"Why would it be so bad if Deaf culture were obliterated because there were no more deaf people (through cures for deafness, not genocide of course)? The culture exists as a means to allow Deaf people to thrive despite their lack of hearing. If they had hearing, there would be no need for the underlying culture protecting them.

Prisoners, Lepers, aids patients, child abuse survivors and so forth all too can claim a legitimate culture to their affliction. While I see the value in the culture allowing people to deal with their disabilities or other problems, I don't think the culture is itself a valid justification the continued existence of the underlying problem. Wouldn't you like to live in a world without criminals and AIDs? Aren't you glad we don't have any more leper colonies these days?

I guess I'm asking: If we had a way to perfectly provide hearing to all children born deaf, why shouldn't we do it? What advantage is there to the world, or to the children in quesion in going through a life without hearing?

I can understand having grown up this way, being unwilling to make the switch, but it really bugs me when deaf parents make that choice for their children: I don't believe any parent has the right to make a choice like that on behalf of another person." -factusonverbus