Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[WOPR]

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."

that's not about america you know, and the original quote never had america in it...
it's from animal farm =S

You get a cookie for knowing that quote

 

[Foolishman1776]

The real question is not 'should they'. The question is 'who gets to decide'. What you're talking about is basically eugenics, and is a horrible thing. I don't personally believe that people should want to pass on bad genes, but ultimately, it's their decision.

 

[Jonluw]

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.

See that's where we clash. I don't think it matters whether the child they (potentially) do damage to is theirs or not.

 

[Continuity]

I do believe that procreation should be a privilege and not a right, however eugenics is a deeply flawed theory (at least the original eugenics anyway) so I wouldn't advocate stopping groups of people procreating on that basis.
This does bring to mind that 2006 film "Idiocracy" however http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

Does make you think.

 

[Keltrick]

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

No, but in some forms of mental disability, the risk for it is hereditary and this would be an increased likelihood of it. I think the 'can you take care of your child' argument is the stronger though. People would be more willing to agree to that as a cause, than "protecting our genes".

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

They should be allowed to, as long as they can take care of the child.

 

[Hurray Forums]

I have no problem with them having sex, but having a child is another matter entirely. Make a certain standardized test of competence for parenthood that would be required to pass to be allowed a child. Before you scream "that's DISCRIMINATION!!!" make everyone take this test so it's equal, because really, a healthy idiot or a plain bad person having a child they can't take care of is just as bad as a mentally diseased person having a child they can't take care of. Now the whole "genes" thing is taken out of the picture and it's based on an (hopefully) objective test of the actual person instead of their diseases/genes. I mean, we have tests that decide whether or not you're competent to handle the responsibility of a fucking vehicle, a child is a lot bigger responsibility and more important then a car. You can say that people have the right to procreate all you want but children should have a right to not have incapable parents that trumps that right considering the consequences of a bad parent can be far worse then not being able to have kids.
(Random thought, I'm pretty sure they had a Law and Order episode on this. Then again what HAVEN'T they had a Law and Order episode on?)

As for the increased chance of mental disorders, well that would have to be handled on a case by case basis. Obviously it's not 100% and anyone can have a disabled child, but there's a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risk taking, particularly when someone else has to take the fall if you're wrong. I guess the problem is where to draw that line exactly. Makes more sense to just adopt and avoid the extra risk altogether but people don't always want to do what makes sense.

 

[Kyuubi Fanatic]

Denying them the chance to attempt raising children is wrong on a number of levels, so I would say no; at least until the number of mentally challenged raises to critical levels, which I don't think it ever will without society realizing it and doing something to stop it. Like a cure. Much more viable then attempting to stop them from "breeding", as it were.

 

[WestMountain]

It's strange how incest people is frowned upon when the result is in someway the same as mentally challenged getting kids.

If mentally challenged are allowed to get kids people should be able to get kids with their family too.

IMO people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want if it doesn't hurt anyone physically

 

[hawkeye52]

if its genetic i would say no but if it isnt then yes as long as they have sufficient capabilities to bring up said child and their household income without benefits is high enough to pay for the child.

 

[randomsix]

Denying them the chance to attempt raising children is wrong on a number of levels, so I would say no; at least until the number of mentally challenged raises to critical levels, which I don't think it ever will without society realizing it and doing something to stop it. Like a cure. Much more viable then attempting to stop them from "breeding", as it were.

At our current level of technology, it is more feasible to "cure" (read keep anyone else from getting) certain genetic diseases through eugenics than through something that takes care of the problem once it manifests (such as changing a living person's genes).

Yes, denying anyone a chance to have a child is wrong, but at the same time, it is also wrong to deny the child a chance to have able parent(s) and a chance to not have the disease afflicting his or her parent(s).

The question becomes whose rights are sovereign. I would argue that the child's are.

Note that my argument is only valid for genetically transmitted diseases, such as macular dystrophy (genetically inherited disease which results in vision loss and blindness).

