Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Wardnath]

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.

I think my head just exploded from reading that.

 

[Flying Dagger]

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.

Yeah, once again you didn't even slightly understand my argument. Which doesn't surprise me if you can't spell "they" correctly.
But I'm not going to argue with someone who believes that disabled people do not deserve special parking privileges, or believe that only giving help to those that need it is "unfair."

 

[Ickorus]

Depends on a couple of variables really:

- Is it genetic?
- Can they/their partner look after the child?

If it's genetic I say flat out no, the planet is already over-populated and we don't need any more burdens on society to deal with.

If they nor their partner can look after the child then once again no, same reasoning as above.

If however they can look after the kid and the disability isn't genetic then sure, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes, they should. Our ability to go against nature is what makes us human. Besides, not all children of the mentally challenged will be as well, and mentally challenged people are often some of the nicest.

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

I look forward to you setting a wonderful example for us all.

humans are getting stupider and stupider as time goes on
and anyone smart enough to notice the pattern isn't getting laid any time soon
my self included but even if I got a chance to procreate I wouldn't my kids to have to put up with the world until they die

I wouldn't wish life on my worst enemy.

It's true. Cynical people do have poisonous personalities.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Yeah, once again you didn't even slightly understand my argument. Which doesn't surprise me if you can't spell "they" correctly.
But I'm not going to argue with someone who believes that disabled people do not deserve special parking privileges, or believe that only giving help to those that need it is "unfair."

Of course I said that it was unequal and preferential, it is. I'm saying that if you say they deserve the same rights because they are equal to the rest of us in being human, than by the same logic, we deserve all the rights and priviledges they get, because we are also human. If you say they deserve extra priviledges that other humans get, than you can't turn around and argue that because they are human just like the rest of us, they deserve to be treated the same. That's a contradiction.

Also, I love how you call me on my spelling, it's obvious that I know how to spell they, I just didn't choose to correct it because I assumed everyone here was smart enough to figure out what I meant. By picking on that, it's kinda like your saying that you don't have enough arguments against what I'm saying to make a valid post. Either that, or you somehow actually believe that because I misspelled a word, the rest of my argument is rendered invalid.

Edit: why doesn't this thread have a poll? A poll would have helped to see the public opinion of the escapist more than just a thread.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Yes. If they are unable to care for a child then that child should be adopted or taken into care but yes, taking away someones right to breed for something that is not even remotely their fault is vile in the extreme to me and I would consider anyone who would carry out such a programme the worst kind of filth and anyone who supposrts it to be not much better.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Of course I said that it was unequal and preferential, it is. I'm saying that if you say they deserve the same rights because they are equal to the rest of us in being human, than by the same logic, we deserve all the rights and priviledges they get, because we are also human. If you say they deserve extra priviledges that other humans get, than you can't turn around and argue that because they are human just like the rest of us, they deserve to be treated the same. That's a contradiction.

Also, I love how you call me on my spelling, it's obvious that I know how to spell they, I just didn't choose to correct it because I assumed everyone here was smart enough to figure out what I meant. By picking on that, it's kinda like your saying that you don't have enough arguments against what I'm saying to make a valid post. Either that, or you somehow actually believe that because I misspelled a word, the rest of my argument is rendered invalid.

Edit: why doesn't this thread have a poll? A poll would have helped to see the public opinion of the escapist more than just a thread.

I said I'm not going to bother arguing with you, that's why my post lacked arguments.
However, I'll clarify one thing, seeing as you think you have found a loophole in the concept of equality.
When people talk of equality, in the broadest sense, they mean Equality of opportunity, not Equality of ability, this is because on the surface, not everyone is equal, some are faster, some are taller, some are shorter and some are slower.
Regardless of the issues they were born with however, we believe in giving everyone the same chance in life, this is equality.

 

[Jaythulhu]

They can't be any worse as parents than the shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool morons I'm forced to serve with a polite smile at work, so let 'em go for it.

 

[RadiusXd]

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.

ALright, first of all, comparing me to a nazi is just a stupid fallback you can loosely relate, im not looking to lock up or kill anyone. are you going to compare a racehorse breeder to a nazi because he uses selective breeding?

second, if anything, black people are faster, stronger, and better at most things then white people a good deal of the time. And why is this? because they have been exposed to a more hostile environment. (EVOLUTION) But wait, if people originated in africa, and now they are slower weaker and dumber in other places. then what has happened? perhaps the same thing that is still happening.

i am not saying people shouldn't breed based on their religion or the colour of their skin.
I AM saying that people not fit to take care of themselves shouldn't try to take on the burden of raising another human being, one i might add, that would grow up to be itself a burden to society.

hitler was a sociopathic dick, i am using foresight. not everything can be sunshine lolliepops and rainbows forever.

