Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Wiiiiiiilliam]

Yes that's a violation of human rights not to let them.

 

[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

if your using sterilisation in an unbiased way then there shouldnt be to much of an issue. its not like your killing the babies of these people. they are never born etc.

and as long as the people incharge dont have a bias and go around sterailising all the black people cause they got punched in the face when they were 7 because they made some remark about the aim of the black person after they missed several times when throwing rocks at them... i mean yeah, focus merk focus.

I never said sterilize, nor was that the intent. I would think its wrong for someone/people to actually go around and physically make sure they cant procreate, as people could be very bias. Essentially what you already said.

 

[Choppaduel]

if they can figure out what goes where, then yeah.
Otherwise you don't need to do anything.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Thank you camazotz for being open minded in an environment that scorns any form of beneficial science that "TRESPASSES INTO GODS DOMAIN."

There's a reason for that scorn. It was called thalidomide.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

The likelihood of the mentality challenged able to procreate is minimal at best, due to their rather apparent circumstances. Nevertheless, I have an admittedly callous opinion upon this topic primarily due to my brief these individuals are living a life of suffering and in actuality serve more for the parent's benefit in comparison to their own. They are incapable of ration contemplation or the ability to perform even the most basic fundamentals to maintain everyday life. They cannot be suitable as parents and thus the child becomes equally reliant upon the Government, and therein a cost to us.

I shall leave it at this because I have potentially unhinged the floodgates with the subtleties of the above statement for those exceptionally sensitive, and I do not derive interest in an open debate as of this moment.

 

[Jodah]

I know a lot of "smart" people who shouldn't procreate. Until we require licenses to procreate I have to go with yes, mentally challenged people should be allowed to procreate if they wish.

 

[Thespian]

Simply, no. Not even because of the downright injustice that this represents, or the abuse of power, but because of the type of thinking that sets in. Next thing we know, homosexual couples won't be allowed to get married in most parts of the world. Oh, wait...

 

[fletch_talon]

Morals should have no place in important shit. Logic is the only thing that should matter.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this.
Or, more accurately, I kinda disagree.

Personally I think when it comes to "important shit" morals and logic should reach the same conclusion.
This case for example, not only is it logical that a person incapable of raising a child should not be permitted to raise a child. Its also the correct moral thing to say, whilst a person has a right to be happy, it should not be at the expense of others, in this case the child.

 

[Thespian]

People with STDs are still allowed to have sex, even though that's not helping anyone. It's called "freedom". And "America". And "Fuck Yeah".

Reason number oh fuck it I lost count I hate this retarded country.

The side of me that separates morality from logic says they shouldn't. But then the moral part of me says they should. Logically, they shouldn't because they may not be able to properly care for their child. But morally, they are still people and should have the same rights afforded to everybody else. It's a huge dilemma that won't be solved on an internet forum =P

Morals should have no place in important shit. Logic is the only thing that should matter.

It depends how disabled they are

My girlfriend has dyslexia and I have a genetic sleeping disorder, both could be seen as disabled. Both of us are perfectly normal people, she does theatre studies and I do marketing at university and no one would be wiser unless we said anything

However if you mean the sort of people who are bound to a wheel chair, can't recognise their own parents or are a danger to themselves then I honestly don't think should. It's cruel to the potential child

That's who we mean, the second one, not the first. I'm perfectly fine with functional human beings being allowed to procreate but not people who can't tie their own shoelaces because it's too complex for them or they were born disabled in a way that they can't do it. Remember, allowing people like that is to wish misery on their children. Are you people so cruel as to wish a lifetime of misery on someone due to your morals?

Yes.

Not only does being mentally challenged not ensure that their children will be but the mentally challenged are more than their disabilities. I have a good friend who's mentally challenged but he's far more than that, he's a musical prodigy who loves Nintendo and spaghetti that can kick my ass at foosball, why should he be denied the right to have children?

I facepalmed. He's function. We're talking about the non-functional types. The I'm-too-stupid-to-tie-my-shoelaces types.

In answer to this, I really have to ask, who do you think you are? Who are you to define what a "functional human being" is? Seriously, who gave you that right? You did. One could argue that a "functional human being" is one who can think and love. Even if someone is, as you so ignorantly and offensively stated, "too stupid to tie my shoelaces" how do you know they can't feel all the emotions you can? And FYI, it really shows how ignorant you are on this topic that you would choose the word "stupid". Intelligence could not have any less to do with what we are talking about. I believe you mean cognitively challenged, which could mean that someone simply thinks in a different way to you, in which case you would be the "stupid" one.

