Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[iLikeHippos]

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.

I wouldn't call it an assumption, more like an unlike event out of 100. I'm not bringing in all the factors of possibilities however, since they stretch a looong way. And the Escapist nor my free time allows me to post all that.
(Examples, the possibility of vaccine to create disability, 0,37.
the possibility of being hit in the head hard as a child to create disability, 0,002 so on...)

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.).

Again, my mistake for not putting up all the factors, such as the transmittable genes and failure of the body to deal with substances etc etc, leading towards possible disabilities for their next of kin.
Could happen to anyone, but the chance isn't null either way.

HOWEVER, that isn't what I worry most about. I myself have genetic failures in my blood; I'd be God-awful pissed off if someone got up into my face and said I couldn't procreate.
If the law wouldn't help me beat the shit out of that person, I'd do it anyways. I feel they feel the same.

There's a difference, however, that I am stating below between the mentally disabled one and myself.

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

But, both options leaves the real disabled 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.

I might have missed out one tiny detail in my text. One small one... I was referring to the disabled parent. Of course the willing parent will be willing; he/she knows what's coming if they do this.
Not stating that alone isn't an impossibility; hard work and return to take care of a child that may or may not be mentally disabled could be a burden (Not meaning it as something bad though. Just a lot of work) without someone else, as it is for all single parents.
But, again, they'll just have to find a partner to help them out. May or may not be difficult.

The point still stands however. The mentally disabled person will procreate and leave their child for someone else to take care of.
Because they're not even able to fend for themselves. (If they can, however, deal with their children, than go for it)
That's just unreasonable to me, as well as unacceptable. If you're not going to stand about being a parent, than you don't deserve to meddle in it to begin with.
(Leaving out unwanted children, such as cause of rape of course, and other scenarios when they have no chance to say 'absolutely not')

Hope I didn't leave something out. Otherwise I'll bring the pointed outs to highlight.

 

[Sark]

I don't believe so. I mean, not if they are mentally incapable of bringing up a child in a loving, caring environment.

Sure there is the whole survival of the fittest approach, but human soft-heartedness has made this irrelevant to our species anyways.

 

[Jonluw]

Should the mentally challenged have the basic civil right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that is the very founding principle of this country? Should they be treated like human beings with human rights and not marginalized by elitist swine who want to "improve the gene pool"? How about atheists (or Christians, or Muslims, or Scientologists)? Gays? Republicans? Where does it end with you?

Anyone who says that another human being doesn't have the same basic human rights as anyone else needs to practice their own form of population control. The kind that was amply demonstrated by Private Pyle in the bathroom in Full Metal Jacket.

And fuck anyone who disagrees. People like your friend make me sick to my stomach.

But isn't it debatable whether having a child is a human right? If, by the very action of having that child, they are violating the basic human rights of their child; should they really be allowed to procreate?

Suppose noone. Noone. Would want to have a child with me. Am I then allowed to rape and impregnate a woman, forcing her to carry forth my child?

Basically; am I allowed to violate someone else's human rights in order to uphold mine? I say no.

Edit: I was going to read through the rest of the thread to look for similiar replies before posting this, but I pressed post by reflex before doing that, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Such things should not be done, you get into very dodgy territory while trying to enforce such things.

Besides where do you draw the line on who is mentally challenged enough or not. I?m willing to bet the vast majority of people if not everyone has something wrong with their brains in one area or another. It?s probably more common than eye problems.

 

[Mcface]

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.

This.
Many mentally challenged people can't even provide for themselves without aid. Let alone an entire family.

Also look at it from another point of view. Without the structure of society, would their offspring ever survive? Would THEY even be living today? If you are a "burden" on society (meaning you take from it more than you contribute. Call it offensive all you want, it is true.) You should not further burden society.

 

[Romidude]

Yup.

Anything else wouldn't be freedom.

There's no such thing as freedom. As long as there are laws we will never actually be free.

 

[Waweegee]

Okay, this is a topic I have encountered before, but do you suppose you'd be able to clarify your Definition of Mentally Challenged? Do you mean Stupid People or Intellectually Disabled People, because dude, there is a HUGE difference...

 

[TheRobotandtheBeast]

the logic center of my brain says they shouldn't, if the deficiency is genetic. I may even include low intelligence as retatrdation.

but the human parts of my brain condemn me as a monster....its a good thing logic is fun.

 

[Bagaloo]

I'm seriously disturbed by the fact anyone here could even come close to justifying an answer to the negative.

Just wow. People are so close-minded.

The irony in this post and posts like it is delicious.

 

[helldragonX]

Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to. I don't say this to be inhumane but practically and economically it is a good idea. Cause if there are less mentally challenged, then less needs to be spent for the programs in schools and health-care programs. And they also won't be getting disability checks when they get older. This is just my opinion and I know most of you won't share it.

 

[Vuljatar]

The question should be "Should the mentally challenged be prevented from procreating?"

The answer to that is quite clear. "No." You do not have the right, I do not have the right, and neither any society nor any government has the right to decide that someone should be prevented from procreating for reasons beyond their control.

