Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[DestroytheTyrant]

Yes of course they should be able to.

 

[emerald2142]

Yup.

Anything else wouldn't be freedom.

I have to say I disagree. Some of these people live on wheelchairs and can't even feed themselves. What part about their lives are 'free'?

OT: I realy don't think they should. Not to be mean, but why would anyone want to dilute and weaken the speacies by encouraging the reproduction of the weakest links? Of course it would also depend if their mental condition is genetic or not.

Weaken the species?

The only thing this species doesn't need is close-minded attitudes like this, my friend.

And it's people like you that have destroyed natural selection.

OT: No not at all. Ever. Just my opionion.

 

[DPutna17]

They should be allowed to procreate. It would be cruel to rob them of the chance to have children plus a lot of mental disabilities aren't hereditary so it wouldn't make a difference.

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?

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.

1. Just because they should be allowed to procreate doesn't mean a social services can't come by every so often to check if the environment the child is living in is up to scratch.

2. Just because one partner is mentally challenged doesn't mean the other one is, so the child could still have a pretty comfortable life.

3. Even if you wore a condom there is still a chance the disease could spread anyway. Kind of like how two perfectly healthy people can have a mentally challenged child. So there really is no way to 100% prevent mental illness and if we are going to prevent people who could have mentally challenged children from procreating we may as well sterilize the whole world. Also there is no guarantee that a mentally challenged parent will produce a mentally challenged child even if the disease is hereditary.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

It's also important to keep this in mind.

Not all mentally challenged people have mentally challenged children, nor do all non-mentally challenged people have non-mentally challenged kids.

I agree with these. There are some mental illnesses that can be avoided, such as PKU which can be avoided with a diet avoiding phenylalanine. Not all of those who are mentally ill are unfit to have kids. They might be unable to reach as far as the rest of the population, but even Bush managed to go far. Most can care for another and raise a kid. Those who can't are likely not to reproduce at all, some might need help doing it, but I think they deserve the right.

I do however not want those who have Downs to reproduce because there's simply no way of saying what the result might be. The males with downs are sterile, but the women will have a problem with their meiosis since they have a chromosome too much. I am not sure what would happen if they did reproduce, but it could be pretty bad.

I also think it's important to remember that there are some famous people with mental illnesses that have done wonders for our technology and science. Albert Einstein is one example. If he was able to dress himself properly he might not have been able to do the things he's famous for today. Our history is full of mentally challenged people who have done something to admire and remember.

 

[Mikeyfell]

It isn't a disease, people. Babies of the mentally ill can be normal, and vice versa.

My mom works as a counselor for the mentally ill, and you know what? They're people too.

no one should procreate
the human race should just fizzle out in the next 80 or 90 years

I could see you saying people should procreate responsibly, and maintain a population or maybe slowly decline it, but destroy the human race? Really? Why, exactly, should the only sentient race on this planet be wiped out?

the only sentient race is the only one screwing everything up.
Humans are the only animals who go to war and humans are the only animals that pump Co2 into the atmosphere.
it's all just a matter of time until something goes horribly wrong. why risk having someone you know alive for that?
not to mention that the first 20 years of everyone's life is dedicated to quashing individuality

but it's just a suggestion, you don't have to follow it

 

[DestroytheTyrant]

I do believe that procreation should be a privilege and not a right, however eugenics is a deeply flawed theory (at least the original eugenics anyway) so I wouldn't advocate stopping groups of people procreating on that basis.
This does bring to mind that 2006 film "Idiocracy" however http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

Does make you think.

That whole movie idocracy is just looking into the past with rose tinted glasses. That whole problem of"stupid people breed more stupid people" has been going on forever. It is quite ignorant and very elitist if you ask me.

 

[subject_87]

Not to be alarmist, but this'd probably just be a slippery slope to full-on eugenics...

 

[Naeo]

Not all mentally challenged people have mentally challenged children, nor do all non-mentally challenged people have non-mentally challenged kids.

This.

Mental retardation is not always a genetic thing, and even when it is two people can have a non-mentally challenged child.

 

[moose_man]

If by 'mentally challenged' you mean stupid people, then no.
If by 'mentally challenged' you mean the mentally handicapped, then yes.

 

[Canid117]

I don't feel like getting into a debate about eugenics so here is a picture of an adorable puppy.

Alright I'll weigh in. I do not support Eugenics.

I think I'll start keeping a picture of a puppy in my wallet so I can do this in real life.

