I really, really don't know what to think about this.

I recently listened to a presentation by Dr Tom Shakespeare, a noted visual artist and academic who happens to have achrondoplasia, in which he made a similar statement to that being put forwatd by Tomato (?) Lichy and his partner; that there is no such thing as a disability, merely a circumstance that society does not readily accommodate. In other words, a better, more tolerant and egalitarian world would include no-one who could be considered disabled.

It's certainly a challenging and noble sentiment. Dr Shakespeare's condition clearly denies him only a few physical dimensions. His cognitive abilities and senses are fully realised, and so it's easier for "normal" people to swallow his proactive approach. His life experience cannot differ so very greatly from that of the majority, we can imagine being in his place and the prejudice and the set backs he encounters, admire his good-humoured but straight-talking ownership of the genetic card he's been dealt.

It's harder when a person who cannot experience the world in the same way that most do, as Mr Lichy and his family cannot, claims that his lack of a primary sense is not only not a disability, but speaks of the deaf as if they were a nation, one with a language, culture and traditions of its own. Mr Lichy bandies the words "eugenics" at anyone who claims his desire to intentionally bring another deaf child into the world is morally wrong; he sees no difference between the civil rights movements for women, ethnic minorities, lgbt groups and the disabled. To deny the latter the right to be born is as abominable as permitting no black children to born, says he.

For the moment I'll leave to one side the point that sign language can be acquired by hearing or non-hearing people, allowing both to engage in the "deaf culture" he describes, while nothing in the world can teach a deaf-from-birth child to hear. I listened to Mr Lichy and his partner speaking through an interpreter today. Time and again they used the example of their living, deaf and by all accounts happy and brilliant child as justification for actively choosing to have another with the same condition. Tellingly, they relied again and again on visual examples; the couple both work in a theatre company, so they frequently mentioned the child's joy in performing arts, invariably talking about colour and movement and so on.

So the question has to be asked of this pair of doting parents; are blind people disabled? If you were to be told one of your frozen embryos would certainly develop into a child who could hear but could not see, would you be thrilled at the opportunity to induct her into "blind culture" or would you pause? Reconsider? Consciously reject her in favour of another?

I'm loathe to condemn this couple, I think they are highlighting something that needs to be debated, but I'm saddened that they feel the need to be so wilfully contrary. Going so far as to describe a child who can hear as disabled and saying they "feel sorry" for John Humphries because he can't appreciate a joke told in sign language just makes them appear like post-libertarian weirdoes.

What happens to human gametes and embryos in future, as stem cell research continues apace, infertility spirals ever-upwards and we in the West have less children and later in life to boot, is crucial. Human organs likewise. Personally, I say donation of any and all tissue should be an opt-out, not opt-in proposition. Living people are more important than the dead and yet to be born, end of story. As for who gets to be born and who doesn't... Urgh.

All I can say is this. I always thought a hallmark of parenting was the aspiration that your children would have better, fuller, longer, happier, richer (in every sense) lives than your own. In appearing to campaign for the "right" to ensure their next child will not be able to do a thing that they also cannot do (the least loaded way I can put it), this couple might be at the cutting edge of societal dynamics but they're stretching the definition of familial love to breaking point.

As ever, I'm coming to the party about a year late, but over the weekend I discovered the salty humour of Limmy. I particularly enjoyed this:



Sure, it's just the average conversation one overhears on the Number 45 Pollock to Woodhill "banter bus" transferred to t'internet, but it's funny none the less. I also highly recommend Guy Fawkes, Yes or No, Nightmare and What Would You Do?, by the same performer. They're maybe not that good on their own, but when watched together they have an accumulative effect, rather like Gary Larson cartoons. Nicely inaccurate use of the word "play" throughout.