How has The Times managed to miss the point so comprehensively? The deaf commuity is not demanding the right to screen embryo's so they can select a deaf baby. What the deaf community is concerned about is Clause 14's incorrect use of deafness as an example of unhealthiness and the removal of the parents' rights to choose. Pregnant women have the right to decide whether to terminate or proceed with the pregnancy as a result of pre-natal screening. The same right should apply to parents undergoing embryonic screening. Clause 14 says the parents must not choose a deaf embryo over a 'healthy' one. But deafness is not an illness. And what if embryonic screening reveals that all the embryo's are deaf? Destruction of embryo's regardless of the parents' wishes should not be the automatic response. Nobody undergoes IVF lightly, but this poorly drafted clause imposes a different and more restrictive set of rules than those faced by other prospective parents.

Gill Wales, Brighton,

I would have been aborted, even long before Roe, if my parents had realized that I would be born with brain and neurological deficits causing uncorrectable vision problems, tendencies toward depression, etc., although I was a Nationl Merit Scholalrship finalist and practiced law.
Any unborn child has the right to be born, but selection of one out of the many possible embryos to be born, knowing that many others will not in any event, to burden the child with a limitation upon the full panoply of possible human abilities is outrageous.

What's next? If the last poster's argument, that the percentage of deaf children will decline reducing their political influence, is accepted, would be next see and approve abortion or selection of embryos to try to ensure that offspring will mirror the political tendencies of their parents, {something I have read may well include a genetic component]? Would we deny treatment to prevent loss of hearing?

Peter S. Chamberlain, Commerce, Texas, USA

I think it would be abhorrent for a parent to intentionally disable a child to suit their own lifestyle... HOWEVER, as stated before by "Alison, Powys", they are NOT harming a "normal/healthy" baby to make it live with a disorder. The embryo exists. It is alive. It is deaf. With this law, it's right to life would be taken away based on discrimination that is rightly illegal in adults and children. Any selection between embryos is inherently sick. I highly recommend watching the movie "Gattaca" for a startlingly possible concept of what the future could be like if we allow "designer babies" of ANY kind (hearing or deaf). Nature should be making this choice, not selfish parents on either side, or ignorant lawmakers.

Joel, Torrington, USA/CT

No child should be altered by anyone any thing any experimental research or other. God made us as we are, this is the gift of life. No two are made the same. Parents who wish to change the gift by altering the outcome are just not satisfied with the gift furnished to them. They are selfish, envious, and non-deserving. Life is a gift and is given "as is", Parents that are given an extra burden being born deaf or otherwise should only want better for their offspring why would you want ur chldren to not have the best. Parents who abuse their children for personal gain and recognition are the ones who should have a disability - namely a life with no life!

Abused Child, Montreal, QC

The hearing people have been trying to do away with deaf people and those with other disablities via eugenics in the past and now the IVF screenings. The deaf people will always be around because of genetics, viruses and accidents. There are some hearing people who would give deaf people hard time - like refusing to promote them at work, refusing to hire deaf people, forbid sign language thus delaying the child's language development, etc. After all this, they have the gall to complain that the deaf people are burden when in reality, it is them that are burden to the deaf people. In this case, we should screen out all hearing embryos. Oh, you don't like what I just said? That's exactly how we deaf people felt when we heard about the screening out of the deaf embryos.

If the number of deaf people in the future is greatly reduced, their rights/voices will be greatly reduced and the abuses will be increased. That is a fact.

C.B., Michigan, USA

As a hearing mother of a deaf child I can not imagine chosing to have a deaf child. My son has had a cochlear implant for 18 years & it is hard to tell he is deaf.

To chose to have a child with no hearing is selfish & I can't believe parents would select this for a child to cope with. It is not morally right.

Louise, Sydney, Australia

I thought we had beaten Hitler... it is terrifying to think that people are once again trying to use genetics in this manner to engineer their perfect child.

In a time where people are being taxed more than ever, the medical field is being swamped by people who don't even really need to go to the doctor, and because of that and hospitals being forced to provide health services to those who can not pay and pay no taxes, prices are outrageous and hospitals are shutting down. And in the midst of all of this, these people are trying to force more people who will require special attention on the world.

That takes a lot of nerve to be so insecure about your state that you would force it on a child as well.

Zack, Fayetteville, United States, North Carolina

Deaf people have the right to choose their own family. I know many deaf people whose parents are deaf and they have done a very fine job.

