Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If we were back in ye olde times, when Natural Selection still held grounds then no they should not be allowed to procreate because unless the mutation is good, and benefits the species as a whole they'd die off anyways. But now a days, when Natural Selection in humans is a thing of the past, I say let them do what ever the heck they want.
Restricting a person's rights is just wrong, so yes, they should be allowed to procreate.
The problems with that are obvious though, and that is why I think that people who are known to have any genetic disorder should be aware that they have a responsibility to society to not propagate their genetic defects. It's nothing against the individuals, but it's unfair to their children, their children's children, and the spouses of those children. Also, if you are unfit to raise your children, then for their sake, you shouldn't have them either.
The rights of these individuals shouldn't be infringed, but society needs to put some real pressure on these parents who pop out kids without any consideration on what they are doing to them. As things are now, new babies are celebrated for being a new life in the world and you will get all the women cooing over the newborn. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is too indiscriminate. No one can say that the new mother is capable of raising that kid to be a contributing member of society, or that that kid won't grow up to be a gang-banger. People are just too shortsighted in regards to human life, and mentally challenged or not, long-term considerations need to be made if we want to progress.
I just want to see conversations to go from "Oh! look at your new baby, isn't it cuuuuute" to "congratulations, on your newborn! Wait a second, doesn't diabetes run in your family? You really shouldn't do that to your kids." It doesn't have to be harsh, nor does the parent need to be shunned for their choices, but an awareness should at least be present. I see my idea similar to the green movement where people are just aware now to watch their littering and carbon emissions if they can help it.
The problems with that are obvious though, and that is why I think that people who are known to have any genetic disorder should be aware that they have a responsibility to society to not propagate their genetic defects. It's nothing against the individuals, but it's unfair to their children, their children's children, and the spouses of those children. Also, if you are unfit to raise your children, then for their sake, you shouldn't have them either.
The rights of these individuals shouldn't be infringed, but society needs to put some real pressure on these parents who pop out kids without any consideration on what they are doing to them. As things are now, new babies are celebrated for being a new life in the world and you will get all the women cooing over the newborn. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is too indiscriminate. No one can say that the new mother is capable of raising that kid to be a contributing member of society, or that that kid won't grow up to be a gang-banger. People are just too shortsighted in regards to human life, and mentally challenged or not, long-term considerations need to be made if we want to progress.
I just want to see conversations to go from "Oh! look at your new baby, isn't it cuuuuute" to "congratulations, on your newborn! Wait a second, doesn't diabetes run in your family? You really shouldn't do that to your kids." It doesn't have to be harsh, nor does the parent need to be shunned for their choices, but an awareness should at least be present. I see my idea similar to the green movement where people are just aware now to watch their littering and carbon emissions if they can help it.
In the minority here by the looks, but I don't think they should. Yeah, it's discriminatory, but i was never a fan of that political correctness anyway.
Your argument is that those with disabilities deserve the same rights as normal people because they are still people. by this logic, giving them extra help in school, giving them special parking, forcing buildings to have ramps, and giving them any other priviledge should be wrong as well because the rest of us are just people like them. You can't have it both ways, if you want them to have all the freedom then they should have to have all the same responsibilities too.Flying Dagger said:
No, as liberal as I am... that is pushing it The child would either be A: mentally handicapped themselves or B: very miserable with incapable parents. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
To me, it's not about whether or not we're "spreading" the mental handicap. It's a mutation, an error in genetic processes, not the sort of thing you can "breed out" anyway.Jiraiya72 said:
To me, it's an issue of responsibility. Who will be responsible for raising (and paying for) the child from birth through 18? If it's the handicapped parent or another family member, and they can do it (financially and mentally), then it never enters anything resembling my jurisdiction. If it's me (as a taxpayer), then shouldn't I get a vote?
THAT is the heart of the issue. It's not whether or not we should be making more handicapped people, or any such nonsense. It's about whether or not someone's biological "right" or "freedom" is actually just a whim they are imposing on someone else's rights and freedoms. There are two ways to go on the issue:
a) If you are financially and psychologically capable of properly raising a child from pregnancy through age 18, then you're 100% free to have as many as you like. You're providing for them, you're monitoring their behavior, you're teaching them how to be good people, so it's your call.
b) If you are EITHER financially or psychologically incapable of properly raising a child from pregnancy through age 18, then it's NOT your call. Because you're doing the fun part (having sex and fulfilling that biological drive to give birth)... but then you're sticking EVERYONE ELSE with the bill, or with the responsibility of keeping your child from being a shithead.
