Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[HappyPillz]

Yup.

Anything else wouldn't be freedom.

I have to say I disagree. Some of these people live on wheelchairs and can't even feed themselves. What part about their lives are 'free'?

OT: I realy don't think they should. Not to be mean, but why would anyone want to dilute and weaken the speacies by encouraging the reproduction of the weakest links? Of course it would also depend if their mental condition is genetic or not.

Those who do not study history shall be doomed to repeat it.
See: Mussolini and Hitler
Exact same logic was used by them to get rid of those they felt were "inferior" and because the pepole went along with it we now have to learn about the slaughter of millions of pepole. Eugenics is bad, this thought processes is bad, and it only leads to genocide. Also, i doubt those who are bound to wheelchairs and cant feed themselves, are going to be reproducing anytime soon, the pepole eugenics targets is not them, but pepole with any "disability" functional or not.
Once you justify killing or sterilizing anyone, you are a stones throw from expanding those you deem to be "handicapped". It never stops at the pepole you are thinking of, who don't reproduce anyways, it turns to those with autism and like syndromes, and i know more than a dozen functional autistics, then to those with learning disabilities, which would include a great number of pepole who only think in different ways then others, then it moves on too physical disabilities, and racial differences.

Eugenics is bad, the "weakest links" as you call them are anything but that. Pepole are Pepole not animals and definitely not cattle to be breed. Eugenics is bad for so many reasons, one could not count them all. it is truly an Evil prospect, formed of cold flawed logic, and illuminated by twisted beliefs.

I can see how my post could be seen like that, I should have phrased it better. I am well aware that not all disabilites are are a problem, I was refering only to extreme cases, and I never mentioned anything about excution. Also, people with mental illness are in a whole different boat than different race or religion.

I'm a realist and humans, despite all our achievements, are still just animals, bound by the same law of survival of the fitest. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, and I don't think there's any danger of me starting any supremacy killings.

 

[thedeathscythe]

I was kind of on the fence about this, so I did something I usually don't do, and read every single post here to kind of, bounce ideas off of. I came to the conclusion that they should be allowed to. I don't really want them too because I feel bad when I see people that are mentally challenged, I don't know why but I do, and I know that they may have a higher chance of having mentally challenged children, but should they be allowed to if they want to? Yes, I believe they should have that choice.

Two perfectly normal people can have a child who is mentally challenged, and if that can happen to them and I say that they should be allowed to, then I'm just being prejudiced in saying the mentally challenged can't.

 

[justnotcricket]

It's not so much of a genetics issue (IMO), rather than a capability one. First off, let me say that I don't think anyone should be *banned* outright from procreating. That's the first step down a road that so many big brother/post apocalyptic movies and books have been 'warning' us about for decades.

HOWEVER. It depends on the level to which they are mentally challenged, and the kind of support they have. If they are not able to be fit and able parents, and they do not have family who are willing to help them with the enormous undertaking of raising a child or children, then I think they should be advised against it.

I saw a lovely documentary once about a couple who both had Down's Syndrome. They fell in love and got married, and though both had families who were willing to support them, and they were doing well enough to live together in their own house, they still made the decision that the woman would have her tubes tied so that they didn't have to worry about getting pregnant and dealing with consequences. Which I think shows a degree of personal honesty and maturity that outstrips that of many people with no classified mental handicaps, who nevertheless *probably* shouldn't have had children.

 

[Pegghead]

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?

 

[SimuLord]

Sorry, but here's another way to look at my point- Should the mentally handicapped be allowed to drive? Why not? They're human, they have rights.

Driving a motor vehicle is not a fundamental human right. Life, liberty, and the right to pursue the basic human drives that make our species what it is?

And if "they're a drain on resources", then maybe that's an argument against socialism, since it seems like "for the public good" sure does justify a whole lot of government intervention in people's lives, which is inherently totalitarian in nature and inimical to freedom and democracy.

 

[Mastern56]

The real reason I don't think they should is because I don't believe mentally challenged females would be able to handle giving birth to a child. Just think about it. Some of these people can't really think or even eat, I hardly believe they would be able to give birth to a child. On the other hand, I don't really think it's a problem if a male did, as long as the problem wasn't genetic.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Sorry, but here's another way to look at my point- Should the mentally handicapped be allowed to drive? Why not? They're human, they have rights.

Driving a motor vehicle is not a fundamental human right. Life, liberty, and the right to pursue the basic human drives that make our species what it is?

And if "they're a drain on resources", then maybe that's an argument against socialism, since it seems like "for the public good" sure does justify a whole lot of government intervention in people's lives, which is inherently totalitarian in nature and inimical to freedom and democracy.

How about the kids, Sim? Fuck their future, right? And this is no such thing as 'fundamental human rights'. It's a lovely idea, but seldom does it come into practice. You see this as only suppressing the handicapped-why does noone give a shit about the kids?

Bolded: <url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>Actually, there is.

And fuck the kid's future? Of course not. That's why foster care exists, rather than forcing them to stay with a parent who turns out to be unideal to the point of dangerous.