Our choices must be respected - let it be deaf babies or non-deaf babies.

Shane Gilchrist (UID), Belfast,

This is pathetic, why would anyonw want to rob their children of sound and force a harmful genetic mutaton like deafness upon them?

Willis, You know, Here

i remember the song.
in the year 2525 if man is still alive
if woman can survive they may find:
3535 - pills think for you
4545 - no teeth, no eyes
5555 - no arms, no legs
6565 - no husband or wife -tube babies.
3510 - judgement day
8510 - start over
3535 - man still alive?

well, more prophetic for the year 2007 anyway. we've marched thru thousands of years of 'advancement' and 'progress' unheard of or unbelievable since the 60's.

why have ears?
listen up, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
the parents would be envious of a normal child.
selfish, muddle headed, green eared errr eyed monsters!

ADIOS,
HARVEY
LANCASTER, MEXIFORNIA

HARVEY , Lancaster, california

Wow, such a beautiful thing as hearing, and some parents want to take that away and not even give their children the choice to hear. What an emotional wound this would cause if the son or daughter found out. I say, let the child decide if he wants to have a disability. Let him be born natural and if he decides that hearing is something so bad he can have a self mutilating surgery to remove the hearing and anything else that he may not want, such as sight or smell.

David, houston, tx

Ultimately decisions are for parents and clinicians, but RNID would not actively encourage parents to select a deaf embryo for implantation if a hearing embryo is available.

RNID does not actively promote designer babies by selection for deafness or any other attribute and we do not support the screening out of hearing babies.

Deaf parents can have children if that's what nature intends - just don't have the screening. Therefore, while RNID believes in the individual’s right to choose, we would not encourage selection of deaf embryos over hearing ones for implantation.

RNID would of course unconditionally support any child born deaf and his or her family.

RNID will be working with MPs to ensure that the reassurances are given to the Deaf community that there will be no forced genetic testing and that probing amendments are tabled.

RNID, London,

It is abhorrent. What right does anyone have to interfere with embryos? Do the children have no rights?

I wonder what the young carers would say, who lose their childhood, caring for their parents. I wonder if they would choose healthy parents. I wonder if hearing children would choose hearing parents?

If a deaf child is deliberately created - the parents should receive no benefits or extra help.

I will no longer support RNID or deaf charities any more.

Sue, Southampton, Uk

This article sets up a false dichotomy : Whether it is right to choose a deaf embryo over a hearing embryo or vice versa. The issue is really whether or not it is right to choose ANY traits at all in a child. Having read the BDA’s response to the Bill, I do not believe that the BDA is calling for the right to select deaf embryo’s. They are calling for the omission of the clause which requires people seeking IVF to screen their embryos and reject ‘abnormal’ ones. They use the example of ‘fairness in reproductive liberty’ to highlight the fact that Deaf people see their state as normal and non-disabling and to show the bias in selecting for perceived ‘normal’ traits. It is sensationalist to claim that this campaign is about the right to engineer a deaf child. The campaign is about the right to have a normal ‘chance’ of existing, whether you are deaf or hearing. It is not just Deaf people who feel this way, I am a hearing Deaf Studies student and support their campaign.

Emily Wright, Brighton, U.K

Assuming technological feasibility, would there be similar outrage if a couple chose to have only homosexual embryos implanted? I think not, though according to the doctor quoted above it should follow that any selection of an embryo that would not fit into the "normal state" should be forbidden. And homosexuality is not the "normal state."

This issue will arise in the next 10 years. . .you heard it here first!

An Dliodoir, Tir Eile, Fado Fado

The parent is saying, "Because I have suffered, so must my child!" Pure evil! I do not care how nice the parent is or whether they have a TV show! Let all the world's leaders and all the world's foremost disability advocates come out and hold hands together and proclaim this is right,,, God is not impressed! This is pure evil!
What if the parents were poor?? Should they never allow their child to have money? What if the parents lost the use of their legs due to an auto accident when they were 10 years old?? Should they force their child to experience the same horrific accident when the child is 10 as well?? I can here the righteous demands from the parents "Losing the use of my legs from an auto accident is nothing to be ashamed of!! I am proud of my accomplishments and it is my right to pass it on to my child! End the bigotry against families disabled by auto accidents now!" God help us all!