That's like if your neighbor was allow to buy a puppy, keep it for a week, and then give it to YOU. You are now completely responsible for that puppy in terms of time and money. And next week? They can go buy another one, keep it for a week, and ta-da, now YOU have another puppy to care/pay for.
At some point, wouldn't you want to be able to say, "You aren't allowed to buy anymore puppies, if I'M going to have to take care of them?"
Other then completely ignoring everything I wrote to start your own diatribe, your argument makes no sense.spartan231490 said:
we give extra help in schools to anyone (yes, anyone) who needs it, disabled or not. We make sure everyone has access to the buildings, not just those who can walk. We accept that people who cannot walk as easily should have the spaces with the easiest access to make up for this.
These are not examples of inequality, but examples of equality being inacted.
They have the same responsibilities, they pay the same level of taxes, should they be able to earn, and disability benefits are lower then the amount given to the unemployed in most countries, meaning that those who can't work are getting less then those looking for it.
They do not recieve "preferential" treatment, in most cases, they barely recieve enough help as it is.
Ahem, Godwin's law.Flying Dagger said:
Secondly, you're making a bad comparison and a false dichotomy.
Bad comparison: "Mentally handicapped" to "Colored People." In the case of folks with severe mental handicaps, it can be demonstrated that they are not capable of financially or psychologically raising a child in the proper way. And furthermore, it can be shown that this deficiency is directly related to the disability. You cannot scientifically show that a person is incapable of these things simply because they're "colored."
False dichotomy: "If you don't think they should be allowed to breed, it's because you think they are worthless or genetically inferior." Not true. Think of it in the way I expressed it in my post above. It's not about the genetics, it's about who is going to be responsible for the child. Whoever is going to be financially responsible for the raising of that child should be the one to decide. If it's the parent, cool, go for it. Have ten. If it's the taxpayer... well, now it's not just your call.
There are degrees of mental handicap, I certainly understand. But it is reasonable to believe the original post is referring to those who are on the more severe end. Folks classified as "trainable mentally handicapped" or "severe/profound mental handicap" for instance.
in my opinion....
well heres the thing, It all depends on what you mean by mentally challenged, do you mean cerebral palsy or downs syndrome, or do you mean autism or something along those lines?
in the case of downs syndrome it depends on how bad the case is... but I guess generally I would say
Mentally Challenged mother: If her body can handle pregnancy and she can be careful then fine... but that still sounds like a bad thing to me.
Mentally Challenged father: Sure why not.
but I dont want to pay for these peoples children if they arent going to take care of them.
USE PROTECTION
well heres the thing, It all depends on what you mean by mentally challenged, do you mean cerebral palsy or downs syndrome, or do you mean autism or something along those lines?
in the case of downs syndrome it depends on how bad the case is... but I guess generally I would say
Mentally Challenged mother: If her body can handle pregnancy and she can be careful then fine... but that still sounds like a bad thing to me.
Mentally Challenged father: Sure why not.
but I dont want to pay for these peoples children if they arent going to take care of them.
USE PROTECTION
I understand where you're coming from, it's just hard to believe people are naive enough to think it's ok to outright deny a human their subconscious, primal desires.Fragamoo said:
Logic: Allowing mentally retarded people to re-produce would only lead to more of them, and we all know they are a hindrance to modern society. Allow them to live their lives, but for our future they should not be allowed to reproduce. They cost us time and money, two valuables resources which should be properly relocated to help those of us who seek to be productive members of society.
it might go against free will but if your country is having financial dificulties one way to get out ofit or atleast to help get out of it is to remove the under performing segments of the population. as in making it so the retards or even just the poor cant have babies. i think it was the czech republic or something that did this or something similar from like the 30s to the 70s.Kukakkau said:
people might not agree with eugenics but it does seem to be a valid option. if you stop the poor welfare dependant segments of the population from having kids in a the long term you should be better off.
I am with you there. I have seen a post proposing we should kill some of the mentally challenged group for being a bit too mentally challenged and the rest of them should be sterilised. So yeah this thread should be locked as its only going to lead to a huge endless argument.tehroc said:
