Would have to account if their own disability could be transfered to their offspring.
And if yes, then sorry but computer says no.
And if yes, then sorry but computer says no.
Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
I agree with this. If it's something the extended family can and wants to finance then procreate away. But society should not have to pay to create more burdens. Sound like a Nazi now, though..Swollen Goat said:
that would have to come down to at least two things, hereditry, and severity.
both would need to be high before i would even consider restricting a persons right to breed.
also, what methods would you use to enforce these restrictions.
i realise some people might think me wrong for even considering that as a possibliity, but they have to understand that DNA is an incredebly complex thing, far moreso than our current technology.
Evolution is basically mutations, mutations in the dna of offsrping cause differences, and normally natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) will take those with bad dna and remove them from the gene pool. it will also in some cases take good mutations and proliferate them.
The problem is that when mutations occur, they will generally have a negative effect, rather then a positive one (imagine taking windows and randomly mucking around with the code a bit), so when things such as over-extensive welfare and lack of selective breeding cause natural selection to have a smaller or even non-existant effect, it causes the negative mutations passed on to outweigh the positive mutations.
if you project this over a very long time, the future looks bleak indeed.
Edit: there is however, still the option of insisting the genetically advantaged just breed like effin nuts. I kinda like this option at first, but only because I am kinda cocky, besides with this you can only anticipate more problems with overpopulation.
both would need to be high before i would even consider restricting a persons right to breed.
also, what methods would you use to enforce these restrictions.
i realise some people might think me wrong for even considering that as a possibliity, but they have to understand that DNA is an incredebly complex thing, far moreso than our current technology.
Evolution is basically mutations, mutations in the dna of offsrping cause differences, and normally natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) will take those with bad dna and remove them from the gene pool. it will also in some cases take good mutations and proliferate them.
The problem is that when mutations occur, they will generally have a negative effect, rather then a positive one (imagine taking windows and randomly mucking around with the code a bit), so when things such as over-extensive welfare and lack of selective breeding cause natural selection to have a smaller or even non-existant effect, it causes the negative mutations passed on to outweigh the positive mutations.
if you project this over a very long time, the future looks bleak indeed.
Edit: there is however, still the option of insisting the genetically advantaged just breed like effin nuts. I kinda like this option at first, but only because I am kinda cocky, besides with this you can only anticipate more problems with overpopulation.
This thread disgusts me.
I am not even going to bother because if I reply to some of what's being said here, I'm definitely going to get banned.
Let's leave it as saying that the premise of "preventing" people with disabilities from having kids is wrong on every moral level.
I am not even going to bother because if I reply to some of what's being said here, I'm definitely going to get banned.
Let's leave it as saying that the premise of "preventing" people with disabilities from having kids is wrong on every moral level.
Well, at least timmy doesn't need someone to follow him around while he does his day-job, on our tax dollar no less.Firia said:
and about the mega intellectuals you mentioned, I certainly hope not.
because if anyone can build an army of killer robots, it's them.
perhaps though, you might like to give some insight on simple learning disabilities, or cases where mental prowess is highly unbalanced, rather than lacking altogether.
for instance, I myself apparenly have adhd, and according to an iq test done by my school, my IQ is incalculable due to inconsistancies beetween results.
you could even decide not to limit the breeeding based only on brain power, but on medical tendancies as well. tendancies to hereditary diseases or even at the extreme allergies.
Should people be allowed to make children if they can't eat chocolate?
I think the real question is: would you want to be born into a world without chocolate?
No they should not be allowed, unless they can actually look after the resultant offspring them selves. This goes for non mentally challenged people too. No one should be allowed to have kids if they cant look after them properly, it's not fair on the child and it's not fair on society that has to then look after said child.
/of argument
/of argument
Nope. A truly smart person recognizes he needs people around him to do the farming, plumbing and policing for him. Those people only need to be as smart as their job requires. Muscle may be more important than brains.Firia said:
Following this logic further, anyone who can hold a full job, may breed.
There is too much shit in this thread to make it worth reading the entire thing. I just want to say something.
Most of the greatest technological advances or artistic creations were discovered/created by people who were technically retarded/mentally challenged. Including many who suffered from types of autism. Being Retarded in the mental sense only relates to the inability to function on normal levels in some areas. Most of which tend to be social.
Most of the greatest technological advances or artistic creations were discovered/created by people who were technically retarded/mentally challenged. Including many who suffered from types of autism. Being Retarded in the mental sense only relates to the inability to function on normal levels in some areas. Most of which tend to be social.