Mike LeKites, williamsport, USA, PA

It would be fairly to prohibit having children at all for such kind of parents. To destroy future of you child purposely - this is outrage! This is disgusting! I suppose the child will never forgive his parents if he knows what they have done with him. To put them into jail!

nat, uk,

Some people are missing the point of the Bill... it is about looking for Genetic 'Deficiencies'. I am hearing, but have a Genetic Deafness in my family, and 2 of my children are Deaf. Had my mother been tested, it would have shown that I had the 'syndrome', and I'd have been 'got rid of'.
My older son has just finished University with A BA in theatre production, my younger one is working at roughly 12 months ahead of his hearing peers. He plays rugby for Luton. So, are they making less of a contribution to Society? They are not 'struggling'. Yes they are Deaf. Are they 'Bovvered'. Not at all. It's everyone else!!

Karen Page, Luton, England

I think this is ridiculous! As a hearing mother to both a hearing and a Deaf child, married to a Deaf husband, I think this is just as bad as a hearing parent chosing a hearing child over one who will be born Deaf! While I know for a fact that Deafness is in no way a handicapp and that ASL is as valuable and complex a language as any spoken language, it is simply wrong to chose a child based on a particular ability/characteristic! While I know that it may be easier for Deaf parents to raise a Deaf child, I have to say to these parents who want to chose their child what I tell my three year old hearing and Deaf students..."you get what you get and you don't throw a fit!" As someone who know Deaf parents with hearing children, hearing parents with Deaf children, Deaf parents with hearing children, and even Deaf parents with blind children, I feel that any parent who is not willing to make their family work whatever form it may take should not be a parent!

LJW, Tampa,

Hearing children who are raised in deaf families make FANTASTIC interpreters for the deaf (and for hearing persons who need to communicate with deaf persons)! For those children, it's the best of both worlds. They have entree to both the hearing and deaf cultures, and are immensely useful and emotionally rewarded. Deaf parents should WELCOME offspring who have the ability to hear.
If I were a deaf, prospective parent, I'd want a child with all available faculties. Life will be tough enough even with the genetic "advantages." Heck, I'd order extrasensory perception and superhuman strength for the kid, if I could! (Well, maybe not superhuman strength....but ESP would be cool. hehehhh) If we're just talking about picking between embryos---not about discriminating among babies up for adoption---why not opt for the "model" with the fullest physical and mental potential? Or does the world really need to PURPOSELY produce more handicapped people?

David B., Austin, Texas

Hello, I am a Gallaudet University student and having read the majority of those comments- It hurts and disappoints me tremendously because the majority of you have NO idea what you're talking about. IGNORANCE.

THINK and maybe you'll make a startling realization: Deaf is the ONLY "disabled" group that actually has an existing culture: it has LANGUAGE (Linguists have proven sign language is not mime or gestures; much more than that), TRADITIONS, BELIEFS, VALUES, and CUSTOMS! *Gasp* Does autism, psycho, wheelchair, blind have a culture? Language? (Braille does not qualify as a language, only as a code like Morse code)

Get your facts STRAIGHT. If hearing can choose their own type of baby, then permit the Deaf to do the same. I've seen Deaf families. They are amazing. Heck, I want a Deaf family of my own as well. Am I disgusting for that? Thanks a lot :-\

Such incredible IGNORANCE. First the Cochlear implant and now this?

Lewis, Washington , DC

this is the most selfish thing I've ever heard of.

jack sprat, dallas, tx

Cheaper, although just as cruel and unusual, would be to have healthy children, then have them disabled by some blunt or rusty means, after they're born. Expensive embryo-screening would become unnecessary, and given the clearly deplorable state of public morality that makes such shockingly egotistic demands as this possible, there would probably be no end of people willing to do the disabling.

Peter Petrof, Biot, France

This is a monstrous suggestion. By her reasoning, anyone with a disability should be allowed to engineer a child with the same disability. Pure selfishness on the part of the parents who would want to do this to their child.

C Jones, Manchester,

I know many deaf people in NY. They can be quite militant and purposely hold themselves apart from the rest of society. Its so bad that if a member of the local community has (for example) corrective surgery or implants to improve/cure deafness, they are ostracized and excoriated as if they are traitors.

I think its ridiculous, destructive and selfish - YES SELFISH
Perhaps deafness causes a certain kind of closed mindedness - after all - you cant hear what anybody else thinks and you get to shut the world out when you want. ISNT THAT CONVENIENT?

