Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[No_Remainders]

I'd say no. That's not the kind of thing we need to spread.

Ignorant.
A mental disability is not always genetic. A perfectly flawless set of parents can still have a mentally challenged child, just as a mentally challenged person can still produce a perfectly normal child.

Discrimination on any level is bad. Despite what versoth said. If you had to experience it yourself, you would have a totally different opinion on it. Don't even try to argue against that because it's clear that you would.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

we must place desperate actions to desperate situations

Where is this desperate situation you talk of?

 

[spartan231490]

Of course I said that it was unequal and preferential, it is. I'm saying that if you say they deserve the same rights because they are equal to the rest of us in being human, than by the same logic, we deserve all the rights and priviledges they get, because we are also human. If you say they deserve extra priviledges that other humans get, than you can't turn around and argue that because they are human just like the rest of us, they deserve to be treated the same. That's a contradiction.

Also, I love how you call me on my spelling, it's obvious that I know how to spell they, I just didn't choose to correct it because I assumed everyone here was smart enough to figure out what I meant. By picking on that, it's kinda like your saying that you don't have enough arguments against what I'm saying to make a valid post. Either that, or you somehow actually believe that because I misspelled a word, the rest of my argument is rendered invalid.

Edit: why doesn't this thread have a poll? A poll would have helped to see the public opinion of the escapist more than just a thread.

I said I'm not going to bother arguing with you, that's why my post lacked arguments.
However, I'll clarify one thing, seeing as you think you have found a loophole in the concept of equality.
When people talk of equality, in the broadest sense, they mean Equality of opportunity, not Equality of ability, this is because on the surface, not everyone is equal, some are faster, some are taller, some are shorter and some are slower.
Regardless of the issues they were born with however, we believe in giving everyone the same chance in life, this is equality.

Actually, both kinds of equality are discussed. What is equality of opportunity? Kids born in NYC have different opportunities than those born in the adirondack park, who have different opportunities than those born in Colorado. Kids who are smarter have different opportunities than those who aren't. Life is unequal, trying to force it to be equal is an exersice in futility, and an invitation to mutual mediocrity. However, should not all children born have equal opportunity? Children born to parents with mental disabilities will not only have a higher likelyhood of being mentally challenged themselves, but will also have fewer opportunities because thier parents will be less able to care for and provide for them.

 

[Dastardly]

Ahem, Godwin's law.

We're talking about eugenics and/or controlled breeding. Not exactly something you can call Godwin's law on.

In this case, particularly with the post I was quoting, it stands.

The idea is that you should be able to discuss topics that brush up against "controlled breeding" without the immediate assumption that your interest is in taking it as far as the Nazis (Hitler). It's a scapegoat, strawman, slippery-slope loophole that people use to appeal to moral superiority to avoid having to do the work of actually discussing the topic.

Consider the following questions:

1) If someone has a demonstrated history of not being able to financially/mentally care for children, like someone who has already had them taken away, why is it automatically "evil" to tell them to stop it? THEY aren't the ones paying for the child, WE ARE. In my mind, if you're paying the piper, you're calling the tune.

2) If someone has no job, they're on welfare, they have three kids, and they're not doing anything to change that situation (I mean regarding the job, not the kids), and then they get pregnant... Why should we, as the public, increase their benefits to reward the piss-poor decision-making that led to the creation of another mouth to neglect? How is it our fault, and thus our responsibility, that she got pregnant again?

3) If someone is mentally handicapped, unable to support themselves, and even unable to live alone, why should they be able to decide to have a child they will also not be able to support? What is the compelling reason that they should be allowed to freely spend everyone else's time and money to fulfill a selfish desire to have a child... who they won't really be doing anything for after birth anyway?

 

[Dastardly]

If they are capable and can properly raise the child, then allow them. However, if they can barely care for themselves, then no. This idea, however, should not be restricted to the mentally challenged, but to all peoples. Some of you might see it as being closed minded, but merely assuming everything needs to be happy-go-lucky and ignoring the fact that improper parenting can have devastating affects on children makes you the close minded one.

This.