EDIT:

Wow such great debate material. What's your next question, should we bring back hitler or drop a nuke on mars?

Pretty much everybody (except a troll) can agree that yes, they can procreate. Who gets to decide who's mentally unfit? Is it anybody that seems different to us?

I said earlier, Hitler was not hated for his eugenics program insofar as it was a eugenics program. He was and is hated because it was a program based on racism, shoddy science, and murder.

I'm sure we can agree that there exist genetically transmitted diseases which result in mental instability (take that as you will) the choosing of which would not be arbitrary.

As for a simple definition of mental unfitness, how about this: A person is mentally unfit if he or she is unable to achieve the status of majority during his or her life.
Meaning, in other words, the person, in the eyes of the state, never becomes an adult, and hence never becomes responsible for himself or herself.

Note that this is a quick theory and surely has flaws, but I feel the basic premises are sound.

 

[Bretty]

I got in a debate in this community with a guy who had two handicapped parents who could never work. Because of this the Gov't was giving his family money to help them live.

I think that if you cannot support children you shouldn't be allowed them. Sort of like these families in DC who are 3rd generation welfare and will always be, including their children and children's children.

I don't want to pay for these people!

 

[deus-ex-machina]

I don't think it should ever be made illegal. As people have said, it goes against basic human rights and supposed freedom we are all meant to have. Nevertheless, I think medical staff should not feel awkward in explaining to family and carers that it may not be an ideal situation for the pregnancy to go ahead if the parents would be incapable of looking after the child.

Not because of what problems the CHILD may have.

But a lot of people are very quick on the mark with comments like 'They shouldn't be having kids if they can't afford it' or 'If they're too stupid... rabble rabble rabble' so I think those same people should consider that a lot of mentally challenged people may not be earning anything and would not be able to support their child in many aspects of life.

So yeah, I'm not against it - but I'm not for it. Still, I don't see much of it happening, so I don't have a problem.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

*Sigh* I just hate these questions, nothing out of your control should prevent you from doing anything anyone else can do. If the mentally challenged can't have kids than douchebags can't run buisnesses, if gays can't marry than racists can't own property, etc, there's the deal society, I'll be waiting for your reply.

 

[ALuckyChance]

Well, there's two ways to look at this.

The first is that they should procreate, as it is their right, just as it is a right of everybody else.

The second is that, as mentally ill people usually (I believe? Please don't flame me) contribute less to society as mentally sound people do, and that allowing them to procreate guarantees the existence of more mentally ill people. Thus, this second view is held by people who believe that they should not be allowed to procreate.

Both points are valid.

Personally, I think only the severely mentally deficient should not be allowed - though of course, they probably wouldn't even be able to if they were that bad off, and there's always that pesky 'freedom' thing.

EDIT: Fuck me and my lack of experience on this subject. Disregard post.

 

[Ih8pkmn]

I find that "mentally challenged" people can actually be smarter than "Normal" people. and who cares if they have bad genes? they're recessive genes by nature, and may not even develop in their children.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It isn't a disease, people. Babies of the mentally ill can be normal, and vice versa.

My mom works as a counselor for the mentally ill, and you know what? They're people too.

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

I could see you saying people should procreate responsibly, and maintain a population or maybe slowly decline it, but destroy the human race? Really? Why, exactly, should the only sentient race on this planet be wiped out?

 

[Nabirius]

What you are talking about is called eugenics. The answer is sure why not, they are citizens just like everyone else.

 

[Dastardly]

Well, if you are financially incapable of supporting your child, emotionally incapable of raising the child, or otherwise impaired in your ability, that means someone else (the public) will have to take up the slack. We just became one of those adults that needs to be able to consent (or not).

The government has made it's decision, and decides that it will take care of those unfortunate enough to be involved in these situations. the fact it's not on the government's agenda is point enough to show public opinion does not back it.

Appeal to law and/or appeal to tradition. Can't really decide which, but take your pick. Just because that's how it is now doesn't mean that's how it should be.

