Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[spartan231490]

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.

Don't leave a reply to say you can't be bothered and then leave a premise without evidence.
Your Post DISGUSTS me, because it is comprable to a "type and run".

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.

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.

Your argument is that those with disabilities deserve the same rights as normal people because they are still people. by this logic, giving them extra help in school, giving them special parking, forcing buildings to have ramps, and giving them any other priviledge should be wrong as well because the rest of us are just people like them. You can't have it both ways, if you want them to have all the freedom then they should have to have all the same responsibilities too.

 

[geekRAGE]

why do we always gotta be politically correct and say "mentally challenged" why not just retarded

 

[Brandon237]

No, as liberal as I am... that is pushing it The child would either be A: mentally handicapped themselves or B: very miserable with incapable parents. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 

[Dastardly]

A friend and I were having a discussion. He mentioned he doesn't think mentally challenged people should procreate. I'm not sure what side of the fence I fall on. I can understand they're human too but also that having more challenged children wouldn't be helping anyone. What do you think?

To me, it's not about whether or not we're "spreading" the mental handicap. It's a mutation, an error in genetic processes, not the sort of thing you can "breed out" anyway.

To me, it's an issue of responsibility. Who will be responsible for raising (and paying for) the child from birth through 18? If it's the handicapped parent or another family member, and they can do it (financially and mentally), then it never enters anything resembling my jurisdiction. If it's me (as a taxpayer), then shouldn't I get a vote?

THAT is the heart of the issue. It's not whether or not we should be making more handicapped people, or any such nonsense. It's about whether or not someone's biological "right" or "freedom" is actually just a whim they are imposing on someone else's rights and freedoms. There are two ways to go on the issue:

a) If you are financially and psychologically capable of properly raising a child from pregnancy through age 18, then you're 100% free to have as many as you like. You're providing for them, you're monitoring their behavior, you're teaching them how to be good people, so it's your call.

b) If you are EITHER financially or psychologically incapable of properly raising a child from pregnancy through age 18, then it's NOT your call. Because you're doing the fun part (having sex and fulfilling that biological drive to give birth)... but then you're sticking EVERYONE ELSE with the bill, or with the responsibility of keeping your child from being a shithead.

That's like if your neighbor was allow to buy a puppy, keep it for a week, and then give it to YOU. You are now completely responsible for that puppy in terms of time and money. And next week? They can go buy another one, keep it for a week, and ta-da, now YOU have another puppy to care/pay for.

At some point, wouldn't you want to be able to say, "You aren't allowed to buy anymore puppies, if I'M going to have to take care of them?"

 

[tehroc]

I cant believe this thread still exists. If I was a mod I'd lock this immediately as only can flaming arise from a topic like this.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Your argument is that those with disabilities deserve the same rights as normal people because they are still people. by this logic, giving them extra help in school, giving them special parking, forcing buildings to have ramps, and giving them any other priviledge should be wrong as well because the rest of us are just people like them. You can't have it both ways, if you want them to have all the freedom then they should have to have all the same responsibilities too.

Other then completely ignoring everything I wrote to start your own diatribe, your argument makes no sense.
we give extra help in schools to anyone (yes, anyone) who needs it, disabled or not. We make sure everyone has access to the buildings, not just those who can walk. We accept that people who cannot walk as easily should have the spaces with the easiest access to make up for this.
These are not examples of inequality, but examples of equality being inacted.

They have the same responsibilities, they pay the same level of taxes, should they be able to earn, and disability benefits are lower then the amount given to the unemployed in most countries, meaning that those who can't work are getting less then those looking for it.

They do not recieve "preferential" treatment, in most cases, they barely recieve enough help as it is.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Don't leave a reply to say you can't be bothered and then leave a premise without evidence.
Your Post DISGUSTS me, because it is comprable to a "type and run".

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.

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.

Ahem, Godwin's law.

Secondly, you're making a bad comparison and a false dichotomy.

Bad comparison: "Mentally handicapped" to "Colored People." In the case of folks with severe mental handicaps, it can be demonstrated that they are not capable of financially or psychologically raising a child in the proper way. And furthermore, it can be shown that this deficiency is directly related to the disability. You cannot scientifically show that a person is incapable of these things simply because they're "colored."