 

[Flying Dagger]

but black people aren't like that when they are born. it is a matter of how you raise them. a genetic retard is decided from conception. very different issue. we must place desperate actions to desperate situations, and calling a black comprable to retard is sorta just wrong. there are lots of rich and productive black people. retards are by definition held back, in the case of genetic retards they have the limit to what they can achieve placed on them 9 months before birth. thats life, it sucks. but you cannot ignore a problem and you can't keep throwing tax money at it.

i am not saying it is the Only solution.
gene therapy in my mind shows some promise.

Not all children from people with mental disabilities are disabled, and autistics have gone on to solve problems you will never even be able to understand.
Who are you to decide one type of people should be ended?

It is a direct trade. It's selfishness on the highest level, you don't want your tax money to insure these people have the opportunities you have. There is no "dire situation" there is "ignoring a problem"
Many many people with mental disabilities live perfectly functional lives, raise kids, and live out their lives. Many people with disabled parents go on to live amazing lives. And you would take this all away from them for maybe a dollar a year in taxes?

 

[Therumancer]

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?

It depends.

"Mentally Challenged" covers a lot of ground. It can come about due to exterior forces, such as an accident, or as a result of genetic defects.

In the case of someone who is born with severe mental problems, then I do not think they should be allowed to procreate. The very idea of having a society and the rule of law is to put limitations on human behavior. Total freedom is neither possible nor paticularly desirable, and arguements based around that ultimatly fall flat.

In the case of severe genetic defects, passing those on to children is of course going to put a burden on society, especially seeing as a mentally deficient parent is probably not going to be able to reliably raise children to begin with.

Compounding the problem is of course our overpopulation issue. We have enough trouble dealing with the number of normal people on the planet, without having to worry about more of them who are defective. I'm one of those people who feel that we knew we needed to embrace ZPG (Zero Population Growth) generations ago, we didn't, and now we're dealing with a situation where we need a population reduction. I'm all for anything that winds up bringing less children into the world for any reason, until such a time as we get our population down to a more managable level. A lot of today's problems whether they be enviromenta, economic, or simply social and cultural, come from the simple fact that we have too many bloody people.

Also, while cruel to many, I will also say that I believe that children born with severe disabillities should be culled irregardless of the desires of their parents. In previous decades when we knew less about retardation, birth defects, and mental deficiencies, there were some valid arguements about "well how do we know this guy won't be the next Einstein?". Today we can recognize the types of problems, and what people are going to turn out like with them, and can make an educated guess to the point where we are not likely to kill someone who is capable of functioning like Einstein.


As cruel as all this sounds, I will also point out that I am one of those people who is very much in support of eugenics, and genetic experimentation. The kinds of science a lot of luddites and technophobes hate, and keep screaming "frankenstein! scientists should not play god!" whenever they hear about them. Through such technologies I believe we will be able to correct these kinds of disabillities and make this entire line of debate a thing of the past.

In the end I think there are a lot of cases where the needs of society and humanity as a whole come before the desires of the individual. Face it, we all have a powerful drive to breed, but like any other creature we can breed ourselves out of existance if unchecked. Simple overpopulation affects humanity just as it does any other animal. Likewise preserving and carrying on known, and uncorrectable defects weakens us as a whole. If nothing else it uses up resources that could be invested in other things to progress society as a whole.

I *DO* understand the perspective of parents who love their children no matter their condition. That's just how we're wired. Old sayings like "a face only a mother could love" exist for a reason... the instinctive unconditional attachment of most parents to their children. On the other hand especially when you look at the condition of the world, this is a case where the freedom of the individual has to be placed behind the needs of our species as a whole.

 

[magnuslion]

Of course I said that it was unequal and preferential, it is. I'm saying that if you say they deserve the same rights because they are equal to the rest of us in being human, than by the same logic, we deserve all the rights and priviledges they get, because we are also human. If you say they deserve extra priviledges that other humans get, than you can't turn around and argue that because they are human just like the rest of us, they deserve to be treated the same. That's a contradiction.