It's useful for either getting a woman to go "OOOOOOOOOOH SOOOOOOO CUUUUUUUUTTTTEEEEE!" or to confuse a guy long enough to come up with something clever. Like chewing it over with TWIX.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

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.

I agree with this perspective.

I can understand the idea of eugenics "on paper" as supposedly being for the benefit of a population (lowers health care costs for the community due to lower birth rates in individuals with a predisposed hereditary conditions and or illness).

But most of us are well aware of past examples of this sort of concept (Nazi Germany,Japan,Communist Czechoslovakia,the Balkans and so on)and so begs the question "Who makes these decisions concerning who's fit or who's unfit to reproduce?



The irony of all this is that modern geneticists laugh at this concept since a wider gene pool means more genetic diversity.

My brother happens to be autistic which was entirely random(as are about 95% of autism cases) I happened to have inherited a acne prone skin complexion from my dad, I happen to have been born with a sexual preference for men (again, probably random)... should I be sterilized according to your friend OP?

 

[Jonluw]

They should be allowed to procreate. It would be cruel to rob them of the chance to have children plus a lot of mental disabilities aren't hereditary so it wouldn't make a difference.

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?

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.

1. Just because they should be allowed to procreate doesn't mean a social services can't come by every so often to check if the environment the child is living in is up to scratch.

2. Just because one partner is mentally challenged doesn't mean the other one is, so the child could still have a pretty comfortable life.

3. Even if you wore a condom there is still a chance the disease could spread anyway. Kind of like how two perfectly healthy people can have a mentally challenged child. So there really is no way to 100% prevent mental illness and if we are going to prevent people who could have mentally challenged children from procreating we may as well sterilize the whole world. Also there is no guarantee that a mentally challenged parent will produce a mentally challenged child even if the disease is hereditary.

1. That does put a burden on society though. I'm not all that comfortable paying for someone else's child.

2. I was mainly thinking of a scenario where both parents are disabled. A scenario where one parent is capable of raising the child would certainly be preferrable.

3. Yes, 2 people with no mental disabilities can have a disabled child. However, the chances of that happening are tiny compared to the chances of two people with a hereditary disease having a mentally disabled child.
Let me put it this way: A professional baseball batter may occasionally miss a swing, that doesn't mean you should let a person with a 50% hit rate on the team, just because they can both miss the ball. The difference doesn't lie in whether mental disabilites occur at all, it lies in how significant the chances of it occuring are.

But listen: I've been discussing this all day. I can't be bothered to keep going. Try reading from page 6 and out to find my replies if you want arguments against procreation between mentally disabled people.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It isn't a disease, people. Babies of the mentally ill can be normal, and vice versa.

My mom works as a counselor for the mentally ill, and you know what? They're people too.

no one should procreate
the human race should just fizzle out in the next 80 or 90 years

I could see you saying people should procreate responsibly, and maintain a population or maybe slowly decline it, but destroy the human race? Really? Why, exactly, should the only sentient race on this planet be wiped out?

the only sentient race is the only one screwing everything up.
Humans are the only animals who go to war and humans are the only animals that pump Co2 into the atmosphere.
it's all just a matter of time until something goes horribly wrong. why risk having someone you know alive for that?
not to mention that the first 20 years of everyone's life is dedicated to quashing individuality

but it's just a suggestion, you don't have to follow it

Monkeys go to war. Some of them at least.

It could be said that it's the price of sentience.

And even the most individuality crushed human is more individual than an animal, besides, that's more a cultural thing than an issue with the entire human race.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

If a person is mentally challenged enough that you wouldn't want them having kids, then they probably won't anyways.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Do not look at this article as solid proof for or against eugenics, follow the links at the bottom for better info on top of what is mentioned on the page.

 

[DPutna17]

They should be allowed to procreate. It would be cruel to rob them of the chance to have children plus a lot of mental disabilities aren't hereditary so it wouldn't make a difference.

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?

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.

1. Just because they should be allowed to procreate doesn't mean a social services can't come by every so often to check if the environment the child is living in is up to scratch.

2. Just because one partner is mentally challenged doesn't mean the other one is, so the child could still have a pretty comfortable life.

3. Even if you wore a condom there is still a chance the disease could spread anyway. Kind of like how two perfectly healthy people can have a mentally challenged child. So there really is no way to 100% prevent mental illness and if we are going to prevent people who could have mentally challenged children from procreating we may as well sterilize the whole world. Also there is no guarantee that a mentally challenged parent will produce a mentally challenged child even if the disease is hereditary.