Stone (but not stone-deaf), spring hill, FL

Ummm.......ummmm......ummmmmm

People really need to do some reading about Deafness and what deafness is and what deafness does. The above article by Sarah grossly misrepresents the issue. The responses here are equally uninformed.

I am a Deaf person, and I know first hand the pros and cons. I assure you, that Deafness is not the debilitating condition many people assume it to be.

Google eugenics, google deafness, google history, and learn summat!

Tony Nicholas, Smethwick,

That is sick. You don't cause other people to be disabled to make you feel/"fit in" better. That's like theft, when people steal they make their life easier, while making other peoples life more hellish, and that is exactly what these people are doing. If they want a deaf child I'm sure there is a child out there for adoption who is already deaf that they could adopt. Insted of ruining a perfectly good body.

Lisa, Mankato, USA!!!

Why not simply gouge out their eardrums when they are born and save all of the trouble?

To be honest I can't see the difference between physically removing their ability to hear after they are born and deliberately removing their potential to hear via genetic selection before birth.

Common sense says that this proposal is morally wrong and these parents clearly have some form of mental abnormality to even be considering this.

For goodness sake don't visit your own misery on innocent babies and children you evil bunch.

Danny, Leeds, UK

It's clearly child abuse.

Can I make a half a dozen disabled kids and collect welfare? You can be sure some sick person will try.

Ugly American, Las Vegas, USA

Would urge commenters to actually find out about this issue. The article is seriously misrepresented. Deaf people are *not* demanding designer babies. We are trying to respond to a piece of legislation that supports hearing people to demand designer hearing babies. i.e. a deaf embryo is never allowed a right to life, & is screened out.

Eugenics pure and simple, & something deaf people went through in Germany.

In the UK screening for the purposes of sex selection or other traits is banned, yet the UK parliament wants to make screening okay for deafness etc. We are not making an embryo deaf, it already exists as deaf & would not have a right to life.

There is a second point, that parliament is seeking to interfere with reproductive liberty, between two people. And making a statement who is permitted to exist and who is not. Hilter?

Incidentally I'm a key activist behind this campaign. Start by searching online, not a knee jerk reaction and taking the media on its face value.

Alison, Powys,

I might add, would it be okay for a paraplegic to have their own child's legs cut off, just to 'help them fit in with family life'?

GB, London, UK

I'm sure this could be arranged. Is there a budding Dr. Mengele around somewhere?
No wonder she is a former MP. Is she as mad as she sounds. There are still places to lock these dangerous cranks up. Lets do it before other cranks listen to her.

Ken, Bedford, UK

If parents are to use screening, they should use it to the benefit of the CHILD for the whole of it's life.

It's wrong to make a child - in any way - as though it is an accessory to the PARENT's lifestyle. That may suit the parents for the first 16-21 years of the child's life, but the child has to then lead the rest of its life (another 70-80 years) possibly with a disability.

We seem to see that already with some so-called celebrities - "oh, I've adopted a brown child, why I don't get a yellow one next, the colours go so well together".

We don't want to end up with children being made like show dogs, e.g. with cute folding skin around the eyes, or with stunted limbs - just because the (alleged) owner thinks they look good.

Unlike dogs, parents do NOT own children.

Clive, Epsom, England

Any parent who negligently alloqws their child to suffer a birth defect through any act or ommission should be prosecuted and sued for negligence causing bolidly harm and wrongful life. Not only are birth defects tragic, it is criminal to inflict misery on a defenceless child, and appallingly expensive for societies.

Emma H., Ottawa,

There are ramifications not mentioned int he article:

Such parents should be required to sign a statement recognizing and accepting that the child upon whom they inflict an intentional limitation shall have the perfect right to sue them late, at any time, to a) break their custody and b) seize all of their assets, in compensation for this decision.

If the parents truly believe that this is a matter of joyfully embracing a new cultural/ethnic group, then the parents should stand by this belief by staking their custody and property on being able to convince the child of this, in the good old-fashioned way. If they cannot, over the course of more than a decade, then a presumption should fall on the child's side, in any subsequent lawsuit. (Indeed, the entire advocacy group, backing this measure, should post a bond to this effect.)