Also, I love how you call me on my spelling, it's obvious that I know how to spell they, I just didn't choose to correct it because I assumed everyone here was smart enough to figure out what I meant. By picking on that, it's kinda like your saying that you don't have enough arguments against what I'm saying to make a valid post. Either that, or you somehow actually believe that because I misspelled a word, the rest of my argument is rendered invalid.

Edit: why doesn't this thread have a poll? A poll would have helped to see the public opinion of the escapist more than just a thread.

I said I'm not going to bother arguing with you, that's why my post lacked arguments.
However, I'll clarify one thing, seeing as you think you have found a loophole in the concept of equality.
When people talk of equality, in the broadest sense, they mean Equality of opportunity, not Equality of ability, this is because on the surface, not everyone is equal, some are faster, some are taller, some are shorter and some are slower.
Regardless of the issues they were born with however, we believe in giving everyone the same chance in life, this is equality.

I hate to call you on this, but that is not possible. You cannot give a mentally handicapped person "equality of opportunity". A friend of mine has a minor mental issue. He works for good will, and a local program that helps people with problems like his. But he cannot go to college, because he often cannot focus long enough to get anything done where school work is concerned. even the most basics of maths and history evade him. He was provided with the opportunities to work, but that does not make it a matter of equality. He is not "equal" to me in almost any area. Including physically.
People who are stuck on "equality" Bother me. I am bigger, stronger, smarter and tougher than most of the people I know. I am also not as attractive ((IE I am not "pretty")) as many people I know. I was born with a psychological disorder that balances my other advantages, but I have adapted to it and learned to cope and be effective. I have absolutely no skill in any kind of crafting. Do you see where I am going? We are none of us, equal. you may find someone with equal skill or ability in one area, but you will not be equal in all.


OT: Depends on their ability to care for their children. If they are otherwise responsible, not relying on the state or federal government to provide for them, then why not? But if they are disabled to the point where they cannot do for themselves, how is it fair for the rest of us to pick up the tab for them?

 

[RadiusXd]

Ahem, Godwin's law.

We're talking about eugenics and/or controlled breeding. Not exactly something you can call Godwin's law on.

In this case, particularly with the post I was quoting, it stands.

The idea is that you should be able to discuss topics that brush up against "controlled breeding" without the immediate assumption that your interest is in taking it as far as the Nazis (Hitler). It's a scapegoat, strawman, slippery-slope loophole that people use to appeal to moral superiority to avoid having to do the work of actually discussing the topic.

Consider the following questions:

1) If someone has a demonstrated history of not being able to financially/mentally care for children, like someone who has already had them taken away, why is it automatically "evil" to tell them to stop it? THEY aren't the ones paying for the child, WE ARE. In my mind, if you're paying the piper, you're calling the tune.

2) If someone has no job, they're on welfare, they have three kids, and they're not doing anything to change that situation (I mean regarding the job, not the kids), and then they get pregnant... Why should we, as the public, increase their benefits to reward the piss-poor decision-making that led to the creation of another mouth to neglect? How is it our fault, and thus our responsibility, that she got pregnant again?

3) If someone is mentally handicapped, unable to support themselves, and even unable to live alone, why should they be able to decide to have a child they will also not be able to support? What is the compelling reason that they should be allowed to freely spend everyone else's time and money to fulfill a selfish desire to have a child... who they won't really be doing anything for after birth anyway?

you convey the thoughts of many in a way that is eloquent.
THANK YOU.

 

[Flying Dagger]

That's just the problem... the creation of a child is a one-off, chance event. Even giving birth to the child is a singular event. Someone can decide they want to "have a child" or "give birth to a child," and once that event is complete, they're satisfied... but then they're stuck with, well, a CHILD for the next eighteen years. And in far too many cases, they decide that, since they've gotten what they want, someone else can handle the child.

Maybe they selfishly decided to fulfill that biological drive when they had no job, no education, and absolutely no means to support that child. Does that mean it is the PUBLIC'S obligation to get them a child? That's the problem--we're putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. Instead of "Why shouldn't this person have a child," we should be asking, "Why should I have to pay so they can have a child (which I will then continue paying for)?"

If you can't support the child (financially, materially, emotionally, etc.), it's YOU that needs the pretty compelling reason why everyone else should fork over the cash to support your habit.