1. That does put a burden on society though. I'm not all that comfortable paying for someone else's child.

2. I was mainly thinking of a scenario where both parents are disabled. A scenario where one parent is capable of raising the child would certainly be preferrable.

3. Yes, 2 people with no mental disabilities can have a disabled child. However, the chances of that happening are tiny compared to the chances of two people with a hereditary disease having a mentally disabled child.
Let me put it this way: A professional baseball batter may occasionally miss a swing, that doesn't mean you should let a person with a 50% hit rate on the team, just because they can both miss the ball. The difference doesn't lie in whether mental disabilites occur at all, it lies in how significant the chances of it occuring are.

But listen: I've been discussing this all day. I can't be bothered to keep going. Try reading from page 6 and out to find my replies if you want arguments against procreation between mentally disabled people.

No I'm done arguing you have your opinion I have mine.

 

[Talshere]

This is a very interesting dilemma.

Pro's/For allowing:

Freedom, who are we to say no.
A mental ailment doesn't necessary prevent you looking after children.
If we were to say yes, where do we stop? Poor eyesight is often genetic, so do we stop people who need glasses from reproducing.
Continued passing down could dilute the illness to a stage where its unnoticeable.

Con's/against allowing:
Diminished responsibility parents may lead to troubled children.
If the mental illness is passed, on the likelihood of the parents not coping is greatly increased.
The child could end being supported by the state, if the parents are unable to work/cope.
Perpetual passing down could, in many many MANY years in the future lead to a more dependant population.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[ArcWinter]

Here is a guick test to find out if someone should procreate:
1. Are they alive? If yes, qo on to guestion 2. If No, see answer B.
2. Can they procreate? If yes, qo on to guestion 3. If No, see answer B.
3. Do they want to procreate? If yes, see answer A. If No, see answer B.

A: They should procreate.
B: They should not procreate.

It is really that simple.

so in response to the main topic i would say if someone wants and is able to procreate then let them it is not that hard you quys

 

[Ulixes Dimon]

I think that the issue solves itself to a degree. If you think carefully, 99.9999999% of the time a person with serious physical/mental disabilities will not have the opportunity to procreate. This in effect means that at least the worst gene defects will not be passed on except by those carrying one recessive gene. Furthermore many people have made the point here that those who are unable to care for a child should be restricted from doing so. In compromise I propose that those who are currently living on welfare be restricted from having children until a time at which they do not require government assistance to live. Enforcement of such a law without infringing on on a persons ability to "ahem" enjoy his or her partners company, however threat of placing any child born into a family on welfare up for adoption would be enough incentive to enforce the law. It may seem harsh but this is the only feasible method of giving the child a real chance in the world with a safe environment.

Would you accept an advancement in gene therapy if it was a purely consensual option derived from medical studies, and not required/mandated by the government or society? That's what I would be searching for. I, for example, have diabetes, an inherited condition. If I could receive a treatment that insured my children, as well as their children, were no longer at risk of the disease, I most definitely would seek out such a cure. I do not consider it something that makes me "unique," I consider it a debilitating curse.

Thank you camazotz for being open minded in an environment that scorns any form of beneficial science that "TRESPASSES INTO GODS DOMAIN." I furthermore believe that genetic therapy and even aesthetic or unnecessary genetic modification are completely acceptable when it is provided consensually (read as agreed to freely without force) in a safe controlled privately controlled environment with a proven method of application.

 

[Mikeyfell]

It isn't a disease, people. Babies of the mentally ill can be normal, and vice versa.

My mom works as a counselor for the mentally ill, and you know what? They're people too.

no one should procreate
the human race should just fizzle out in the next 80 or 90 years

I could see you saying people should procreate responsibly, and maintain a population or maybe slowly decline it, but destroy the human race? Really? Why, exactly, should the only sentient race on this planet be wiped out?

the only sentient race is the only one screwing everything up.
Humans are the only animals who go to war and humans are the only animals that pump Co2 into the atmosphere.
it's all just a matter of time until something goes horribly wrong. why risk having someone you know alive for that?
not to mention that the first 20 years of everyone's life is dedicated to quashing individuality

but it's just a suggestion, you don't have to follow it

Monkeys go to war. Some of them at least.

It could be said that it's the price of sentience.

And even the most individuality crushed human is more individual than an animal, besides, that's more a cultural thing than an issue with the entire human race.

it's hard to explain my opinion to an optimist
if you don't already know what I'm on about I can't explain it to you