Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

Eri

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,626
0
0
Jonluw said:
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 no one. No one. 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?
This guy has a point I like a lot. I'd be interested to hear someone's response to this.
 

Estarc

New member
Sep 23, 2008
359
0
0
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.
 

UnravThreads

New member
Aug 10, 2009
809
0
0
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.
 

Closet Superhero

New member
May 24, 2009
43
0
0
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.
 

Closet Superhero

New member
May 24, 2009
43
0
0
burntheartist said:
Honestly I hate how people think procreation is a right of theirs. I can go into someone's house, eat all their food, slap their daughter around, and take all of their PS3 games; but because I simply am able to do something, doesn't give me the right to do it.
Honestly, I hate how people think that absurd analogies are valid arguments.

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.
 

CarlsonAndPeeters

New member
Mar 18, 2009
686
0
0
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.
 

ingsoc

New member
Feb 12, 2008
172
0
0
Well, since seemingly "normal" people can procreate and unleash that vacuous skank Sarah Palin or that flaming retard from Deleware why not.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
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.
 

Kukakkau

New member
Feb 9, 2008
1,898
0
0
Merkavar said:
i guess it all depends on if the mental challenge is genetic or not.
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.

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
 

schroing

New member
Apr 17, 2010
147
0
0
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?
 

John the Gamer

New member
May 2, 2010
1,021
0
0
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.
 

Slangeveld

New member
Jun 1, 2010
319
0
0
My parents both have several problems. Depression, ADD and the likes. They're also incredibly smart. As their child I enjoy a wise (if not as smart) life but am troubled by AD(H)D, Insomnia and PDD-Nos. But then, if I have to believe the numbers of children my age or slightly younger (o.0 19 now so not a child anymore? jee) who have similar if not more/worse problems then I don't think I'm that bad off.


So far the answer I agree with most is Mikeyfell "no one should procreate
the human race should just fizzle out in the next 80 or 90 years" xD But I guess procreating feels to good for people to accept this.
 

Closet Superhero

New member
May 24, 2009
43
0
0
burntheartist said:
Says you. Ever been to a village where there's not enough food or water to go around? Seen land prices go shaky? Ever had to wait in line?

No one has a right to breed.
Population control and eugenics are separate issues. One does not imply the other. If you're just talking about population control then you're ranting on the wrong thread.
 

kikon9

New member
Aug 11, 2010
935
0
0
They're allowed to try to procreate. But if they can't land a mate of the opposite sex then that's the end of it.