The deaf absolutely have the same right to abort a hearing fetus as the hearing people have rights to abort a deaf fetus. Hearing parents do not like the idea of having a deaf baby because they are going to have trouble communicating with their children, and it pains the parents to see their children being isolated. On the other hand, the deaf parents also have frustrations if they have a hearing child, because they can't guide their children in the hearing world when they can't hear any sound. Also, the deaf parents would have the fear of
their children feeling embarrassed by them someday because they can't hear, speak and seem so uneducated and...silly. Both hearing and deaf parents have very understandable reasons. Then if the hearing people can abort a deaf fetus, why can't the deaf people abort a hearing fetus? Doesn't every citizen have the same rights?
The term "disability" is relative; it all depends on the environment. The deafness is a kind of variation caused by the mutations in the genes for proteins connexin 26 and connexin 30, according to the article Deaf and Design. Under the current environment, "deafness" not a favorable trait due to the inability to hear and respond to sound, and therefore causes difficulties in communication and isolation from the majority of hearing people. Hence, the hearing people would call the deaf people disabled. However, deafness could be a selective advantage if the environment changes. If someday, all of a sudden, there is no sound in the world anymore, the hearing people will sink into the isolation of not being able to communicate, but the deaf people will still can communicate with each other by sign language. Then, the hearing people will be considered to be "disabled." There are many other examples in the nature, too. For instance, in a forest where the seeds are hard and formidable, the birds with small beaks will be considered to be "disabled" compared to the birds with big beaks, because they can't open the seeds. However, if it's in another environment - a forest with seeds that are much easier to be open, having small beaks is then not a disability.
Altering the genetic codes seems very positive for me, because then we could cure a lot of genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's chorea. These mutations are harmful, so they are self-limiting. If these harmful alleles will eventually decrease and die out of the population, why we can't we just stop them right away artificially? Also, in this case, deafness can be prevented by altering the genetic codes.
In my opinion, it is not in Heather's best interest to be raised as the only hearing child in the family, the reason is that it is not good for her to develop the speech. It takes a lot of time and practice to master a new language. Heather can't improve her speaking skill very fast if she keeps using sign language all the time to the other family members. If her siblings also get cochlear implant, they can practice speaking with each other.