David Brin, San Diego, California

I am a lefty with hearing loss. The analogy is false. A lefty can learn to use his right hand, and function -- I have always used right-hand scissors, for example. I can never hear as well as my wife and children. I am grateful they can hear all this world has to offer, and would never be so selfish that I would deny my children hearing.

These people are self-centered and wrong.

Randall, Phoenix, AZ, USA

The comments under this article reflect the amount of ignorance amongst the general public regarding this issue.

As a deaf person I find a lot of the comments written on this board offensive. I am not 'burdened' or 'suffering'. As I often say - being deaf isn't a problem - its simply the ignorance of others that make it a problem.

Deaf people are not advocating using IVF technology to select deaf embryos but rather questioning whether it should be used to select hearing embryos. IVF is an expensive and time consuming process - is it really worth it to eliminate a condition that isn't life threatening or pain-inducing?

Better to leave these things to nature I think! Why do we need to choose the characteristics of our children?

Being deaf doesn't stop you from leading a happy and succesful life. I should know!

Martin, London,

This situation seems to propose another question: If future parents have a number of fertilized embryos that they can choose from, would they be justified in not choosing an embryo because the baby would be deaf? If so, it seems reasonable that the counterstance is valid.

Dan, Lawrence, KS

It's outrageous to deliberately cause deafness, but what even worse is that with sperm "donation" people like me are being deliberately created who will never have a meaningful relationship with one or both parents.

Tom, Cambridge,

A "professor" Ulrike Zeshan may be, but unfortunately she is very poor with analogies. How can somebody liken "lefties" to somebody physically unable to perform to the same degree in society **without a disadvantage**. Clearly a deaf person is at an immediate communicative and sound disadvantage such as describing music, whereas a leftie is capable of performing the same task without detriment. For fairness in this argument, to reverse this analogy a left handed person will have difficulty using right handed scissors, however this does not stop the leftie from using the scissors as they have the ability to use another hand.

A disability is therefore any lack of ability that cannot be corrected without need to change the functionality of the requirement for the recipient (e.g. in the above contrived example, music to vibrations that can be felt).

Ben, Bolton, UK

If I were the lawyer of any deaf parents considering this, I would strongly advise against it. The potential of future lawsuits by 'designer deaf children' would be astronomical. And that is precisely how the various designer baby outfits will shut this whole foolish idea down; the liability issues are simply not acceptable....and that will be that.

Nebris, Santa Monica California, USA

Children dont have the choice of whether or not they're parents are stupid or not so why should the parents have the choice to be malicious to their child?

Phill , The Wirral, England

These people are deranged. It's also why I do not give money to charity these days - they seem to attract people who want to perpetuate the harm or injustice the charity is supposed to alleviate. Oh, and simply waste the money donated by begging members of the public for more money.

GB, London, UK

As someone with deafness in the family I am appalled but sadly not surprised at this 'deaf fascism'. Parents who forbid their deaf children to have cochlear implantsshould have their children removed and those who would deliberately 'deafen' their embryos should be sterilised. Would they ask a doctor to cut the auditory nerves of a normal child as well given the opportunity?

The fact is that the normal world is one with 5 senses. Any person without one of those 5 senses is at a disadvantage. A deaf child may very well fit in with the 'deaf community' but what about the wider world outside. Why should they only be able to interact with the deaf. That is why only teaching the deaf BSL as beautiful as it may be is wrong. The need to communicate is universal.

Jay, London,

Most comments are from the USA where the controversy about Deaf designer babies blew up - spare some space for us Deaf Brits to have a rational say. We haven't done such things in this green and pleasant land, and would never do! All we have ever wanted are healthy babies with the capacity to communicate bilingually - spoken and signed languages.
We deserve our Christmases with our families, without feeling being lynched thanks to your headlines.

Penny Beschizza, London, UK

How amazingly narcissistic of these parents. The child's deafness, for their comfort and sense of family. As if a hearing child could not be taught to sign from early on, and communicate well with his/her parents. And so they'll intentionally create a child who has a sensory disability and will endure pain and suffering.

I know some "little people" (ie with dwarfism) who did the same thing. They were delighted to create two children with dwarfism--children with deformed limbs, who underwent multiple surgeries and will have chronic joint pain throughout their lives, as well as lives of ridicule. It is one thing to accept welcome whatever child fate may give you, but it is another to create a disability for your own psychological comfort.

Please do not let parents do this!

