful lessons, but priceless nonetheless.That said, Jason, my thoughts here are really for the sake of argument. Like I said before, I can't say that I would be comfortable doing as these parents have done. In fact, I SERIOUSLY doubt that I would. But to me, it's more important to understand WHY these parents have made this decision. I think I do, in part, understand their choice, and I've tried to articulate the rationale. Jason, and Neal, I really would like to hear your response and appreciate your thoughtfulness!
December 6, 2006 11:14:00 AM PST
Jason Falls said...
All well-said and put. The only response to your follow up is this: "The black woman who chooses to marry the white man. Aren’t they imposing a life-long, irreversible identity upon their child?" --- Being black or white or racially mixed is not, in my opinion, a genetic deficiency. To say it is simply extolls the notion that the races shouldn't mix.Granted, in an ideal world the race of two people sharing a life or child together should not matter, and we do not live in an ideal world. However, should that prevent us from believing that racial mixture is a perfectly acceptable, even beautiful, by-product of an open-minded society where love happens beteen two people for whatever reason and we accept that?Choosing to dial up a genetic disorder on your child is equal to drinking or smoking or doing crack while pregnant, in my opinion. You are knowingly causing physical, mental or emotional harm to your child.Choosing to have a child with a black, white, red or yellow person isn't. While emotional stress of a not-always-accepting society may result for the offspring, it isn't the intent of the parents to produce that when conceiving the child.Oh -- and as to the notion of providing the child with a character-building experience -- sorry for the smartalek tone of this, but send them to summer camp or make them volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don't give them down's syndrome.
December 6, 2006 12:13:00 PM PST
Neal said...
Shahib said "But would you agree with me that parents might also be motivated by other desires? For example, by the desire to give their children a unique experience? A character-building experience? An experience that will mold and shape their core? I posit that these are also motivations that prompt parents to make such decisions, and that these motivations may in fact serve legitimate diversity interests."Yes. I do agree that parents may be and often are motivated by these interests. And I agree that these are important interests. I guess what I think it comes down to is a cost-benefit analysis. An interracial couple, I am sure, thinks about the fact that perhaps their child will be subject to more hardship than other children. This is a cost. But they decide, either consciously or subconsciously, that their love for each other, their morals, their desire to raise a child, and, as you point out, the benefits of being "different" all outweight that cost. I think that may be why you see more interracial couples raising children now than you saw in the past--the cost of being interracial (at least in our society) has decreased. And rightfully so.In this case, I think we are talking about what most would agree (and I think you and I agree) is an incorrect cost-benefit analysis. Yes, there is a benefit to being different--but at the high cost of a severe physical disability? I don't think that analysis works out for me.I do genuinely appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this topic. I hope I'm contributing in a constructive way.
December 6, 2006 12:30:00 PM PST
Shahib Shahab said...
Neal said: "Yes, there is a benefit to being different--but at the high cost of a severe physical disability?" Neal, I appreicate your cost-benefit analysis. (Are you, by chance, an accountant or computer programmer? (Smile) Jason said: "Send them to summer camp or make them volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don't give them down's syndrome."Based on both your comments, I think I must have given the wrong impression as to the types of genetic defects that parents are choosing to give their children. I may be wrong, but I don't recall reading that any of the parents in the original article had chosen to give their children down-syndrome or a severe physical disability accompanied by serious health risks. No, the parents interviewed had chosen deafness and shortness. My comments are likewise limited to those two traits. So, working from that point of reference ...What I hear in Neal's comments about cost-benefit analysis and in Jason's comments is a belief that a disability (being deaf or being a short person) is an unfortunate and pitiable things. HERE, I believe, is where our fundamental difference lies. I do not believe that living without the ability to hear or to be of average height is a pitiable thing. Downsyndrome and any other genetic disease causing severe physical limitations = Yes, a pitiable thing for the pain and suffering and shortened life expectancy caused. (A '97 study found that roughly 12% of babies with DS die from heart complications at birth) But being deaf or short = Not a pitiable thing.Shortness and deafness are DIFFERENT experiences, but not necessarily LESSER or PITIABLE experiences.Both of you made many more valid points, but why don't we begin our conversation from there. Would you agree with this last point?
December 6, 2006 1:48:00 PM PST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Shahib's essay, "Truly embracing the beauty of diversity", Neal said....