EDIT: "THIS IS EQUALITY!!!!!!"

 

[Littlee300]

Damn my darwism making my feel like a dick.
So I am leaning towards 'no'

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

Well after reading this comment I felt better about myself

 

[Zykon TheLich]

are you going to compare a racehorse breeder to a nazi because he uses selective breeding?

No, because he's breeding horses not people.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oooooooh, sarcasm. Clever!

Yeah, I don't really feel like paying for other people's kids thanks. Especially when we knew that was the case before they were ever concieved. At some point this charity will impoverish everyone. And I don't just mean the mentally handicapped. I mean the entire welfare state we have in this country. But you're probably all of what 20? So you probably have a better grasp of the world than I do.

Oooh, trying to deride me with a made up age...Clever!

I don't know. Looks a lot like your argument could be made for any group one doesn't like. Not to mention the usual rhetoric of "I don't want to pay for things I don't like" almost certainly swings your way, as well as theirs. This is a really big problem with many of these arguments that basically come down to "I got mine, screw all y'all."

And, I mean, really. The concept of protection is not one that should really be applied selectively. Of course, I'm sure it will only apply to the people you don't like, and your reasoning is solely altruistic.

 

[Flying Dagger]

ALright, first of all, comparing me to a nazi is just a stupid fallback you can loosely relate, im not looking to lock up or kill anyone. are you going to compare a racehorse breeder to a nazi because he uses selective breeding?

second, if anything, black people are faster, stronger, and better at most things then white people a good deal of the time. And why is this? because they have been exposed to a more hostile environment. (EVOLUTION) But wait, if people originated in africa, and now they are slower weaker and dumber in other places. then what has happened? perhaps the same thing that is still happening.

i am not saying people shouldn't breed based on their religion or the colour of their skin.
I AM saying that people not fit to take care of themselves shouldn't try to take on the burden of raising another human being, one i might add, that would grow up to be itself a burden to society.

hitler was a sociopathic dick, i am using foresight. not everything can be sunshine lolliepops and rainbows forever.

Hitler believed in eugenics, I'm not calling you hitler for supporting this, I just mention that I do not believe that making the world populated by perfect people is a good idea, and use that as a starting point for saying why I disagree with it. If you had read what I had written correctly, you'd have noticed that what I claim to be nazi-ish has very little in common to what you were purporting.

Black people may be faster and stronger (or they may not, I'm not going to contend this either way) but in modern terms, the usefulness of someone to the country does not reside in their physical prowess, but in their ability to earn, and conversely the more likely they are to destroy wealth, through crime or benefits, the less useful they are. By the same reasoning as you can say "we can save money by not letting disabled people reproduce" you can also say "we can save money by not letting certain black communities reproduce"

But life and liberty are not solely about economics, that would never be said because of the uproar there would inevitably be, it's a damning show on prejudice to disabled people that a suggestion such as that in the topic of this thread does not.

 

[RadiusXd]

are you going to compare a racehorse breeder to a nazi because he uses selective breeding?

No, because he's breeding horses not people.

not meaning to sound like the evilist barstard on the planet, but stick with me here.
if there was a human as intelligent as a horse, then what is the invisible barrier keeping him above the horse? i certainly do place ANY human higher than a horse, i just want to know what it is exactly.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

not meaning to sound like the evilist barstard on the planet, but stick with me here.
if there was a human as intelligent as a horse, then what is the invisible barrier keeping him above the horse? i certainly do place ANY human higher than a horse, i just want to know what it is exactly.

The fact that he or she is human.

 

[heaventorn]

If they are capable and can properly raise the child, then allow them. However, if they can barely care for themselves, then no. This idea, however, should not be restricted to the mentally challenged, but to all peoples. Some of you might see it as being closed minded, but merely assuming everything needs to be happy-go-lucky and ignoring the fact that improper parenting can have devastating affects on children makes you the close minded one.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

That's just the problem... the creation of a child is a one-off, chance event. Even giving birth to the child is a singular event. Someone can decide they want to "have a child" or "give birth to a child," and once that event is complete, they're satisfied... but then they're stuck with, well, a CHILD for the next eighteen years. And in far too many cases, they decide that, since they've gotten what they want, someone else can handle the child.

