Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Bakuryukun]

Define "mentally challenged"... it's kind of subjective.
For me, the word means "dumb white guys trying to act black" and "fuckheads".
So, yes, those two groups of people I've just mentioned shouldn't breed.

It's VERY subjective, as a matter of fact some of the back and forth arguements going on in this thread are probably caused by the two opposing sides having a different image of the "mentally challanged" in their heads as they debate.

 

[SimuLord]

So subhuman people create subhuman children and need to be stopped, is that it? Because someone is subhuman they have no right to be created? And because subhumans aren't capable of love and nurturing; only "acceptable" people are?

I don't think so. Human beings have human rights. And "won't someone please think of the children?" has been used to justify a whole lot of fascism (more than a little bit of it directed at video games, fascism which folks on this site rightly rail against). Those children are valuable to someone. Maybe not to you, since you don't think they're even human, but to someone---and certainly to their parents.

Unless you seriously want to contend that the mentally handicapped aren't human, and furthermore unless the UN Declaration of Human Rights means absolutely nothing to you, then your argument just doesn't work.

Sim, where do you get that I think these kids are subhuman? Seriously. And I'm not saying the handicapped should be FORBIDDEN to breed. I don't think you should be disallowed to stick a fork in a toaster. But that doesn't make it a good idea. And if you're telling me that even healthy kids raised by handicapped parents aren't at a disadvantage, well, I find that hard to believe. Or do you just see that I disagree with you and that makes me a eugenicist? What your opinion sounds like to me is that it's ok that these people lead shitty lives at minimal levels of substenance because hey, they've got love. Kid coulda been a rocket scientist, but he's at McDonald's WITH LOVE. Love's good, but ya shouldn't settle for just that.


And just so you don't think I'm Johnny elitist over here-I consider myself someone who shouldn't breed, and at the age of 35 I still haven't. I have issues that I would NEVER have the absolute SELFISHNESS to pass onto my children just so I could feel loved by some little creature.

People have rights? Fine. They also have responsibilities, too.

OK...that was so well thought-out and reasonably argued that I have to simply agree to disagree and apologize if I offended you. Well-played, good sir.

Yeesh....you wouldn't ALLOW your wife/girlfriend give birth to your handicapped child? Remind me never to get married to you.

I'm the kind of guy you wouldn't want to date...and to judge from your seemingly very strong dislike for dominant, commanding men, you're probably not the kind of girl I'd want to date. That sounds to me like a deal.

 

[Azaradel]

If we started putting restrictions on who should and should not be allowed to procreate, it wouldn't be long before only people with an IQ of at least 130 were allowed to have children - as to "strengthen the gene pool"...

As long as someone is capable of caring for a child (or there's someone willing to help them care for it), they should be allowed to have children.

 

[mythtech]

of course they should, how else do you get a slave race (think a brave new world)

 

[NeutralDrow]

On the one side, a mentally challenged person as in "drools and sits in a wheelchair laughing in arbitrary manners once in a while" is NOT a fit fucking parent, and thereof should not have children to begin with.

If someone like that somehow had a child, I can only assume the other parent is a little more competent. Not ethical, perhaps, but competent.

Competent, perhaps desperate, yet caring enough to raise a child. But the implications, I imagine, are as follows.

a) The child becomes mentally challenged and will burden the parent to live alone by a probability due to this thing that people don't want to hook up with parents with these children's disabilities, given the chance. The child will undoubtedly carry on the genes, creating the same circle.

So...the chance of single parenthood is a good enough reason to prevent someone from breeding? It's inadvisable, certainly, but it still works.

Also making kind of a large leap in assuming this turns into a "circle." First on the assumption that a mentally handicapped child will also grow up to reproduce (which actually, if they're high-functioning, isn't hard to imagine), and then assuming that their child will be the same way.

b) The child does not become mentally challenged and only carries minor traces in their gene pool by the disability. The competent parent becomes alone to raise the child until he/she finds another partner to help raise the child.

"Minor traces?" That's not how genetics works. People carry genes for tons of stuff already; it's just a question of whether a given allele is expressed, via other genetic factors, random chance, or environmental effects. And note that this entire argument is more-or-less ignoring environmental factors in mental disability (drug use by parents, bad reactions to diseases, effects of lead poisoning or similar things, etc.).

Other than that, it's the same argument as the first, one parent raises the child alone.

But, both options leaves the real mother/father of the child to abandon it, due to their incapability. And that's not a good enough reason to abandon them. No reason really is

And that's where I have a problem. No one should leave their child.

...wait, what?

Where did this whole "abandonment" thing come from? We're talking a competent parent raising a mentally challenged child or a not-mentally challenged child, and having difficulty because they're a single parent, and you're suddenly bringing up abandonment? Why? We'd already established their capability.

