Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Wintermoot]

that,s something very hard to consider (ethicly) from a ethical stand point yes from a evelotionairy standpoint no since it would keep the "bad genes" in the gene pool

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I think that the mentally challenged should have the right to procreate. I doubt most of them will be doing so anyway, but if they want to they should have the right to.

This sort of hits a little close to home for me though, because my one grandmother was deemed mentally handicaped and the government attempted to sterilize her. Thanking they "attempted" to because the process failed I guess and she managed to have my mom, who in turn had me. I'm totally fine and although I wouldn't consider my grandma to be mentally handicapped (she isn't the smartest person around, but she isn't retarded), I think that even mentally handicapped people can have kids who aren't. And since "regular" people can have mentally handicapped kids, not allowing the mentally challenged to procreate doesn't even solve wipe it out if that is what you are going for.

So definately no. Its not right denying these people the right to procreate and it isn't even an effective method.

 

[xqxm]

Videogames, eugenics, what's the difference?

Anyway, disregarding all the ethical and moral implications of selective breeding of the human race, i actually do not care enough to give an opinion. I'll be laughing manically six feet under before anything ever decided upon gives any noticable effect whatsoever.

 

[Stephanos132]

Sure they should. Someone has to pick up the breeding slack after all.

 

[BlackStar42]

They're human aren't they? So, yes. No-one has the right to make a decision for someone else like that.

 

[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.

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.

If you are able to find my first post in this thread, you will see that I said that I said that if they are able to raise the child, I'm okay with it.

But I do believe we should be able to deny someone to create life if there is an overbearing probablility that that life will be miserable, and/or a significant burden for the rest of the society. The reason there are laws against stealing is because stealing is a burden to society. If we know a child is going to be severely mentally disabled, or will have to be put under the government's care because the parents can't take care of it, I do think we should say "no, you really shouldn't have this child".

N.B. The views presented in this post may seem more extremist than the actual views of Jonluw, due to him being fired up in the debate.

 

[TinCynic]

No, Democrats should not be allowed to procreate.

 

[IAmTheVoid]

People who are mentally challenged are human.
Humans have rights and freedoms.
You work out the rest.

 

[jedizero]

I'd say no. That's not the kind of thing we need to spread.

Restricting the rights of procreation to certain people sounds like a recipe for disaster. How does one determine if they are fit to give birth to children? Will everyone be forced to go through tests? Who will regulate these tests? Why would these people get to decide what is acceptable? I probably trust the government with more things than most people do, but I would never want them to control breeding. It could only lead to one thing; discrimination on a genetic level. And that's one thing our society could do without.

Not all mentally challenged people have mentally challenged children, nor do all non-mentally challenged people have non-mentally challenged kids.

It's also important to keep this in mind.

Whys is 'discrimination on a genetic level' a bad thing, exactly?

Beware stating that some people should be forced to not have children. YOU, might be deemed genetically inferior.

 

[WOPR]

I am "mentally challenged" but the type of "challenge" I have resulted in a staggeringly high IQ, I just process things differently (I do everything in my head and math teachers hate me for it )

But saying we should be allowed to have kids I'll rebuttle with the statement that "everyone of you who claim to have ADD or ADHD shouldn't be allowed to either" (despite the over diagnosis)

and if you're on the subject people who don't have a "disability" are called "nero-typical" so do we want the people that all think the same and think they're better because they "don't have a disability" reproducing?

last I checked being ignorant and full of yourself and not thinking things through is what got Hitler elected (and Bush elected *cough*)... so what would you prefer?

Oh and a personal note, anyone who thinks someone shouldn't be allowed to procreate because they're different deserves a bullet in the head because that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and there's a difference between thinking differentially and being just plain stupid...

...I'm sure religion fits in here somewhere with their whole anti-gay thing but that's off topic.

 

[Shycte]

As a principle, the guvornment should never EVER be able to say: Group X should not be allowed to do Y, because if they do so, we are no longer equals.

Spoiler: Just something to think about

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 

[WOPR]

No, Democrats should not be allowed to procreate.

Are you stating that democrats are mentally challenged?
you DO know that in a political standing point democrats and republicans are both right wing?
you do know that Sarah Palin had the same political standpoint as Adolf Hitler?
you do know that communism is a type of economy not government so a "Communistic Democracy" can exist right?
you do know that ideals of "Democrat" and "Republican" switched with the great depression right?

of course you don't, because no one but a blind-eyed overly patriotic American (generally republicans) would make such a sweeping stupid statement

you sir are the one that should not be allowed to procreate
not the mentally challenged, because I can promise you, that they're smarter then you are

need proof?

me.

 

[WOPR]

As a principle, the guvornment should never EVER be able to say: Group X should not be allowed to do Y, because if they do so, we are no longer equals.

Spoiler: Just something to think about

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I applaud you for that statement

but for the equality thing think about this

"In America, all are equal... Some are just more equal then others."

 

[Josh Kurber]

Plus, you know, you don't have to be mentally challenged to be an unfit parent. And nowadays it's getting hard to tell, since we've declined so far in intelligence lately, that you can't walk to the store anymore without seeing some stupid human being (mostly males and stereotypical blonds) that shouldn't have a right to procreate either. I think that mentally challenged people should be rightly allowed to procreate if they are able to handle it and whatnot. I'd rather have a mentally challenged child then a complete ignoramus child.

 

[Josh Kurber]

As a principle, the guvornment should never EVER be able to say: Group X should not be allowed to do Y, because if they do so, we are no longer equals.

Spoiler: Just something to think about

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I applaud you for that statement

but for the equality thing think about this

"In America, all are equal... Some are just more equal then others."

Yeah... despite all the spat out bull about equality in this country, I really don't see much equality. We still judge people on race, sex, style, appearances, and religion.

 

[thejboy88]

To me at least, it all comes down to a single beleif. "All humans have the inherent right to produce offspring" and the last time I checked, the mentally challenged counted as human. So unless some governments start "re-defining" what the term "human" means the choice is pretty simple for me.

 

[ColateralDamage]

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.

Not to directly attack you or anything RadiusXd but humanity as a whole won't just accept mentally challenged people as equal when it comes to mates, we're both genetically and socially conditioned against it as bad as that sounds. This pretty much makes it moot if you want to talk about the lack of natural selection destroying humanity. It's unlikely that mental retardation will naturally increase much more than the current 3% of the population, unless some wide spread chemical spill causes mental handicaps in children and even that isn't genetic. The only way to cause a massive growth is for people to run out and start having children with mentally challenged people in droves and even that doesn't guarantee mental retardation in the offspring.

As I've said before the main issue is the children, if the parents can care for them they I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have children. Also it's not ideal, but one slightly or non-mentally handicapped parent can raise a child.

 

[Flying Dagger]

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.

No, I wouldn't let someone unable to look after a child try to look after someone else's child. I'd let them attempt to look after their own though.