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.iLikeHippos said:
Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?Swollen Goat said:
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.
I don't think it's necessary at all, mostly because "Mentally challenged adults give birth to mentally challenged children" is a mindset that shows very little knowledge to both genetic heredity and mental disorders actually work.
Plus just got to through this out there EVERYONE has screwed up genetics, whether it's obvious outwardly or not, disabilities, diseases and other afflictions can be very subtle. So if we really wanted to see a visibly cleaner gene pool we would have to bar all but a select few from ever having children. Which I also think is a silly idea.
Plus just got to through this out there EVERYONE has screwed up genetics, whether it's obvious outwardly or not, disabilities, diseases and other afflictions can be very subtle. So if we really wanted to see a visibly cleaner gene pool we would have to bar all but a select few from ever having children. Which I also think is a silly idea.
Quote from beginning of discussion "Not all mentally challenged people have mentally challenged children, nor do all non-mentally challenged people have non-mentally challenged kids."
Then I guess the real question rather than "should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate" should be "should people be allowed to carry mentally challenged children to term". This will sound horrible and result in people calling me a Nazi, but I believe the answer to be no in the case of the truly mentally retarded. I'm not referring to savants, or those with speech impediments, but rather those who will be forever unable to contribute to society in any way shape or form and are completely incapable of self sufficiency. In truth my opinion on the matter is heavily influenced by a fear of overpopulation and a willingness to except almost anything that will have an impact in the lowering of it.
Then I guess the real question rather than "should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate" should be "should people be allowed to carry mentally challenged children to term". This will sound horrible and result in people calling me a Nazi, but I believe the answer to be no in the case of the truly mentally retarded. I'm not referring to savants, or those with speech impediments, but rather those who will be forever unable to contribute to society in any way shape or form and are completely incapable of self sufficiency. In truth my opinion on the matter is heavily influenced by a fear of overpopulation and a willingness to except almost anything that will have an impact in the lowering of it.
I can't believe I'm saying this but no, only in the case that it's between two mentally challenged people. I would just be concened about the welfare of the child. If the persons in question are capable of looking after and supporting a child then I don't mind.
Fucking is a right (a statement which reminds me of George Carlin, for some reason), and not worrying about consequences is merely stupid, not illegal. Yes, it's an irresponsibility, but a child's right to a fair start is contingent on the ability to start in the first place. Consequences can be dealt with, disadvantages can be overcome, and almost nothing is actually guaranteed failure.Swollen Goat said:
...and I officially resent this thread for making me sound like a pro-lifer. My own position is that once the parents give the go-ahead, then it's that child's right to as fair a chance as can be managed.
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.
Competent, perhaps desperate, yet caring enough to raise a child. But the implications, I imagine, are as follows.NeutralDrow said:
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.
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.
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.
Oh cool, so then doctors or a board of directors could just decide to kill your baby if it's not "up to snuff" Now we've just replaced the terror of overpopulation with a whole new one. Awesome.Vronish_Kez said:
This brings up an interesting question.Vronish_Kez said:
"Should people be allowed to carry handicapped children to term?" Shame on you for having the sheer, unmitigated gall to ask the question, you heartless, totalitarian, elitist Nazi.
"If I discovered my unborn child would be mentally handicapped, would I allow my wife/girlfriend to carry it to term?" My answer to this would be a reluctant no---on the one hand, it's a child---my child, unless she's let the mailman have at her. But I know I would make a very poor parent to such a special-needs child.
Notice the very critical distinction: In the latter case, a free person exercises his free choice of his own free will. In the former case, choice is taken away, presumably for some mythical "common good", and liberty is destroyed.
Yeesh....you wouldn't ALLOW your wife/girlfriend give birth to your handicapped child? Remind me never to get married to you.SimuLord said:
I'd punch your friend in the mouth.Jiraiya72 said:
Where exactly are you going to draw the cut-off line? And what are you going to tell those people? "I'm sorry, you were caught watching Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer, so you can't have kids."
FFS.
So who is responsible for caring for the children if their parents aren't capable of doing so? How is the kid supposed to feel when they start to realise that mummy and daddy aren't like everyone else's mummy and daddy. Even worse, when the kid realises they're better equipped to look after their parents when the opposite should be true.SimuLord said:
I don't consider teenagers to be sub-human but I sure as hell don't think they should be having children. Its about what's best for the child which in some cases is not to be born at all (even if that means abortion, though that's only in cases where the mother can and does consent, otherwise it causes too much emotional distress).
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.
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.