Public schooling is, of course, financially viable, morals aside. Not caring about the outcome of a complete stranger is understandable, yet only serves to underpin the differences in viewpoints between us.

It isn't as much that I don't care about strangers as much as it is that I care more about other things--namely, the concept of personal responsibility. I do not demand that anyone in a shit situation necessarily take the BLAME for the situation. Sometimes it's just chance. I do want them to take responsibility for any change they wish to see.

In this case, it's the converse. If they do not, or indeed cannot, take responsibility for the situation, they should not then, by choice, enter into it. This is because it is not, in fact, their choice anymore. If you can't raise it, it's not "your child." It's the child of whoever is going to be responsible for cleaning up your mess, and they should get to say, "No," because you are way overstepping any sort of "right" you thought you had.

Moving slightly away from the OP here, the point in question was not about bad parenting in general (though if I had more time and less people to argue with I would cover that as well) but about if disabled people should be allowed to have kids

Parallel thread of reasoning still applicable to the topic at hand. I'm simply highlighting that "mentally handicapped" is simply a possible subgroup of the "unfit parent" category, on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, while we legislate against these things, I do not believe preventing people murdering each other, or owning a pet tiger, would be quite as much as an infringement on rights as telling people with disabilities they have to be chemically castrated.

I've never used the words "chemically castrated," so you're apparently mixing up the folks you're arguing with. I'm not advocating any one method over the other, and I'm not even talking about enforcement of this "policy."

I'm simply explaining how it is an issue that is rightfully up for debate, as it goes well beyond the scope of an individual's rights if they are placing even the slightest burden on the unwilling. I'm perfectly aware of the shitstorm that will result from trying any means of enforcing a "You've proven yourself unfit, so you may not breed" policy. I can ignore the "You're Hitler!" crowd just fine, but I understand the give-and-take of personal rights when it comes to ensuring compliance to such a policy.

This is about whether or not the public has the right to weigh in, or more appropriately whether or not a mentally-handicapped person has the "right" to impose a child on everyone else--which is a valid argument when people like yourself separate the concepts of "right to have child" and "responsibility to raise child," which I believe should be absolutely inseparable.

It is my belief that a person should have to demonstrate their fitness as a parent BEFORE having a child, simply because of how important AND irreversible that process is by nature.

Yes, obviously at the point where you know a person will be a danger to society, you stop carrying out the equality spiel. But you cannot know for sure that a child born to a disabled person will be a burden to society, and without the knowledge, one way or the other, you cannot make that call.

You can know whether or not that person is capable of holding down a job, or whether they are capable of caring for themselves--preparing their own meals, changing their own clothes, cleaning themselves, and so on. You can know whether or not they have immediate self-supporting family capable of doing the job, who are also willing to help raise the resulting child. If no? No child. You can't buy me a puppy without asking me and then stick me with the bill.

As I have previously mentioned, this thread is about whether or not disabled people should be allowed to have children.

And my clear answer is, "If they are individually capable of supporting themselves and a child, and plan to do so, then in no way does it even become a matter upon which any other party can weigh in. If they are not self-supporting or capable of caring for the child from pregnancy to birth to adulthood, then it is no longer solely their decision. It becomes the decision of whoever will be paying the bills and raising the child. If they say no, the answer is no."

That remains my answer, and all the items you're claiming are "off topic" are simply in support of that answer. You're trying to ignore the answer, and thus the issue, by simply asserting that the evidence is unrelated.

However, inadequate parents are stripped of their kids, and of course suggestions such as parenting lessons for expectant mothers are always welcome, if that was what people were suggesting, I wouldn't still be here hours later, arguing against this crazy course of action.

Stripping them of the kids is like stripping a bad doctor of his patients, but allowing him to get new ones. You're not fixing the problem, you're permitting it to continue by removing responsibility.

And I'm all for parenting lessons for expectant mothers. How would you suggest we enforce that? Make them optional, and the people that go will be the ones that don't need them. Require only some to go, and ooooh, discrimination. Tell someone if they don't go, they can't have a child, and we're right back to square one.