Tamar Etzioni, Ashkalon, Israel

Ms Ballard should have stuck to animals. What about cruelty to children Ms Ballard? Being deaf is not a culture it is a disability.What will be next? Blind wanting blind kids. Dumb kids. No arms or legs? Inflicting a life long disability on a child who has no choice in the matter is very different from terminating a pregnancy. What about its prospects in life maybe it would want to have a profession, or be a musician what about the disadvantages of work and study.
Jacqueline manchester has it right.

plato, ely, uk

I have read about 10 comments so far from people who simply do not understand the science behind this article.

What is being proposed is embryo selection, not alteration. No baby is being disabled or 'mutilated', and no-one is being prevented from enjoying Mozart. In truth, no-one is being made deaf at all.

In embryo selection, what happens is that the 'deaf' embryo will be chosen to be implanted, and the 'hearing' embryo will not.

I am not saying that I am for or against it. I just want people to make their minds up using the right information. The debate is over whether you should be able to choose certain embryos with certain characteristics. No embryo, baby, or person is being altered at all.

The notion of 'harm' simply does not enter into it, as no individual is being altered.

Chris, Leeds, UK

I think:
1) It's very important that parents be legally allowed to do this,
2) It's very important that they don't do it.

(1) is because we must be allowed creative freedom with genes. Human bodies could be massively, imaginatively improved, so I'm afraid of a static future in which deviating from nature's supposed plan is seen as unethical. Hopefully in due course radical improvements such as adding a sense will become possible with our own bodies while we are still alive, which will remove the debate here.

(2) is because it limits the child's choice. Why not simply stop up its ears at birth, so that it can remove the obstruction at sometime in the future if it choses too? Probably because that would appear more conspicuously cruel, and because the child is overwhelmingly likely to choose to try hearing, given the option. Wouldn't you at least try out a new sense, if offered one?

_Felix, Nottingham,

I think unborn children should have a right to designer parents who are not blind, deaf and dumb.

Imagine explaining these murders to God.

Then imagine God's response.

So very very glad I am not these parents.

Geminate, Orange, USA, CA

Perhaps we should start screening out all those with deafness during the foetal stage as it is obviously linked to lunacy! We might even be able to eliminate it completely and put Ms Ballard out of a job!

Steve, Rockhampton,

Why should anyone be surprised by this? After all, the excuse of "convenience" is used to to decide whether or not an unborn child is allowed to live. And all they had to do was use a contraceptive! I might add here that I rejected an abortion even though I was told my baby could be deaf.

Janet Fuls, Cottonwood, CA USA

I suppose some couples might prefer to have a child who is a basket case, too. Maybe that's also a cultural identity.

Christopher Hobe Morrison, Pine Bush, Ulster County, NY, USA

This is appalling, and really is a case of people taking the wrong path. To deliberately deny a human being the chance to enjoy Mozart, to hear the sound of the birds in the trees and the rush of a waterfall, to never hear their lover's voice - these deaf parents who would do this are like a horror family out of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something. No child should be designed to "fit in" with their family. The whole idea is perfectly disgusting.

James, LONDON,

I guess I don't have a problem with it as long as I don't have to pay for it. That means no more lights that make noise or subsidies of any type. I mean if this is a lifestyle choice for go for it. Just don't make me pay for it.

L, santa , ca

To Kyle, of Bristol. Are you saying it is hunky dory for “Perfect” couples to have “Perfect” children with blue eyes, blonde hair, a high IQ while the deaf/HoH are not able to have children of their choice? Oh, I should say, quoting you, “mutilated” children?

Nick, Sydney, Australia

This is past ridiculous, it's sickening. Parents who deliberately mutilate their children deserve jail, whether it's before or after birth.

Kyle, Bristol, UK

A more appropriate headline to reflect this campaign would have been:

"Hearing demand right to designer hearing children .... Deaf people were forced to respond."

Parliament is trying to pass law that makes it legal to screen out deaf embryos, and basically toss them in the trash bin just on the basis they are deaf. Deaf people are NOT advocating selection.

But parliament is trying to pass a law that allows hearing people to select hearing embryos only. All deaf embryos must be thrown out. We've been here with sterilisation in Nazi Germany, deaf people were killed.

We don't agree with selection (its eugenics), but in the interests of pro choice we are giving hearing people room to move. However, we are just insisting that hearing and deaf embryos have an equal right to life. The Times is unable to see this, and the commentators on here the same. Something does not have the right to life just on the grounds it is deaf? An attitude such as that is eugenics in its own right.

