Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Jonluw]

Relax, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But let me just copy this from the wikipedia article.

"...the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

I figure that if they are not able to care for the child due to serious mental disabilities, or if there is a high chance of the child inheriting the disability, that is not responsible reproduction.

That of course refers to some document of rights, I usually just quote from my beliefs.
To me, any action of preventing people from having a child together is a violation of rights.

See, that's where we disagree, because I believe people should not be allowed to have children if they are not capable of raising them.

So you do not think people should be obliged to act responsibly in the process of having a child? Are you also okay with mothers drinking and smoking heavily - maybe even doing harder drugs - while pregnant, as well?

As I said; if by the very act of having a child, they are violating the human rights of that child, they shouldn't be allowed to have children. I do not think people should enforce their human rights by violating those of others. And I most certainly think there are people out there who do not qualify for becoming parents.

 

[MrTeles]

No.

 

[Harrowdown]

Yes, of course. The whole point of natural selection is that people will choose to procreate with other people that aren't mentally challenged, so as to ensure the best offspring possible. Even if forbidding it was morally acceptable, there's really no need. Actual physical evolution isn't as significant to us now anyway, seeing as we operate as a society.

 

[Jonluw]

America is (quote) "Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." I guess that didn't include the mentally disabled.

Nor slaves nor women, may I point out. But that's a cheap shot.

May I also point out that people with down's syndrome actually have (I think it was) one extra chromosome. So, no: Not all men are created equal.

 

[Soushi]

Ehhhh... this is a hard topic, becasue political correctness abounds, as well as really hot tempers.
Personally, for me, it has nothing to do with gentetics or capability, but rather will. If someone has the will to procreate and the ability to provide care for their signifigant other and offspring, then i don't see a problem. Love has to enter somewhere into the equation. So, in the case of procreating becasue of an inability to understand the concept, if the parents can't care for thier offspring, no. In the cases where love is present and there is an understanding of the concept, yes.
However, i do believe in genetic engineering and in the restructuring of human genes, to create a world were there are no more diseases or mental conditions that provide disadvatages in a society that may not always have the capability to assist in the struggle. And before you get all trigger happy, i am not talking about the minor ones, like ADD, ect, that can in fact provide people with an advantage in life (don't fix what isn't broke), i am talking about the big ones, the costly and deadly ones.
And, before anyhting else, in regards to the question and to genetic engineering, not for the sake of creating 'perfect people' but rather to create a stronger (like i said, not perfect, but stronger) species so that, when we take our place in the universe, we have all the advatages the nature has attempted to provide us with: will, love, free thought, courage, ect. (and one more thing, i have absolutly zero interest in looking at this from a religious stand point, so if you are going to use the god argument, please don't even bother, just cause it always boils down to a massive intellectual mess)

 

[RadiusXd]

Actually, both kinds of equality are discussed. What is equality of opportunity? Kids born in NYC have different opportunities than those born in the adirondack park, who have different opportunities than those born in Colorado. Kids who are smarter have different opportunities than those who aren't. Life is unequal, trying to force it to be equal is an exersice in futility, and an invitation to mutual mediocrity. However, should not all children born have equal opportunity? Children born to parents with mental disabilities will not only have a higher likelyhood of being mentally challenged themselves, but will also have fewer opportunities because thier parents will be less able to care for and provide for them.

I hate to call you on this, but that is not possible. You cannot give a mentally handicapped person "equality of opportunity". A friend of mine has a minor mental issue. He works for good will, and a local program that helps people with problems like his. But he cannot go to college, because he often cannot focus long enough to get anything done where school work is concerned. even the most basics of maths and history evade him. He was provided with the opportunities to work, but that does not make it a matter of equality. He is not "equal" to me in almost any area. Including physically.
People who are stuck on "equality" Bother me. I am bigger, stronger, smarter and tougher than most of the people I know. I am also not as attractive ((IE I am not "pretty")) as many people I know. I was born with a psychological disorder that balances my other advantages, but I have adapted to it and learned to cope and be effective. I have absolutely no skill in any kind of crafting. Do you see where I am going? We are none of us, equal. you may find someone with equal skill or ability in one area, but you will not be equal in all.


OT: Depends on their ability to care for their children. If they are otherwise responsible, not relying on the state or federal government to provide for them, then why not? But if they are disabled to the point where they cannot do for themselves, how is it fair for the rest of us to pick up the tab for them?

We can't prevent death, can't solve all diseases, but is that a reason to stop trying?
To not solve the diseases we can fight? to not try to give people the lives they should have?
Just because a cause cannot be fully completed does not mean there's no reason to solve the little issues, to give those we can the opportunities they deserve.

I'd call myself a success story of this. I was born with ADHD, without help and medication I would probably have never gone anywhere, without extra time in exams I would probably have not got to the university I attend. Without extra help when I started writing and reading, I might have ended up in a retail job.
But instead I'm here, pushing through progressive social policy, working for the government trying to change things, for the better, coming up with the initiatives that will go out and change lives.

Would you have taken that away from me?

im in high school right now, and i have pretty severe adhd.(at least im told)
they talked about giving extra time on exams and stuff. but i basically told them no.
why should i get extra time because i'm slower? would they make the questions easier if i was stupid?

 

[Flying Dagger]

Relax, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But let me just copy this from the wikipedia article.

