Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[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?

 

[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.