A mentally-handicapped person could decide, "I like babies, I want one," or hell, even just "Sex seems fun, I want some." Ta-da, they get someone in the same group home pregnant, or get pregnant themselves. Now what? That wasn't an informed decision, but they made it, it's made, and now what? All they had to decide to do was have sex, and everyone else who has to deal with all of the consequences gets no vote?

It's not about freedom, it's about the impact of that freedom. If your exercise of freedom can be, for all practical purposes, self-contained (that is to say, you can pay for any expenses of time or money incurred by that exercise of freedom), then yes, it's YOUR freedom. If not, is it really YOUR call? Am I allowed to spend your money simply because I want to? Hell, at least with the government, I can try to vote them out of office if they spend my tax dollars in a way that I don't like... but with these folks, we have NO recourse.

I've seen women who've already had THREE kids taken away by DSS, for neglect and just plain inability to support the child. And this is AFTER a few years of the government forking over welfare dollars, WIC, and every other entitlement program. All of that money thrown at her, they STILL take the kids away, now they're being raised by the state (us), and SHE'S PREGNANT AGAIN. And she can keep doing it until what? Until she's put in jail for breeding? (Can't) Until she's told to stop it? (Can't) Until she's obligated to take birth control? (Can't)

The economic reasons behind all of this are valid. It's not about some indirect cost-benefit analysis about the "greater good" as determined by suits in an office somewhere far away. It's directly costing us money and resources today, here, and now, raising the kids of people who were unfit to be parents to begin with. It at least bears some consideration, without being dismissed as "Nazi."

We take children into care for the sake of the child, not to alleviate the parents, and having a child taken away is never a desired consequence.
Your view of the world is so removed from reality, it's chilling.
There are so few of these situations where neither partner involved in having a child are aware or whatever of the consequences, it's not like it is happening all the time, the issue is barely a problem financially, and that leaves it at an opinion level.
Do you believe that disabled people should not be allowed every opportunity offered to everyone else? Does everyone not deserve to attempt to be a parent?
There are ways to try and solve the problem of inadequate parenting without resorting to culling an entire section of society, it bears consideration, not obliteration.

 

[spartan231490]

I'd say no. That's not the kind of thing we need to spread.

Ignorant.
A mental disability is not always genetic. A perfectly flawless set of parents can still have a mentally challenged child, just as a mentally challenged person can still produce a perfectly normal child.

Discrimination on any level is bad. Despite what versoth said. If you had to experience it yourself, you would have a totally different opinion on it. Don't even try to argue against that because it's clear that you would.

Mental disabilities can arise from non-disabled parents and vice versa, but it is much more likely that a person with a mental handicap will have a child with that handicap as well. "Discrimination on any level is bad." So, what about affirmative action? What about
"discrimination" that has real statistical evidence? Like when convenience stores like to hire men for the late shift because thieves are less likely to try to rob a store if the lone worker is male, then they are if that same lone worker is female. What about the high percentage of 'african americans' in sports? should football teams have to hire a certain number of whites and latinos because it's not fair for the blacks with more ability to have the job? Discrimination is everywhere because most steryotypes at least have some basis in fact, and people have to make decisions based on the facts as they understand them.

 

[MagicMouse]

No.

They also shouldn't be a part of our school system.

Or receive government benefits.

Cold, heartless, insensitive, politically incorrect, my opinion.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Actually, both kinds of equality are discussed. What is equality of opportunity? Kids born in NYC have different opportunities than those born in the adirondack park, who have different opportunities than those born in Colorado. Kids who are smarter have different opportunities than those who aren't. Life is unequal, trying to force it to be equal is an exersice in futility, and an invitation to mutual mediocrity. However, should not all children born have equal opportunity? Children born to parents with mental disabilities will not only have a higher likelyhood of being mentally challenged themselves, but will also have fewer opportunities because thier parents will be less able to care for and provide for them.

I hate to call you on this, but that is not possible. You cannot give a mentally handicapped person "equality of opportunity". A friend of mine has a minor mental issue. He works for good will, and a local program that helps people with problems like his. But he cannot go to college, because he often cannot focus long enough to get anything done where school work is concerned. even the most basics of maths and history evade him. He was provided with the opportunities to work, but that does not make it a matter of equality. He is not "equal" to me in almost any area. Including physically.
People who are stuck on "equality" Bother me. I am bigger, stronger, smarter and tougher than most of the people I know. I am also not as attractive ((IE I am not "pretty")) as many people I know. I was born with a psychological disorder that balances my other advantages, but I have adapted to it and learned to cope and be effective. I have absolutely no skill in any kind of crafting. Do you see where I am going? We are none of us, equal. you may find someone with equal skill or ability in one area, but you will not be equal in all.


OT: Depends on their ability to care for their children. If they are otherwise responsible, not relying on the state or federal government to provide for them, then why not? But if they are disabled to the point where they cannot do for themselves, how is it fair for the rest of us to pick up the tab for them?

We can't prevent death, can't solve all diseases, but is that a reason to stop trying?
To not solve the diseases we can fight? to not try to give people the lives they should have?
Just because a cause cannot be fully completed does not mean there's no reason to solve the little issues, to give those we can the opportunities they deserve.

I'd call myself a success story of this. I was born with ADHD, without help and medication I would probably have never gone anywhere, without extra time in exams I would probably have not got to the university I attend. Without extra help when I started writing and reading, I might have ended up in a retail job.
But instead I'm here, pushing through progressive social policy, working for the government trying to change things, for the better, coming up with the initiatives that will go out and change lives.

Would you have taken that away from me?

 

[spartan231490]

That's just the problem... the creation of a child is a one-off, chance event. Even giving birth to the child is a singular event. Someone can decide they want to "have a child" or "give birth to a child," and once that event is complete, they're satisfied... but then they're stuck with, well, a CHILD for the next eighteen years. And in far too many cases, they decide that, since they've gotten what they want, someone else can handle the child.

Maybe they selfishly decided to fulfill that biological drive when they had no job, no education, and absolutely no means to support that child. Does that mean it is the PUBLIC'S obligation to get them a child? That's the problem--we're putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. Instead of "Why shouldn't this person have a child," we should be asking, "Why should I have to pay so they can have a child (which I will then continue paying for)?"

If you can't support the child (financially, materially, emotionally, etc.), it's YOU that needs the pretty compelling reason why everyone else should fork over the cash to support your habit.

A mentally-handicapped person could decide, "I like babies, I want one," or hell, even just "Sex seems fun, I want some." Ta-da, they get someone in the same group home pregnant, or get pregnant themselves. Now what? That wasn't an informed decision, but they made it, it's made, and now what? All they had to decide to do was have sex, and everyone else who has to deal with all of the consequences gets no vote?

It's not about freedom, it's about the impact of that freedom. If your exercise of freedom can be, for all practical purposes, self-contained (that is to say, you can pay for any expenses of time or money incurred by that exercise of freedom), then yes, it's YOUR freedom. If not, is it really YOUR call? Am I allowed to spend your money simply because I want to? Hell, at least with the government, I can try to vote them out of office if they spend my tax dollars in a way that I don't like... but with these folks, we have NO recourse.

I've seen women who've already had THREE kids taken away by DSS, for neglect and just plain inability to support the child. And this is AFTER a few years of the government forking over welfare dollars, WIC, and every other entitlement program. All of that money thrown at her, they STILL take the kids away, now they're being raised by the state (us), and SHE'S PREGNANT AGAIN. And she can keep doing it until what? Until she's put in jail for breeding? (Can't) Until she's told to stop it? (Can't) Until she's obligated to take birth control? (Can't)

The economic reasons behind all of this are valid. It's not about some indirect cost-benefit analysis about the "greater good" as determined by suits in an office somewhere far away. It's directly costing us money and resources today, here, and now, raising the kids of people who were unfit to be parents to begin with. It at least bears some consideration, without being dismissed as "Nazi."