False dichotomy: "If you don't think they should be allowed to breed, it's because you think they are worthless or genetically inferior." Not true. Think of it in the way I expressed it in my post above. It's not about the genetics, it's about who is going to be responsible for the child. Whoever is going to be financially responsible for the raising of that child should be the one to decide. If it's the parent, cool, go for it. Have ten. If it's the taxpayer... well, now it's not just your call.

There are degrees of mental handicap, I certainly understand. But it is reasonable to believe the original post is referring to those who are on the more severe end. Folks classified as "trainable mentally handicapped" or "severe/profound mental handicap" for instance.

 

[Impluse_101]

Allowed to, I'll say yes. Advised to, no. Anyone with a genetic disease/disease carrier should be very cautious around having children, until the point that we have all-reaching, government-paid gene therapy. Don't restrict people's rights, but I'd say people should be very careful around it.

I really couldn't have said that better myself, this.

 

[FallenTraveler]

in my opinion....

well heres the thing, It all depends on what you mean by mentally challenged, do you mean cerebral palsy or downs syndrome, or do you mean autism or something along those lines?

in the case of downs syndrome it depends on how bad the case is... but I guess generally I would say

Mentally Challenged mother: If her body can handle pregnancy and she can be careful then fine... but that still sounds like a bad thing to me.

Mentally Challenged father: Sure why not.

but I dont want to pay for these peoples children if they arent going to take care of them.

USE PROTECTION

 

[scrambledeggs]

I'm seriously disturbed by the fact anyone here could even come close to justifying an answer to the negative.

Just wow. People are so close-minded.

The irony in this post and posts like it is delicious.

I understand where you're coming from, it's just hard to believe people are naive enough to think it's ok to outright deny a human their subconscious, primal desires.

 

[GordoFreemann]

Logic: Allowing mentally retarded people to re-produce would only lead to more of them, and we all know they are a hindrance to modern society. Allow them to live their lives, but for our future they should not be allowed to reproduce. They cost us time and money, two valuables resources which should be properly relocated to help those of us who seek to be productive members of society.

 

[Merkavar]

i guess it all depends on if the mental challenge is genetic or not.

This - it's all about whether the disability arises from a gene or not. And if it does whether or not it would be passed down to any offspring.

It maybe isn't the greatest idea for them to reproduce but you can't exactly run in and stop them saying "Whoah! No more retards thanks!!" - that goes against free will

it might go against free will but if your country is having financial dificulties one way to get out ofit or atleast to help get out of it is to remove the under performing segments of the population. as in making it so the retards or even just the poor cant have babies. i think it was the czech republic or something that did this or something similar from like the 30s to the 70s.

people might not agree with eugenics but it does seem to be a valid option. if you stop the poor welfare dependant segments of the population from having kids in a the long term you should be better off.

 

[Naleh]

Should anyone with an IQ less than 180 procreate? Such a restriction would make humanity smarter! While we're at it, they'll also have to be major league sports stars!

No? Then where are you planning to draw the line?

 

[Wardnath]

Ahem, Godwin's law.

We're talking about eugenics and/or controlled breeding. Not exactly something you can call Godwin's law on.

Logic: Allowing mentally retarded people to re-produce would only lead to more of them, and we all know they are a hindrance to modern society. Allow them to live their lives, but for our future they should not be allowed to reproduce. They cost us time and money, two valuables resources which should be properly relocated to help those of us who seek to be productive members of society.

 

[Giantcain]

I cant believe this thread still exists. If I was a mod I'd lock this immediately as only can flaming arise from a topic like this.

I am with you there. I have seen a post proposing we should kill some of the mentally challenged group for being a bit too mentally challenged and the rest of them should be sterilised. So yeah this thread should be locked as its only going to lead to a huge endless argument.

 

[Vortigar]

Should anyone with an IQ less than 180 procreate? Such a restriction would make humanity smarter! While we're at it, they'll also have to be major league sports stars!

No? Then where are you planning to draw the line?

Exactly, restrictions like these are slippery slopes that lead to Gattacca and Mengele.