 

[Bakuryukun]

I'm the kind of guy you wouldn't want to date...and to judge from your seemingly very strong dislike for dominant, commanding men, you're probably not the kind of girl I'd want to date. That sounds to me like a deal.

So...your looking for a woman who will kill her unborn child on your say so...makes a good pick-up line for any girl submissive or not!

But really in all seriousness, What you said doesn't make you dominant or commanding. just overbearing and controlling and fearful. It's not the same at all.

 

[tzimize]

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?

Undecided tbh.

On one side: why shouldnt they? Its a free country etc.

On the other side: Will they be able to take care of the baby on their own? Probably not/maybe not. Will the babies need a lot of extra care, which WILL cost society money in the long run? Probably.

It all comes down to wether having children is a human right or not. Even if we live in a "free" country/world there are still things that are forbidden. Alchohol/tobacco to minors, narcotics to anyone, driving faster than the speed limit etc.

There are prohibitions everywhere, its just that we're used to the thought of that not being allowed. Personally I am not exactly thrilled of the thought of spending tax money on people that are contributing nothing particularly worthwhile (economically) to society.

 

[the-kitchen-slayer]

I say they should be allowed to breed.

Why? The one's who shouldn't, are too mentally toasted to be able to. Unless of course you rape them, but even then your breaking laws.

So... There's no point in restricting people from passing on their genetics.

Krazy Kitsune, The Slayer of Kitchens, out ~salutes~

 

[NeutralDrow]

snip

Just noticed something else and realized I've been arguing against something you aren't saying.

And I'm not saying the handicapped should be FORBIDDEN to breed

I got the idea that you were saying it was inadvisable, but since the topic was on actually disallowing people, I misunderstood where your disagreement was.

Assuming, of course, that extended family doesn't exist. And that both parents have the same level of disability (see earlier "drooling in a wheelchair" comment). And that a parent who's mentally surpassed by their child but still able to raise them is somehow incapable of providing a loving relationship.

So we'll dump the responsibility on the extended family who may or may not want it? What about THEIR rights? And you don't have to be 'drooling in a wheelchair' to be incapable of parenting competently. And why is love so important to everyone? Love's great...but kids with all the love in the world still turn out fucked up without proper guidance.

Of course, I do kinda have to respond to this. Yes, I believe the welfare of the child trumps their "rights" (though clearly, they can't be forced to accept this; I just happen to think it's their moral responsibility to family). Also, love is kind of a large element in proper guidance, far as I'm concerned. Children are never raised solely by their parents, but since they're the ones they interact with most often, a good relationship is invaluable.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

 

[Gigano]

If they're fit enough to legally care for themselves, then the use of contraception or sterilization is their own choice. If they're under legal guardianship, then it is the choice of their appointed guardian to make (though I believe if they are at all able to grasp the issue, and oppose it, it should not be possible to force and physically violate them). At no point should the state forcibly and physically violate human beings though.

Admittedly there are potentially massive economic benefits to be had from enforceable genetic "hygiene", especially in welfare states. Such things can be bought too dearly in other regards though.

I'd think it more important to try to curtail the breeding of psychopathic etc. individuals within their civil rights anyway, despite them having merely character deficits rather than mental retardation; surely their child will suffer - and/or potentially later inflict itself - much more damage than a child of people with Down's syndrome.

 

[just ban me]

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?

Cause in due time certain people decide people with brown or red hair should not be allowed to breed or people who write left handed.Once you start the snowball down the hill it will get bigger and more dangerous

 

[NeutralDrow]

I dunno, do you think I could hang in R+P or am I just annoying as hell?

Half-joke answer: You're not nearly annoying enough to be in R + P.

Serious answer: honestly, I'm finding Off-Topic an interesting change of pace. So far, it's been like someone separated the arguments from the vitriol and is keeping them in separate posts. It's not always that bad down there, but it's kind of a relief once in a while to have the arguers (yes, you included) and the assholes (others who will go unnamed) clearly separated.

 

[DarthFennec]

On one hand, my antisocial, impersonal side says that we have an overpopulation problem anyway, and it would be much better if we didn't allow them to procreate, or anyone who was too much of an idiot or couldn't work for whatever reason. On the other hand, the side of me that actually has friends reminds me that the world and the future of the human race are nowhere near as important as individual freedoms. I think I'll go with the latter, then.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

No, they should not. They are not properly capable of raising a child, so even if the child is born normal they will require exceptional government assistance. People with IQs verified at under 85 should be sterilized and those with more profound retardation should be euthanized.

 

[Jonluw]

If it is genetic, no.

Also, if the mental challenge is severe enough for them not to be fit as parents; no.

Edit: I see people keep talking about compromising rights... Having a child is not an official human right. What if the parent spends most of his time just sitting still, hitting whatever catches his eye with a spork? Would you really put an infant into this person's lap, just because he - supposedly - has the right to?