We take children into care for the sake of the child, not to alleviate the parents, and having a child taken away is never a desired consequence.
Your view of the world is so removed from reality, it's chilling.
There are so few of these situations where neither partner involved in having a child are aware or whatever of the consequences, it's not like it is happening all the time, the issue is barely a problem financially, and that leaves it at an opinion level.
Do you believe that disabled people should not be allowed every opportunity offered to everyone else? Does everyone not deserve to attempt to be a parent?
There are ways to try and solve the problem of inadequate parenting without resorting to culling an entire section of society, it bears consideration, not obliteration.

It happens more than you would think. In my high-school district, there are three families who live entirely on the welfare system. These families have 5, 8, and 13 children respectively, they cant afford to feed thier kids and spend no time caring for them. These kids only eat the meals they get at school, which are payed for by school taxes. my school district has less than 350 children between the ages of 4(pre-) and 18(12th grade). 26 kids out of 350 are payed for entirely by taxpayer money, adn these families are all still having children. Admittedly, they don't have any diagnosed disabilities. However, there is a home for the mentally disabled, i believe that 2 of the individuals in the home have gotten pregnant several times each. I don't know how many total but i know that they had one and two abortions respectively and the others were all put into adoption/foster care where thier lives will be much worse than if they had born into families that could care for them. And yet, all of these individuals have the "right" to continue having kids that they will do absolutely nothing to support, or care for in any way.

 

[Jonluw]

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.

That's the problem with forum debates, isn't it? People can choose what arguments they wish to answer, so naturally, when someone has pointed out something important, or made a good argument; this argument will simply be ignored, because we do not strive to find out what's right and not: We strive to make other people think our opinion is right; no matter what that opinion may be.

 

[Les Awesome]

i know you'll all think i'm a heartless bastard for this but....
no,i disagree i just don't think its for the better

 

[spartan231490]

Actually, both kinds of equality are discussed. What is equality of opportunity? Kids born in NYC have different opportunities than those born in the adirondack park, who have different opportunities than those born in Colorado. Kids who are smarter have different opportunities than those who aren't. Life is unequal, trying to force it to be equal is an exersice in futility, and an invitation to mutual mediocrity. However, should not all children born have equal opportunity? Children born to parents with mental disabilities will not only have a higher likelyhood of being mentally challenged themselves, but will also have fewer opportunities because thier parents will be less able to care for and provide for them.

I hate to call you on this, but that is not possible. You cannot give a mentally handicapped person "equality of opportunity". A friend of mine has a minor mental issue. He works for good will, and a local program that helps people with problems like his. But he cannot go to college, because he often cannot focus long enough to get anything done where school work is concerned. even the most basics of maths and history evade him. He was provided with the opportunities to work, but that does not make it a matter of equality. He is not "equal" to me in almost any area. Including physically.
People who are stuck on "equality" Bother me. I am bigger, stronger, smarter and tougher than most of the people I know. I am also not as attractive ((IE I am not "pretty")) as many people I know. I was born with a psychological disorder that balances my other advantages, but I have adapted to it and learned to cope and be effective. I have absolutely no skill in any kind of crafting. Do you see where I am going? We are none of us, equal. you may find someone with equal skill or ability in one area, but you will not be equal in all.


OT: Depends on their ability to care for their children. If they are otherwise responsible, not relying on the state or federal government to provide for them, then why not? But if they are disabled to the point where they cannot do for themselves, how is it fair for the rest of us to pick up the tab for them?

We can't prevent death, can't solve all diseases, but is that a reason to stop trying?
To not solve the diseases we can fight? to not try to give people the lives they should have?
Just because a cause cannot be fully completed does not mean there's no reason to solve the little issues, to give those we can the opportunities they deserve.

I'd call myself a success story of this. I was born with ADHD, without help and medication I would probably have never gone anywhere, without extra time in exams I would probably have not got to the university I attend. Without extra help when I started writing and reading, I might have ended up in a retail job.
But instead I'm here, pushing through progressive social policy, working for the government trying to change things, for the better, coming up with the initiatives that will go out and change lives.

Would you have taken that away from me?

I know several individuals who were diagnosed with ADHD only after having successfully completed high-school adn being accepted into college. I know one person who was diagnosed as a child but his mother doesn't believe in continual medication so he was never treated, he got through high school and college with average or better grades and he never got any assistance. You can have life handed to you, or you can earn it.