You know, red meat is supposedly good for growing brain matter, let's ban vegetarians!

 

[S_K]

I don't care if they do or not, but I sure as hell don't think the government should have to pay for/raise them when the parents are incapable.

This times 1000

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

no one should procreate
the human race should just fizzle out in the next 80 or 90 years

Seconded.

 

[spartan231490]

Your argument is that those with disabilities deserve the same rights as normal people because they are still people. by this logic, giving them extra help in school, giving them special parking, forcing buildings to have ramps, and giving them any other priviledge should be wrong as well because the rest of us are just people like them. You can't have it both ways, if you want them to have all the freedom then they should have to have all the same responsibilities too.

Other then completely ignoring everything I wrote to start your own diatribe, your argument makes no sense.
we give extra help in schools to anyone (yes, anyone) who needs it, disabled or not. We make sure everyone has access to the buildings, not just those who can walk. We accept that people who cannot walk as easily should have the spaces with the easiest access to make up for this.
These are not examples of inequality, but examples of equality being inacted.

They have the same responsibilities, they pay the same level of taxes, should they be able to earn, and disability benefits are lower then the amount given to the unemployed in most countries, meaning that those who can't work are getting less then those looking for it.

They do not recieve "preferential" treatment, in most cases, they barely recieve enough help as it is.

Of course they recieve preferential treatment. Just because that treatment is designed to put them on a more equel footing doesn't mean it's not preferential. Mentally challenged individuals get twice the time on school tests. Do you honestly believe that's not preferential treatment? Cuz it is. As for the parking stickers, you can get a parking sticker for being blind in one eye. That doesn't make it any harder to walk, i know this, because my friend is blind in one eye and refuses to use the sticker that they give him because he knows he doesn't need it. If the state acknowledges that they are less than the rest of us and need special help just to be able to function on our level, than i see no ethical reason not to restrict thier rights. If you are going to restrict thier rights on the ethical grounds that tehy are just like the rest of us, than ethically, they cannot be given any advantage the rest of us get. Like the parking stickers, or the mandatory ramps, or the extra test time. Buildings aren't required to make doorways extra tall so people like Shaq can enter without ducking, and they don't have to put thier doorknobs extra low so that so called "little people" can work the doors. So why should they be required to provide ramps and special parking for the handicapped? Either they are equal, or they aren't, a contradiction cannot exist in reality.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Ahem, Godwin's law.

Secondly, you're making a bad comparison and a false dichotomy.

Bad comparison: "Mentally handicapped" to "Colored People." In the case of folks with severe mental handicaps, it can be demonstrated that they are not capable of financially or psychologically raising a child in the proper way. And furthermore, it can be shown that this deficiency is directly related to the disability. You cannot scientifically show that a person is incapable of these things simply because they're "colored."

False dichotomy: "If you don't think they should be allowed to breed, it's because you think they are worthless or genetically inferior." Not true. Think of it in the way I expressed it in my post above. It's not about the genetics, it's about who is going to be responsible for the child. Whoever is going to be financially responsible for the raising of that child should be the one to decide. If it's the parent, cool, go for it. Have ten. If it's the taxpayer... well, now it's not just your call.

There are degrees of mental handicap, I certainly understand. But it is reasonable to believe the original post is referring to those who are on the more severe end. Folks classified as "trainable mentally handicapped" or "severe/profound mental handicap" for instance.

I'm going to take issue with the two points you raise, but I at least thank you for showing some level of understanding of debate.

The false dichotomy was explaining the two reasons that are concievable for supporting the topic.
The first is that you do not believe them to be equal, through either hate of disabled people for whatever reason, resentment or otherwise, you do not think they have an equal right to have children.
the second is economic, following which, by the same logic, you should enforce eugenics on the less educated, the poor, people in third world countries who don't produce food we use, because they are just taking up valuable resources we pay for. Which encompasses the bad comparison, if your argument is purely economical, this becomes viable.

Or is it dependent on the amount you save? Either way, if you put some thought into this, it comes out pretty damning. if people can be of sound enough mind to decide they want kids, they should be allowed to have them. if they are not of mentus compus to decide they want kids, it's unlikely that they will be having them.