Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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?DPutna17 said:
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.
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?Jiraiya72 said:
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.
The assumption is not that mentally handicapped equals abusive. The assumption is that severely mentally handicapped equals unfit to care for a child.Father Time said:
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.
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.
I cannot commit one way or the other. I understand your friends point of view, certainly we don't want to add more disabilities into the gene pool, but where do you draw the line. What constitutes acceptable genes? I am short-sighted for example. That is not a desirable trait, is it? And what about people with other inherited medical conditions?
Ultimately, I don't think that gene-selection will lead anywhere good. So I guess I actually am against it.
Ultimately, I don't think that gene-selection will lead anywhere good. So I guess I actually am against it.
To be brutally honest, I think that some mental conditions should negate one's "right" to have a child. I don't mean it in a bad way, but some people before have said it perfectly - If they cannot look after themselves, how can they look after a child? We're not saying "He has Downs, ergo no children for him", we're using simple logic. A child requires a lot of care, attention and money, and if someone is permanently in the care of another person (Such as someone with a serious mental handicap) and requires that same amount of attention, then it's not fair on anyone involved.
But you could say the same for people with physical handicaps too. I knew a girl in one of my classes and she had a condition (I don't know what it was) that made her almost unable to move. Her joints were mostly locked in place and whilst she could stand with support, she wasn't able to walk or really move. If she was able to procreate (I don't know if she was, but I kinda doubt it), there's possibly no way she'd be able to complete her pregnancy and be able to care for that child properly.
I think, though, a bigger problem is people having children who don't deserve them. Instead of breeding like rabbits, I think people should be more responsible and foster or adopt a child. Instead of adding to the world's population, make (at least) one child happy by giving them a chance at a proper life.
But you could say the same for people with physical handicaps too. I knew a girl in one of my classes and she had a condition (I don't know what it was) that made her almost unable to move. Her joints were mostly locked in place and whilst she could stand with support, she wasn't able to walk or really move. If she was able to procreate (I don't know if she was, but I kinda doubt it), there's possibly no way she'd be able to complete her pregnancy and be able to care for that child properly.
I think, though, a bigger problem is people having children who don't deserve them. Instead of breeding like rabbits, I think people should be more responsible and foster or adopt a child. Instead of adding to the world's population, make (at least) one child happy by giving them a chance at a proper life.
Trusting the sort of people who would make that decision and define 'mentally challenged' makes me far more uneasy than the thought that said 'mentally challenged' people may be having children.
In other words, hell no! If there were only a couple things people could learn from history, this should be one of them.
That said I think there should be a limit on the number of children someone can have, applied to everyone. That I could get behind. A two child policy and access to gender selective implantation on the second child.
In other words, hell no! If there were only a couple things people could learn from history, this should be one of them.
That said I think there should be a limit on the number of children someone can have, applied to everyone. That I could get behind. A two child policy and access to gender selective implantation on the second child.
Honestly, I hate how people think that absurd analogies are valid arguments.burntheartist said:
That's not your right because it impinges on other people's rights. It is a right to have children because it doesn't harm other people's rights.
As simply a civil rights issue, you can't deny mentally challenged people the same rights as other people, so yes.
That being said, should they? That's a question that the people that know them and love them should help them with. Still, though, while you could suggest they don't have kids, you cannot constitutionally force them not to.
That being said, should they? That's a question that the people that know them and love them should help them with. Still, though, while you could suggest they don't have kids, you cannot constitutionally force them not to.
Of course they should. The retarede aren't the only ones who are a burden to society, and if they are, so what? If you are a burden, you still have a right to exist. The desirable outcome isn't people helping society, it's society helping people.
This - it's all about whether the disability arises from a gene or not. And if it does whether or not it would be passed down to any offspring.Merkavar said:
It maybe isn't the greatest idea for them to reproduce but you can't exactly run in and stop them saying "Whoah! No more retards thanks!!" - that goes against free will
Funny how nobody has any of these issues with eugenics when it comes to selectively breeding animals, plants, etc. Don't animals and oranges and stuff have a -right- to have all kinds of genetic predispositions for all sorts of diseases that could potentially get into your food?
only if they can take care of the children and if said children can survive without extensive medical care. ie: they have to be healty enough to live normal lives.