 

[DPutna17]

They should be allowed to procreate. It would be cruel to rob them of the chance to have children plus a lot of mental disabilities aren't hereditary so it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There is alot more people that shouldn't procreate, dumb ones being the first.
But as things stand the dumb ones are the first to have children, stringing along a chain of dummies (while intelligence is not an inheritable feature, parents tend to pass their ways along).

You just can't forbid people to have children, it's not ethical on any level.
However parents should be responsible enough to think about what they are doing to the children, if you know you will pass along a massive genetic defect or disease and still decide to have children then you are one cruel motherf*cker, or very dumb, which brings us back to why dumb people shouldn't procreate.

 

[Jonluw]

They should be allowed to procreate. It would be cruel to rob them of the chance to have children plus a lot of mental disabilities aren't hereditary so it wouldn't make a difference.

Suppose they are mentally challenged enough to not be able to raise a child properly. Would it not be cruel to rob that child of its chance to have a comfortable life?

Even though some disabilities aren't hereditary, that doesn't mean you should be able to have a child no matter what disability you have. Say I wan't to have sex with a girl, but I happen to have chlamydia. However; according to your logic, since cancer doesn't spread via sexual contact, it is fine for me to have unprotected sex with this girl.

 

[Firia]

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?

Here's something to think about; why exactly do you think your friend, or yourself for that matter, feel this way? Is it because from your perspective they are a burdon on society? Or they just don't lead as full or rich lives (from your perspective) as yourself or others?

It's really damn easy to point at Nazi Germany and make comparisons with a discussion like this (and I'm betting after 5 pages, more than one person has made that obvious comparison), but I'm not. It's the sad truth that many people feel this way. They have been burdened or experience a burden on occation in their day to day lives.

There is a guy that rides the bus I used to from time to time. He holds a radio up to his ear, even though it's not on. The guy is cross eyed, his limbs contort in odd ways, and I suspect that radio is a prop issued to him by a social worker to help normalize his odd behavior. This guy (lets call him Gary)- Gary rides the bus all on his own with no help from anyone. I don't know where he goes, what he does, but Gary can at least get around. He is functional, though obviously mentally handicapped. If he had the opportunity to settle down with someone and be happy with another person, why not give him the opportunity to reproduce?

Lets up the scale from Gary. Seymour, our next example, is extremely mentally disabled. So much so, he cannot get through his day to day life without the help of another. It is HIGHLY unlikely procreation is in his favor as Seymour cannot so much as tie his own shoes. He cannot feed himself, preform simple tasks, or (and this is just an educated guess based on the prior) clean himself. I base this example off of a mentally disabled Seymour off of a guy that volunteered at the hospital I worked at. Rather, the service that tended to his care volunteered him, to help him learn conditioning through tasks (mail delivery) wherein he was shadowed by a "normal" person to help.

It is near totally unlikely Seymour will ever meet a woman that will allow him to "mate" his him. Even if She were as disabled as him, there's a strong chance they'd need real help. Nature has sort of stopped Seymour from mating right there. But lets say, for the sake of the topic that Seymour found a woman that is as interested in him as he is her. Who are we to say no? Many would call this progress. Why stop progress? (unless, and I'm not trying to be crude, it were savage sex, wherein a child would likely be unable to be cared for by the two.) In cases of severe mental disability, there's someone to help via some care service. This service already makes sex with disabled persons extremely unlikely.

Lets go a step further from Seymour and Gary. Someone with simply LOW IQ. We're talking short bus, but functional in society. Low grades even when applying themselves. This person sadly will never amount to anything. This could be for any number of reasons, but for sake of topic length, the result is that "Timmy" is a mentally challenged doof. He gets confused very easily, anything beyond simple math is impossible, his memory is laughable. He is the weakest link in functional society. He is dumb. It is possible that Timmy is so dumb, he's mentally challenged. A night shift janitorial job is the best he'll ever amount to. Should he be denied? He might just be dumb. But he's so dumb, he's a burden.

Now something more extreme. The Human intellectual average isn't very high. There are extremely smart people, semi-smart, average, sub average, and gibbering buffoons. From the Extremely smart peoples perspective, of which there are very very few of these people in the world, you the average person are on the same level of mental incapacity as you are looking at the mentally disabled. In theory, of course. Your actions to these smart people are face palmingly stupid. Why do it this way when, if you actually put some thought into it, THAT way would be so much better?! Well it's because you're not that smart. You are many, and a burden to these extremely smart small percentage of people. Maybe if only THEY were allowed to breed, there'd be more smart people. You are a burden to the potential of humanity.

I've sort of carried on a little. But in short, these people are only mentally disabled from where you stand. From where smarter more educated and world traveled people stand, you are probably just as dumb, just as burdening to humanity, and just as unworthy as breeding as you feel the mentally challenged.

 

[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?

So we got a straw man and an idiotic assumption that mentally handicapped equals abusive.

Your what if could also apply to people who aren't mentally handicapped

The assumption is not that mentally handicapped equals abusive. The assumption is that severely mentally handicapped equals unfit to care for a child.

And yes, it could apply to people who aren't mentally handicapped as well. I personally think that there are a lot of people in this world who are unfit to raise children, and therefore should, for the good of their potential child, not have children.

 

[VaderMan92]

they can procreate all they want so long as none of my tax dollars subsidize them they need to be able to support themselves like stephen hawking or some less genius way.