I think it's important to note that the main reason cited in the article for parents making this choice was that the parents themselves were born with the genetic trait in question and wanted their children to be born with the same traits. As the article notes, "many parents share a touching faith that having children similar to them will strengthen family and social bonds." So with this fact in mind, I wonder whether this is truly an example of diversity being embraced. Isn't this more similar to people deciding to marry within their own race or ethnicity in the hopes that their children will carry on that tradition? Does attempting to guarantee that your children will be similar to you, even by going to such lengths are intentionally causing genetic abnormalities, show a real acceptance of diversity?I do share the author's sentiments on the importance of diversity and the fact that what makes someone different is often what defines their life and gives it deeper meaning. However, I question whether the choices made my the parents in this article are in fact a reflection of their understanding and acceptance of diversity. I think that a more genuine respect for diversity would be shown by these parents if they were to accept their children however they may be given to them by nature, whether they are similar to themselves or not.
December 6, 2006 7:43:00 AM PST
Jason Falls said...
Call me old-fashioned, non-enlightened, or maybe this is the one area of my life where conservativism shines through, but I see no value or purpose in genetically engineering a process that should only be handled and manipulated by God himself. Of course, I would also never dye my hair, pierce myself or get a tattoo. I don't condemn others for their choice in doing so, but it's not my cup of tea.Intentionally inflicting a disability on another human being is paramount to taking a sledge hammer to their knees after birth in my mind. I am a father and I can't fathom anyone -- afflicted or not -- wishing genetic deficiencies (should they add to the diversity of our world or not) upon their children.The only solice I can take from this is that the parents will be prepared to deal with the adversity they've caused in their choice. I only hope they are also prepared to look into their grown child's eyes one day and answer the question, "Why did you do this to me?"
December 6, 2006 10:06:00 AM PST
Shahib Shahab said...
Neal & Jason,I want to thank you both for your sincere and thoughtful response to my posting. And Neal, I think your response was right on point. I agree with you that if a parents' primary motivation in choosing a child with a genetic defect is solely to “raise a child like them,” then no diversity interest has been served. For example, suppose a dwarf parent was uncomfortable with the idea of raising a child of average-height, and instead choose to implant in her child a genetic defect causing the child also to be a dwarf. I completely agree with you that the parent's motivation here serves no diversity interest. In fact, the parent’s actions seem to be motivated by nothing more than selfishness - wanting a child like them so that they may avoid the difficulties of raising an average-height child. This hardly serves a legitimate commitment to embracing diversity. So, in that regard, I completely agree with you.But would you agree with me that parents might also be motivated by other desires? For example, by the desire to give their children a unique experience? A character-building experience? An experience that will mold and shape their core? I posit that these are also motivations that prompt parents to make such decisions, and that these motivations may in fact serve legitimate diversity interests.For example, many parents go to great lengths to ensure that their children lead rich lives that expose them to the beauty of diversity. They move to cities where blacks, whites, Indians, Africans, Caribbeans, etc. live among one another. They live in neighborhoods where ethnic eateries are widely available. They enroll their children in schools where they can take Spanish and Japanese. And WHY? All for the purpose of giving their children a diverse range of experiences intended to mold them into intelligent, compassionate, tolerant people who likewise appreciate diversity.But, some might argue, “giving a child lessons in Japanese is a far cry from making them deaf! One is an external opportunity, the other a permanent trait imposed upon the child.” Well, not really.
With surgery both dwarfism and deafness can be corrected (cochlear implants and leg-lengthening procedures, should the child so choose).But still, some might argue, “With those other things, at least children have a choice about what extra-curricular activity (ballet or banjo) they want to embrace, but by imposing a genetic defect, you are forcing the choice upon them!” Okay, good point, but don’t millions of people already do this? The black woman who chooses to marry the white man. Aren’t they imposing a life-long, irreversible identity upon their child? Some might likewise argue that this is an unfortunate situation in which to place a child, but think of the richness of that child’s experience. Being raised with an appreciation for county music and collard greens! (smile) Being able to approach a racially-sensitive issue with sympathy for and an understanding of both sides of the issue.In my mind, it’s all about education. We offer our children a range of educational experiences intended to mold them into people who appreciate diversity (in music, in language, in food, in cultures, in life). Is it really so absurd to extend this educational lesson to their bodies? To their physical abilities? We have the potential to teach them invaluable lessons this way – what it feels like to be looked upon with pity; what it feels like to be rejected by a society that refuses to make reasonable accommodations for your hearing limitation; AND what it feels like to be completely loved and adored and accepted by someone in spite or (or because of) your limitation. These are priceless lessons.