Alright, first off, Fuck survival of the fittest, I'm not nazi-ish enough to think that we should all live in an aryan utopia, and that line of thought spreads down far enough that I can fully believe that it doesn't fucking matter how people are, what they have wrong with them, they are still people, and to deny them anything you would allow a normal person to do is discrimination, hiding behind a selfish attitude of greed.RadiusXd said:
Replace "mentally handicapped" with "coloured people"
Now are you going to continue arguing your cause? statistically, coloured people are more likely to go to prison and be a burden on your tax money, does that give you the right to say they cannot have children?
Just because racism is a buzzword and discriminating against the mentally handicapped is not doesn't mean it's less of an issue.
It isn't even a question of rights, it's a question of equality, leaving two avenues of thought.
1. people arguing for this believe disabled people are less worthy then healthy people and therefore do not deserve equality.
2. people arguing for this believe eugenics should be carried out on a larger scale to solve all social problems.
both are wrong.
I'm in favor of limited eugenics and even genetic engineering. I think it's extremely selfish force your disabilities on someone else just so you can spread your flawed DNA.
Make them adopt if they want the experience of parenthood. Lots of children need to be adopted. If I had a serious genetic disorder I'd choose adoption too.
Make them adopt if they want the experience of parenthood. Lots of children need to be adopted. If I had a serious genetic disorder I'd choose adoption too.
The title of this thread made me giggle. Let it not be said that we don't discuss relevant and meaningful topics here on the Escapist. I think we probably should let them. They're already mentally challenged, if they manage to get a booty call I'd high five them.
If we were back in ye olde times, when Natural Selection still held grounds then no they should not be allowed to procreate because unless the mutation is good, and benefits the species as a whole they'd die off anyways. But now a days, when Natural Selection in humans is a thing of the past, I say let them do what ever the heck they want.
Restricting a person's rights is just wrong, so yes, they should be allowed to procreate.
The problems with that are obvious though, and that is why I think that people who are known to have any genetic disorder should be aware that they have a responsibility to society to not propagate their genetic defects. It's nothing against the individuals, but it's unfair to their children, their children's children, and the spouses of those children. Also, if you are unfit to raise your children, then for their sake, you shouldn't have them either.
The rights of these individuals shouldn't be infringed, but society needs to put some real pressure on these parents who pop out kids without any consideration on what they are doing to them. As things are now, new babies are celebrated for being a new life in the world and you will get all the women cooing over the newborn. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is too indiscriminate. No one can say that the new mother is capable of raising that kid to be a contributing member of society, or that that kid won't grow up to be a gang-banger. People are just too shortsighted in regards to human life, and mentally challenged or not, long-term considerations need to be made if we want to progress.
I just want to see conversations to go from "Oh! look at your new baby, isn't it cuuuuute" to "congratulations, on your newborn! Wait a second, doesn't diabetes run in your family? You really shouldn't do that to your kids." It doesn't have to be harsh, nor does the parent need to be shunned for their choices, but an awareness should at least be present. I see my idea similar to the green movement where people are just aware now to watch their littering and carbon emissions if they can help it.
The problems with that are obvious though, and that is why I think that people who are known to have any genetic disorder should be aware that they have a responsibility to society to not propagate their genetic defects. It's nothing against the individuals, but it's unfair to their children, their children's children, and the spouses of those children. Also, if you are unfit to raise your children, then for their sake, you shouldn't have them either.
The rights of these individuals shouldn't be infringed, but society needs to put some real pressure on these parents who pop out kids without any consideration on what they are doing to them. As things are now, new babies are celebrated for being a new life in the world and you will get all the women cooing over the newborn. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is too indiscriminate. No one can say that the new mother is capable of raising that kid to be a contributing member of society, or that that kid won't grow up to be a gang-banger. People are just too shortsighted in regards to human life, and mentally challenged or not, long-term considerations need to be made if we want to progress.
I just want to see conversations to go from "Oh! look at your new baby, isn't it cuuuuute" to "congratulations, on your newborn! Wait a second, doesn't diabetes run in your family? You really shouldn't do that to your kids." It doesn't have to be harsh, nor does the parent need to be shunned for their choices, but an awareness should at least be present. I see my idea similar to the green movement where people are just aware now to watch their littering and carbon emissions if they can help it.
In the minority here by the looks, but I don't think they should. Yeah, it's discriminatory, but i was never a fan of that political correctness anyway.