"...the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

I figure that if they are not able to care for the child due to serious mental disabilities, or if there is a high chance of the child inheriting the disability, that is not responsible reproduction.

That of course refers to some document of rights, I usually just quote from my beliefs.
To me, any action of preventing people from having a child together is a violation of rights.

See, that's where we disagree, because I believe people should not be allowed to have children if they are not capable of raising them.

So you do not think people should be obliged to act responsibly in the process of having a child? Are you also okay with mothers drinking and smoking heavily - maybe even doing harder drugs - while pregnant, as well?

As I said; if by the very act of having a child, they are violating the human rights of that child, they shouldn't be allowed to have children. I do not think people should enforce their human rights by violating those of others. And I most certainly think there are people out there who do not qualify for becoming parents.

you'd probably be very interested in the work of these people.
I don't agree with them either, and now I'm getting hungry I'm going to agree to disagree.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Yeah. Honestly, the kid would probably turn out better then those white trash redneck kids...

 

[Flying Dagger]

im in high school right now, and i have pretty severe adhd.(at least im told)
they talked about giving extra time on exams and stuff. but i basically told them no.
why should i get extra time because i'm slower? would they make the questions easier if i was stupid?

I applaud your sensibilities, even if the reasoning behind them is wrong.
The point of examinations is to ascertain your level of ability at a subject, if it takes someone with adhd 25% longer to get across their level of ability, then they give them that.
But if you want to stick to your principles, that's fine, I've rejected monetary aids before, due to wanting to strike it out on my own, but when it came to grades, I realised that not taking the help that was there to level the playing field would just be insulting to every person who ever tried to help me achieve.

 

[metal mustache]

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?

it does not matter, our biology will someday be strong enough to make all people equals in power and intelligence, even rendering handicaps irrelvent.

 

[Jonluw]

Relax, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But let me just copy this from the wikipedia article.

"...the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

I figure that if they are not able to care for the child due to serious mental disabilities, or if there is a high chance of the child inheriting the disability, that is not responsible reproduction.

That of course refers to some document of rights, I usually just quote from my beliefs.
To me, any action of preventing people from having a child together is a violation of rights.

See, that's where we disagree, because I believe people should not be allowed to have children if they are not capable of raising them.

So you do not think people should be obliged to act responsibly in the process of having a child? Are you also okay with mothers drinking and smoking heavily - maybe even doing harder drugs - while pregnant, as well?

As I said; if by the very act of having a child, they are violating the human rights of that child, they shouldn't be allowed to have children. I do not think people should enforce their human rights by violating those of others. And I most certainly think there are people out there who do not qualify for becoming parents.

you'd probably be very interested in the work of these people.
I don't agree with them either, and now I'm getting hungry I'm going to agree to disagree.

I sort of like her project, actually. Sure, I can agree to disagree, but before I go, I will throw this out there:

Would you allow a severely mentally disabled (not Forrest Gump disabled, severely disabled) person to adopt a child? Because there are perfectly healthy people who don't qualify for adoption.

 

[Sinker]

If they can swing it I say you should let 'em.

 

[DkLnBr]

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

This, down to the very same wording. If its genetics thats the problem, then we have to take a page from Darwin's Theory and use natural selection to (for a lack of a better word) cull the defective DNA from the human gene pool. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but thats just what i think

 

[Xojins]

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.

I agree with this 100%. If you're going to bring a child into the world, you'd better make sure you can take care of it.

 

[Durgiun]

Well, if the problem is in the genetics, then I'm still thinking. If it's not in the genetics, sure. Let 'em screw.

 

[Thundero13]

I think that if they want children then they should adopt.

 

[Vault Citizen]

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?

Regulating who can procreate sounds like a very slipper slope, I won't go into any specifics or Godwin's law will be mentioned and I know none of us want that. From a moral and political standpoint it is very dodgey.

From a biological standpoint it is also questionable, not all mental dissabilities are inherited.

 

[bpm195]

Relax, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But let me just copy this from the wikipedia article.

"...the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

I figure that if they are not able to care for the child due to serious mental disabilities, or if there is a high chance of the child inheriting the disability, that is not responsible reproduction.

That of course refers to some document of rights, I usually just quote from my beliefs.
To me, any action of preventing people from having a child together is a violation of rights.

See, that's where we disagree, because I believe people should not be allowed to have children if they are not capable of raising them.

So you do not think people should be obliged to act responsibly in the process of having a child? Are you also okay with mothers drinking and smoking heavily - maybe even doing harder drugs - while pregnant, as well?

As I said; if by the very act of having a child, they are violating the human rights of that child, they shouldn't be allowed to have children. I do not think people should enforce their human rights by violating those of others. And I most certainly think there are people out there who do not qualify for becoming parents.

Is it right for a person to be denied life because their life will probably have more obstacles than others?

Personally I think no, but more importantly I don't think a free society should enforce death or the lack of life. If the parents believe they're capable of raising children they should be able to have them. If they don't they shouldn't have them. If parents find out they're going to have a child with some challenge then it's their choice how they proceed. I do think it's practical for the government to provide abortions to those who can't afford them, because it's sadly ironic that a person who feels they're financially unfit to have a child will probably not be able to afford an abortion, and there's far less financial burden on the society in aborting a child than funding it.

However, it's important that the government doesn't take choices away from people.