Sometimes painful lessons, but priceless nonetheless.That said, Jason, my thoughts here are really for the sake of argument. Like I said before, I can't say that I would be comfortable doing as these parents have done. In fact, I SERIOUSLY doubt that I would. But to me, it's more important to understand WHY these parents have made this decision. I think I do, in part, understand their choice, and I've tried to articulate the rationale. Jason, and Neal, I really would like to hear your response and appreciate your thoughtfulness!
December 6, 2006 11:14:00 AM PST
Jason Falls said...
All well-said and put. The only response to your follow up is this: "The black woman who chooses to marry the white man. Aren’t they imposing a life-long, irreversible identity upon their child?" --- Being black or white or racially mixed is not, in my opinion, a genetic deficiency. To say it is simply extolls the notion that the races shouldn't mix.Granted, in an ideal world the race of two people sharing a life or child together should not matter, and we do not live in an ideal world. However, should that prevent us from believing that racial mixture is a perfectly acceptable, even beautiful, by-product of an open-minded society where love happens beteen two people for whatever reason and we accept that?Choosing to dial up a genetic disorder on your child is equal to drinking or smoking or doing crack while pregnant, in my opinion. You are knowingly causing physical, mental or emotional harm to your child.Choosing to have a child with a black, white, red or yellow person isn't. While emotional stress of a not-always-accepting society may result for the offspring, it isn't the intent of the parents to produce that when conceiving the child.Oh -- and as to the notion of providing the child with a character-building experience -- sorry for the smartalek tone of this, but send them to summer camp or make them volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don't give them down's syndrome.
December 6, 2006 12:13:00 PM PST
Neal said...
Shahib said "But would you agree with me that parents might also be motivated by other desires? For example, by the desire to give their children a unique experience? A character-building experience? An experience that will mold and shape their core? I posit that these are also motivations that prompt parents to make such decisions, and that these motivations may in fact serve legitimate diversity interests."Yes. I do agree that parents may be and often are motivated by these interests. And I agree that these are important interests. I guess what I think it comes down to is a cost-benefit analysis. An interracial couple, I am sure, thinks about the fact that perhaps their child will be subject to more hardship than other children. This is a cost. But they decide, either consciously or subconsciously, that their love for each other, their morals, their desire to raise a child, and, as you point out, the benefits of being "different" all outweight that cost. I think that may be why you see more interracial couples raising children now than you saw in the past--the cost of being interracial (at least in our society) has decreased. And rightfully so.In this case, I think we are talking about what most would agree (and I think you and I agree) is an incorrect cost-benefit analysis. Yes, there is a benefit to being different--but at the high cost of a severe physical disability? I don't think that analysis works out for me.I do genuinely appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this topic. I hope I'm contributing in a constructive way.
December 6, 2006 12:30:00 PM PST
Shahib Shahab said...
Neal said: "Yes, there is a benefit to being different--but at the high cost of a severe physical disability?" Neal, I appreicate your cost-benefit analysis. (Are you, by chance, an accountant or computer programmer? (Smile) Jason said: "Send them to summer camp or make them volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don't give them down's syndrome."Based on both your comments, I think I must have given the wrong impression as to the types of genetic defects that parents are choosing to give their children. I may be wrong, but I don't recall reading that any of the parents in the original article had chosen to give their children down-syndrome or a severe physical disability accompanied by serious health risks. No, the parents interviewed had chosen deafness and shortness. My comments are likewise limited to those two traits. So, working from that point of reference ...What I hear in Neal's comments about cost-benefit analysis and in Jason's comments is a belief that a disability (being deaf or being a short person) is an unfortunate and pitiable things. HERE, I believe, is where our fundamental difference lies. I do not believe that living without the ability to hear or to be of average height is a pitiable thing. Downsyndrome and any other genetic disease causing severe physical limitations = Yes, a pitiable thing for the pain and suffering and shortened life expectancy caused. (A '97 study found that roughly 12% of babies with DS die from heart complications at birth) But being deaf or short = Not a pitiable thing.Shortness and deafness are DIFFERENT experiences, but not necessarily LESSER or PITIABLE experiences.Both of you made many more valid points, but why don't we begin our conversation from there. Would you agree with this last point?
December 6, 2006 1:48:00 PM PST
posted by Professor Shakes at
2:48 PM
<< Home