Alison, Powys,

I agree with everyone I love Tacos myself and the should be free!

Lack of dentist, Nasty teeth, British person

We certainly have elected some serious nutters to be MPs, one would think to even suggest such a thing would be crimminal offence, encouraging premeditated GBH for one.

sedgwick Morrison, London,

This political correctness is out of hand. As these people despise charity, don't give them a penny. And that includes the government. I am sick and tired of these ungrateful and strident disabled lobbies. Prof. Ulrike Zeshan should not receive a salary out of public funds.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Saying that deafness is a disability is not the same as saying deaf people are inferior.

To breed deliberately for a preferred human disability is exactly as disgusting as all other forms of eugenics. It should not be permitted.

Frenk, Japan,

In any civilized country this is called "child abuse" and would be summarily reported to the authorities. Not only that, but at the lowest common denominator of morality, it is extraordinarily selfish to "design in" a handicap such as deafness simply to preserve a "culture" that for some reason celebrates a birth defect.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

Incredible! The government view cannot be understand how we felt and it sound like a pathetic ethic cleansing, just the same as Hitler's situation in the past.

What will happen if the baby born hearing and then getting ill or other reasons when they are five or six years old? How can they communicate in the future? BSL (British Sign Language) is the most important part of the deaf future and it must remain to stay like that. Even same things to international people including USA, European and others.

Personally, I am profoundly deaf and a BSL user. I dont have problem myself being deaf and I would always never wish to become hearing because it is does NOT necessary for me to do that. I do know that many others deaf people are exactly the same views as me. To be clear, BSL and other sign language is a beautiful visual language.

J, Cheshire, England

This is a disappointing, sensationalist article misrepresenting the real issues. I have not met any deaf person agonising about the 'deaf designer baby' question. Rather, deaf people are upset about the inference in this clause that they are abnormal, disabled, and less worthy of living than hearing people. This, to me, is the real issue.

If the intent of the bill is to prevent human suffering, then deafness does not fall under its remit. Deafness constitutes a linguistic/cultural minority and adds to our diversity. Our society chooses to say that deaf people people are disabled, but left-handed people are not. Why? This is an arbitrary choice. Research has shown that there are societies where deafness is regarded as an equally viable option, not a disability.

Drawing this borderline around what is to be "preferred" and why is something everyone should be concerned about - you might just fall on the wrong side of the borderline yourself tomorrow.

Prof. Ulrike Zeshan
UCLan, Preston

Ulrike Zeshan, Preston, UK

Disabled by Design… if I hadn’t known the details I’d have assumed that such views were from the Dark Ages or some primitive cult, and that the techniques had been developed from wartime Nazi experiments.

It beggars belief that in the 21st century these policies can be promoted by official UK organisations such as the RNID and the BDA.

They should be both be stripped of their Registered Charity status because they wish to inflict deliberate disability without the consent of their victims. The Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of York should also relinquish their royal patronage.

Never again will I buy an RNID or BDA charity card or give them a donation !

Gerry, Kent, England

I am utterly disgusted at this proposal. It is equal rights gone completely bonkers.

It is wrong for the person created and wrong for society having a new burden artificially added.

Why am I not surprised that the organisation is headed up by a former Lib Dem MP a paid up member of the nutty brigade?

Sarah, london,

So if parents wanted to create a child missing limbs, in order to fit in with the family, they should be allowed to?

Ian, Frederick, USA MD

I have to admit that I see an unfairness in this, but are there so few deaf children in orphanages around the world, that these people cannot find one to be a part of their family if it so important that they have another deaf person in their household?

I similarly don't like people screening others in an attempt to create a "master race" though. Perhaps the answer is not to screen the embryos at all, and to let nature take it's course. If you are not willing to care and love for any child that you create, maybe you haven't reached a level of maturity and devotion sufficient to raise a child at all.

This world is grossly overpopulated, and to focus on not only being entitled to have a child, despite perhaps not having the means or disposition to raise it properly, but now to have a "specific" child, that will only look or act a certain way, seems misplaced. Perhaps we should be looking at ways to deal with the children that we already have instead of spending resources to have more

John Foster, Astoria, US

If my parents did that to me, I would kill them when I was old enough to do so. Its imposing unspeakable cruelty on a helpless child for your own selfish narcissistic pride. Only a monster would do such a thing.