Maybe they selfishly decided to fulfill that biological drive when they had no job, no education, and absolutely no means to support that child. Does that mean it is the PUBLIC'S obligation to get them a child? That's the problem--we're putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. Instead of "Why shouldn't this person have a child," we should be asking, "Why should I have to pay so they can have a child (which I will then continue paying for)?"

If you can't support the child (financially, materially, emotionally, etc.), it's YOU that needs the pretty compelling reason why everyone else should fork over the cash to support your habit.

A mentally-handicapped person could decide, "I like babies, I want one," or hell, even just "Sex seems fun, I want some." Ta-da, they get someone in the same group home pregnant, or get pregnant themselves. Now what? That wasn't an informed decision, but they made it, it's made, and now what? All they had to decide to do was have sex, and everyone else who has to deal with all of the consequences gets no vote?

It's not about freedom, it's about the impact of that freedom. If your exercise of freedom can be, for all practical purposes, self-contained (that is to say, you can pay for any expenses of time or money incurred by that exercise of freedom), then yes, it's YOUR freedom. If not, is it really YOUR call? Am I allowed to spend your money simply because I want to? Hell, at least with the government, I can try to vote them out of office if they spend my tax dollars in a way that I don't like... but with these folks, we have NO recourse.

I've seen women who've already had THREE kids taken away by DSS, for neglect and just plain inability to support the child. And this is AFTER a few years of the government forking over welfare dollars, WIC, and every other entitlement program. All of that money thrown at her, they STILL take the kids away, now they're being raised by the state (us), and SHE'S PREGNANT AGAIN. And she can keep doing it until what? Until she's put in jail for breeding? (Can't) Until she's told to stop it? (Can't) Until she's obligated to take birth control? (Can't)

The economic reasons behind all of this are valid. It's not about some indirect cost-benefit analysis about the "greater good" as determined by suits in an office somewhere far away. It's directly costing us money and resources today, here, and now, raising the kids of people who were unfit to be parents to begin with. It at least bears some consideration, without being dismissed as "Nazi."

 

[RadiusXd]

ALright, first of all, comparing me to a nazi is just a stupid fallback you can loosely relate, im not looking to lock up or kill anyone. are you going to compare a racehorse breeder to a nazi because he uses selective breeding?

second, if anything, black people are faster, stronger, and better at most things then white people a good deal of the time. And why is this? because they have been exposed to a more hostile environment. (EVOLUTION) But wait, if people originated in africa, and now they are slower weaker and dumber in other places. then what has happened? perhaps the same thing that is still happening.

i am not saying people shouldn't breed based on their religion or the colour of their skin.
I AM saying that people not fit to take care of themselves shouldn't try to take on the burden of raising another human being, one i might add, that would grow up to be itself a burden to society.

hitler was a sociopathic dick, i am using foresight. not everything can be sunshine lolliepops and rainbows forever.

Hitler believed in eugenics, I'm not calling you hitler for supporting this, I just mention that I do not believe that making the world populated by perfect people is a good idea, and use that as a starting point for saying why I disagree with it. If you had read what I had written correctly, you'd have noticed that what I claim to be nazi-ish has very little in common to what you were purporting.

Black people may be faster and stronger (or they may not, I'm not going to contend this either way) but in modern terms, the usefulness of someone to the country does not reside in their physical prowess, but in their ability to earn, and conversely the more likely they are to destroy wealth, through crime or benefits, the less useful they are. By the same reasoning as you can say "we can save money by not letting disabled people reproduce" you can also say "we can save money by not letting certain black communities reproduce"

But life and liberty are not solely about economics, that would never be said because of the uproar there would inevitably be, it's a damning show on prejudice to disabled people that a suggestion such as that in the topic of this thread does not.

but black people aren't like that when they are born. it is a matter of how you raise them. a genetic retard is decided from conception. very different issue. we must place desperate actions to desperate situations, and calling a black comprable to retard is sorta just wrong. there are lots of rich and productive black people. retards are by definition held back, in the case of genetic retards they have the limit to what they can achieve placed on them 9 months before birth. thats life, it sucks. but you cannot ignore a problem and you can't keep throwing tax money at it.

i am not saying it is the Only solution.
gene therapy in my mind shows some promise.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

No they should not-- Eugenics all the way baby! Next let's sterilize the lesser races too.