Listen if you think that disabled people reproducing is wishing a life of misery on someone, you are wrong in several ways. First of all, there is no guarantee that offspring would be disabled. You might as well prohibit all humans from reproducing, as they all have a chance of producing challenged offspring. At least by your logic, anyway. Secondly, you have no idea how "miserable" a life they might have.

Take for example, a friend of mine. He was born without femurs, thus he only stands about three and a half feet tall. One hand has two fingers, the other has four. His skull is misshapen and he has brittle bones. Now, how has he spent his life? By winning gold medals in international swimming tournaments against people twice his size, time and time again. And yet, he can't tie his own shoelaces.

Or, perchance take someone else who I know, an acquaintance rather than a friend. Autistic, has a severe case of aspergers syndrome. He also can't tie his shoelaces. Nor does he need to, because he happily works every day solving maths equations and designing tests, in a successful and unique manner that makes for a fulfilling lifestyle.

You sir, have no idea, none whatsoever, of the kind of life that a disabled person can lead. You have no idea how they feel or think. You have no right to deny them the BASIC right to freely reproduce, and even less to deny them the right to life before they are even born. Would the world be better if John Nash was never born? Or Stephen Hawking, for god's sake? Hell, Lincoln had a mood disorder.

Besides, that kind of thinking itself is bad. Sure, you have all the right answers and a fine line in mind of who is okay to deny he opportunity of life to, but give it a few years of dilution through perspective and suddenly it will be very different. Homosexuality will be a mental illness. Dyslexia will be a severe impairment. A whole new master race will come along. No matter how "tame" or "fair" your idea now seems, it is the foundation of a powerful prejudice, I guarantee you. No one has the right to deny life to anybody.

 

[SimuLord]

Here's the problem with freedom, the more you give the more people take. People need limits on their freedom.

This is at the root of every dictatorship, reign of terror, fascist, totalitarian state that has ever existed.

People need to be protected from one thing and one thing only: Other people who are nothing more than slavers, whose purpose in life is to arrogantly claim that other people don't have just as much right to their own purpose as the kings and dictators and ruling classes.

Freedom from one who dreams himself your master ought to be the duty of every man to protect by force.

 

[arkwright]

They are human beings and they have the same wants and desires as the rest of us. If they choose to form a relationship and have children then so be it. All this bollocks about the the tax payer supporting them is rubbish, how many of you have parents that have had child benifit? (this may only apply in the uk, dont know about the rest of the world and nor do i care). the moment you choose to deny anybody the same rights and privilege's that you enjoy they should be denied to you also.

 

[Shycte]

My short answer, no. My long answer, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

In all seriousness, I don't think so, mainly because the emotional damage that could happen to a kid if everyone in their school found out that their mom/dad was mentally retarded. Also the other thing I wanna question is, are they qualified to be parents? Not to sound crude but what if it's time for "The Talk" and the father feels embarrassed about talk about it?

So the bullies are to set the rules heh? You are just looking for issues here, the "problems" you mentioned could very well occur with a "normal" parent just as likely.

Again, the guvornment has no right what so ever to deny anyone to have a child, they can deny them to raise that child but that's another thing.

 

[titanium turtle]

if they are totally uncapable to raise a child on their own then they maybe shouldn't be able to look after them

but yes they should be able to procreate unless the child will suffer greatly because of it

besides you get mentally capable people that are far worse parents

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

If its caused by genetics then no, If not? then yes. The human species is the only species that fosters and makes survive others in the species that otherwise wouldn't survive in nature.

 

[ZantostheViking]

Quick Genetics Lesson:

Out of all the people we would deem to be "Mentally Challenged", I am going to say 99% of these cases are genetic. While accidents and post-conception diseases can cause intellectual disabilities, most cases are due to genetic diseases carried recessively by the parents, or issues during conception. While some of these forms of MR are harder to pass on genitally, it is probably safe to say some of their offspring may carry the same genes that are effecting their parents.

On Natural Selection:

If someone wants to reproduce with you, congratulations! You just passes the Natural Selection test. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, how smart you are; if you can court a mate, you've successfully won your place in the human race's gene pool. It's that simple.

The idea that as humans we have to "maintain Natural Selection" is ridiculous. It's in the name NATURAL Selection. It's a slow, but very efficient process that has been working for millions of years. It didn't need governmental regulation then, it doesn't need it now.