 

[NeutralDrow]

No.

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?

You meant "yes," by the way. No means you're against them procreating.

 

[Pegghead]

No.

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?

You meant "yes," by the way. No means you're against them procreating.

Thankyou very much! I almost made it out like I was some kind of genocidist.

Thanks.

 

[asinann]

I think they should put a temporary chemical sterilizer in the drinking water and give out licenses (along with a chemical neutralizer) to people who do not have major genetic flaws that are financially able to raise a child.

 

[ayuri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics#Hitler.27s_views_on_eugenics
this is a lot like it there was a flow chart showing impurities through sexual relations and how the genes will meld but i cant find it.
I am personally not comfortable about the deficient reproducing but if they can reproduce with someone then they can take the problem into their own hands most likely.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Bolded: <url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>Actually, there is.

And fuck the kid's future? Of course not. That's why foster care exists, rather than forcing them to stay with a parent who turns out to be unideal to the point of dangerous.

Those are words on a page. Look around you. How's that translate into real life? Saying something doesn't make it so. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's so many idealists in here-they will be the driving force for our society. But at this point I don't see such things working out.

"Words on a page" describes most documents, you realize. Let alone a document that technically almost the entire world has agreed to.

Putting things down in writing, even something that isn't directly enforceable (well...technically they are, but only by the twin International Covenants of Rights), gives it significance and political capital. Countries have gotten away with less as a result of other countries' criticism, especially with a specific list to point to.

Again, do you have any idea what foster care is like? I don't know how to get objective stats on such a thing (maybe check crime/suicide rates of former foster kids? I dunno.) But I've never heard a rousing endorsement of them from...anyone. I do have a friend who counsels a lot of foster kids, and they need counselling. Badly. It's starting out kids who may have bright futures otherwise with a tremendous handicap (no pun intended).

They're starting. That's the main thing. Otherwise, you may as well just give everyone in Child Protection Services a gun and tell them to put the kids out their misery when they're taken from unfit parents.

That is especially getting into the fact that not all children of mentally challenged people actually need foster care.

 

[iLikeHippos]

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.
The disabilities, however, may or may not spread over to their children. But think of the motherfucking children for one second...

Would YOU want to be the child of a mentally disabled person and grow up in school? Would you get bullied a lot? Would you be alone without a father/mother? Would you some time in your life want to commit suicide by these reasons alone?

The answer is a most definite 'yes'.

On the other side, I'd say it's quite unfair to discriminate people against something they can't help. One being to take away one of their rights (Is it a right, even? I've no idea tbh) of procrastination procreation.

It's the basic human instinct (But someone told me it wasn't for asexuals... Right...) and shouldn't be ignored by any means.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I don't see why not, unless it's genetic, in whic that would be problematic. Also, think of the hardships the child would face, if people made fun of him because his dad was mentally challenged?

 

[Death God]

I have a mentally challenged uncle and he had a perfectly normal daughter. So yes, doesn't mean they can't have babies for because of their illness.

 

[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.

 

[ColateralDamage]

This really depends on how the person is mentally challenged. Some mental retardation limits social skills but not necessarily physical ones such as focusing on tasks. And do remember the chance for mental retardation is in everyone, it may come from genes, it may come from environmental factors.

I think this really is more of an issue of whether or not the parents can care for a child. In cases of severe mental retardation that limits physical skills and learning the chances of even being able to procreate go way down. But in cases of lighter mental retardation were language development is lax or they can't interact with society in an accepted way, if they have children, their children may not learn as well but their children aren't guaranteed to have their disabilities. The kids will probably turn out fine if at least one of the parents isn't severely mentally retarded and can care for them, social kinks aside.

All in all my view on this is that in all the randomness that is combinations of genes with recessive and dominant traits, a child from anyone could be a prodigy that can advance humanity by leaps and bounds. Denying that chance just to remove 3% of the population doesn't really seem all that worth it.

TL;DR
Yes they should be allowed to have children, because there is no guarantee that their children will be mentally challenged and it also denies a single mentally challenged parent and a non mentally challenged parent from having a child. As a lesser point human genetic diversity.

 

[fletch_talon]

Depends.
If said mentally challenged people require carers then having children just means more of a burden on said carers.
Not to mention the emotional distress and confusion a 'normal' child would have being raised by a parent with a mental disability.

 

[jackpipsam]

they still have the right

 

[SimuLord]

Sorry, but here's another way to look at my point- Should the mentally handicapped be allowed to drive? Why not? They're human, they have rights.

Driving a motor vehicle is not a fundamental human right. Life, liberty, and the right to pursue the basic human drives that make our species what it is?

And if "they're a drain on resources", then maybe that's an argument against socialism, since it seems like "for the public good" sure does justify a whole lot of government intervention in people's lives, which is inherently totalitarian in nature and inimical to freedom and democracy.

How about the kids, Sim? Fuck their future, right? And this is no such thing as 'fundamental human rights'. It's a lovely idea, but seldom does it come into practice. You see this as only suppressing the handicapped-why does noone give a shit about the kids?

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.