Edit: I forgot to mention that these people are some of the best adjusted, smartest, hardest-working people I know because they had to work out thier problems on thier own instead of being taught that the world would bend to thier "disability" so that they could succeed. They were forced to overcome thier problems, instead of just learning to live with them.

 

[Flying Dagger]

It happens more than you would think. In my high-school district, there are three families who live entirely on the welfare system. These families have 5, 8, and 13 children respectively, they cant afford to feed thier kids and spend no time caring for them. These kids only eat the meals they get at school, which are payed for by school taxes. my school district has less than 350 children between the ages of 4(pre-) and 18(12th grade). 26 kids out of 350 are payed for entirely by taxpayer money, adn these families are all still having children. Admittedly, they don't have any diagnosed disabilities. However, there is a home for the mentally disabled, i believe that 2 of the individuals in the home have gotten pregnant several times each. I don't know how many total but i know that they had one and two abortions respectively and the others were all put into adoption/foster care where thier lives will be much worse than if they had born into families that could care for them. And yet, all of these individuals have the "right" to continue having kids that they will do absolutely nothing to support, or care for in any way.

Many successful people have come from adopted or taxpayer funded education.
The waiting list to adopt newborn babies is longer then there are babies to compensate for it, and they ARE taken into loving families, grow up and pay taxes.

Are you seriously suggesting to take their right to children away for these pitiful reasons?
or are we back at monetary concerns.

 

[spartan231490]

It happens more than you would think. In my high-school district, there are three families who live entirely on the welfare system. These families have 5, 8, and 13 children respectively, they cant afford to feed thier kids and spend no time caring for them. These kids only eat the meals they get at school, which are payed for by school taxes. my school district has less than 350 children between the ages of 4(pre-) and 18(12th grade). 26 kids out of 350 are payed for entirely by taxpayer money, adn these families are all still having children. Admittedly, they don't have any diagnosed disabilities. However, there is a home for the mentally disabled, i believe that 2 of the individuals in the home have gotten pregnant several times each. I don't know how many total but i know that they had one and two abortions respectively and the others were all put into adoption/foster care where thier lives will be much worse than if they had born into families that could care for them. And yet, all of these individuals have the "right" to continue having kids that they will do absolutely nothing to support, or care for in any way.

Many successful people have come from adopted or taxpayer funded education.
The waiting list to adopt newborn babies is longer then there are babies to compensate for it, and they ARE taken into loving families, grow up and pay taxes.

Are you seriously suggesting to take their right to children away for these pitiful reasons?
or are we back at monetary concerns.

I'm suggesting removing thier rights because a) it's a huge monetary drain on a world economy which is sputturing in the dirt b) These kids are more likely to be mentally handicapped or even if not, they are more likely to be raised by incapable neglecting parents c) yes the adoption system works, but studies into the foster care system have shown conclusively that foster care will ruin a persons life a lot more often than not. d) these kids being raised like this almost always end up living off welfare ect. because thats what they learned, further draining the economy e) as i mentioned, in case you missed it, these kids get maybe two meals a day, from school and thats all they eat, how is it right that thier parents have the "right" to continue reproducing and put even more kids in this situation of neglect and abuse.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I know several individuals who were diagnosed with ADHD only after having successfully completed high-school adn being accepted into college. I know one person who was diagnosed as a child but his mother doesn't believe in continual medication so he was never treated, he got through high school and college with average or better grades and he never got any assistance. You can have life handed to you, or you can earn it.

Edit: I forgot to mention that these people are some of the best adjusted, smartest, hardest-working people I know because they had to work out thier problems on thier own instead of being taught that the world would bend to thier "disability" so that they could succeed. They were forced to overcome thier problems, instead of just learning to live with them.

They diagnose just about anybody with it these days, I'm one of the people who was off the charts, the type where you go to sit the test that they do to find out if you have it, and about a minute in get sent out because it's just so apparent.
I can safely say without the medication I wouldn't have made it this far. If you consider this to make me less of a person, that's your call, but there are some things you can't solve by yourself.