Anyone who would willingly inflict a disability on a baby is an evil person and should not be allowed to have children at all.

Darcy, Tampa, FL

This is OK with me as long as they realize the this means that being deaf no longer puts them in any kind of special group. That means that anti discrimination laws no longer apply, because this is a purposeful choice they are making. This means that those kids do not get to sit in a special class room with a special teacher.

Capt. Obvious, NYC,

This is exactly why DEAF "culture" is a JOKE...it is a cruel farce to force deafness upon someone and I would akin it to child abuse to "select" for such a devastating disability....anyone who would intentionally do so should be psychologically examined and perhaps institutionalized.

Bill, lancashire,

that's disgusting. Aborting a child for his disability or lack thereof? If the deaf want to prove they should be treated equal they ought to treat their own children as equal with or without their disabilities as well.

I have a disability and I chose to adopt rather then risk passing my disability to a child, and I find this act DISGUSTING! It's like a perverse form of Eugenics.

I agree with Sarah and Nigel here.

James, Sparta, USA

How unbelievably sick. That any parent would want to create a disabled child is just unbelievable.
Such people are ill - they should not be allowed to do this. I would question their fitness to be parents at all.
It is also the last time that I will support the RNID or the BDA in any way.

Charles, Bath, UK

Sorry, those people are sick.

Purposely disabling a child/person so you can feel better about being disabled is moral cowardice. This idiotic ideal is one more nail in the liberal democrats coffin and hopefully no sane person would endorse such barbarism.

Mr. E, Lingfield,

I am deaf and I do not advocate this idea of causing a disability even before they were planted in the womb. I believe in letting nature take its course. I strongly believe no matter how you were born and with what disability (or none), it all was meant to be for a reason and that God made it so. And nobody can tell God that he was wrong.

Kristen, Melville, USA, NY

The important principle here is that embryo screening is not to give parents a choice as such. That is the "designer babies" outcome, universally acknowledged as a bad thing. Screening is to prevent known defects, which includes deafness. To deliberately conceive a deaf child in such a manner is in complete contravention of the principe of screening, and such a stance has absolutely no footing.
On a level above simple logic, I would expect that the reason that "the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing" is that the other choice is cruel, unusual, pathetic, selfish, and short-sighted. Your disability (or any other physical characteristic) does not define you as a person, and anyone who thinks that way is not ready to become a parent.

Jon , London,

As a deaf person who acquired a deafness, it would be accurate to say not all deaf people would prefer a deaf baby, it is down to background and personal experieinces and there is no collective view on this in reality. The bottom line is the RNID itself does not really support the propogation of deaness or, the deaf community "We would NOT actively encourage the selection of deaf emryos, over hearing ones where both are vailable.." SO the RNID executive itslef has n common agreement, it sits on the fence. My understanding, is that effective identification of the deaf genes (There are more than one !), is not currently effective enough for choice to be used. It would not, prevent people going deaf AFTER birth, genetic deafness isn't the major cause of people going deaf.

Mervyn James, Newport, Wales

Wow! now i`ve heard it all! Why not parents creating children with spina bifida, autism, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, cancer,sickle cell etc to fit in better with family lifestle/cultural identity? Whatever some deaf people say, deafness is a disability! Medicine is on the historic verge of no longer just treating symptoms, but fixing health problems once and for all. it makes no sense for me, having asthma, to want to willingly inflict suffering onto the next generation.

Nigel, London,

"a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle."
We only have our children for the first two decades of their lives - what then? How does the child crippled for the convenience of its parents get on in the wider world?
And if an embryo chosen for its deafness turn out to be a hearing person, will parents get the 'right' to throw it on the scrapheap and try again?

Sarah N., London, UK

What if a child born to these parents doesn't like being deaf? Imagine finding out your parents intensionally made you deaf? You would resent them forever. I don't think parents should have ultimate rights over their children to make ther children fit into their lifestyle.

Jacqueline, manchester,

This is madness. In the past children were mutilated so that they could make more effective beggars - to fit in better with the family lifestyle. It wouldn't be too far down the line before direct genetic manipulation was also permitted.

If this is allowed, legislation should also be enacted which allows children who are handicapped in this way, to sue their parents and the institutions which enabled it to come about.

Bill Q, Derby,

Man's inhumanity to his fellow man knows no limits.

fnusnuank, Gen., Switz.