Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Folio]

If the mentally challenged could ever manage to find a partner... :'(

 

[Aureli]

If you do not have the ability to care for a child, then you should not have children until you can.

I apply this philosophy to everyone, because I see too many people at my college having babies that they then have to apply for welfare to take care of.

 

[Bakuryukun]

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.

 

[Vronish_Kez]

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.

 

[Azulito]

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.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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.

Well, that's taking my point well past a logical conclusion but I see where you're going. Yes, foster care is better than murdering children. But in my opinion, this point comes down to-we're putting children at a disadvantage so people can have the right to fuck without worrying about consequences. How is it NOT irresponsible to bring a child into this world that you cannot care for, whether it be for mental, financial, or emotional reasons? I feel the child's right to a fair start far outweighs the right to breed. And in all of this I must emphasize that, while I do feel strongly about this, I'm not foolish enough to assume that I'm definetely right. I just have yet to hear a persuasive enough argument to the contrary.

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.

...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.

And if the kids aren't going to foster care, they're staying with parents whom they'll mentally surpass before they get to junior high. Is that much better?

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[Bakuryukun]

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.

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.

 

[SimuLord]

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.

This brings up an interesting question.

"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.

 

[Bakuryukun]

This brings up an interesting question.

"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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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?

I'd punch your friend in the mouth.

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.

 

[fletch_talon]

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.

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.

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).

 

[Booze Zombie]

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.

 

[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.