Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Simply, no. Not even because of the downright injustice that this represents, or the abuse of power, but because of the type of thinking that sets in. Next thing we know, homosexual couples won't be allowed to get married in most parts of the world. Oh, wait...
I agree with most of what you said, but not this.HG131 said:
Or, more accurately, I kinda disagree.
Personally I think when it comes to "important shit" morals and logic should reach the same conclusion.
This case for example, not only is it logical that a person incapable of raising a child should not be permitted to raise a child. Its also the correct moral thing to say, whilst a person has a right to be happy, it should not be at the expense of others, in this case the child.
In answer to this, I really have to ask, who do you think you are? Who are you to define what a "functional human being" is? Seriously, who gave you that right? You did. One could argue that a "functional human being" is one who can think and love. Even if someone is, as you so ignorantly and offensively stated, "too stupid to tie my shoelaces" how do you know they can't feel all the emotions you can? And FYI, it really shows how ignorant you are on this topic that you would choose the word "stupid". Intelligence could not have any less to do with what we are talking about. I believe you mean cognitively challenged, which could mean that someone simply thinks in a different way to you, in which case you would be the "stupid" one.HG131 said:
Listen if you think that disabled people reproducing is wishing a life of misery on someone, you are wrong in several ways. First of all, there is no guarantee that offspring would be disabled. You might as well prohibit all humans from reproducing, as they all have a chance of producing challenged offspring. At least by your logic, anyway. Secondly, you have no idea how "miserable" a life they might have.
Take for example, a friend of mine. He was born without femurs, thus he only stands about three and a half feet tall. One hand has two fingers, the other has four. His skull is misshapen and he has brittle bones. Now, how has he spent his life? By winning gold medals in international swimming tournaments against people twice his size, time and time again. And yet, he can't tie his own shoelaces.
Or, perchance take someone else who I know, an acquaintance rather than a friend. Autistic, has a severe case of aspergers syndrome. He also can't tie his shoelaces. Nor does he need to, because he happily works every day solving maths equations and designing tests, in a successful and unique manner that makes for a fulfilling lifestyle.
You sir, have no idea, none whatsoever, of the kind of life that a disabled person can lead. You have no idea how they feel or think. You have no right to deny them the BASIC right to freely reproduce, and even less to deny them the right to life before they are even born. Would the world be better if John Nash was never born? Or Stephen Hawking, for god's sake? Hell, Lincoln had a mood disorder.
Besides, that kind of thinking itself is bad. Sure, you have all the right answers and a fine line in mind of who is okay to deny he opportunity of life to, but give it a few years of dilution through perspective and suddenly it will be very different. Homosexuality will be a mental illness. Dyslexia will be a severe impairment. A whole new master race will come along. No matter how "tame" or "fair" your idea now seems, it is the foundation of a powerful prejudice, I guarantee you. No one has the right to deny life to anybody.
This is at the root of every dictatorship, reign of terror, fascist, totalitarian state that has ever existed.HG131 said:
People need to be protected from one thing and one thing only: Other people who are nothing more than slavers, whose purpose in life is to arrogantly claim that other people don't have just as much right to their own purpose as the kings and dictators and ruling classes.
Freedom from one who dreams himself your master ought to be the duty of every man to protect by force.
They are human beings and they have the same wants and desires as the rest of us. If they choose to form a relationship and have children then so be it. All this bollocks about the the tax payer supporting them is rubbish, how many of you have parents that have had child benifit? (this may only apply in the uk, dont know about the rest of the world and nor do i care). the moment you choose to deny anybody the same rights and privilege's that you enjoy they should be denied to you also.
So the bullies are to set the rules heh? You are just looking for issues here, the "problems" you mentioned could very well occur with a "normal" parent just as likely.Beastialman said:
Again, the guvornment has no right what so ever to deny anyone to have a child, they can deny them to raise that child but that's another thing.
if they are totally uncapable to raise a child on their own then they maybe shouldn't be able to look after them
but yes they should be able to procreate unless the child will suffer greatly because of it
besides you get mentally capable people that are far worse parents
but yes they should be able to procreate unless the child will suffer greatly because of it
besides you get mentally capable people that are far worse parents
If its caused by genetics then no, If not? then yes. The human species is the only species that fosters and makes survive others in the species that otherwise wouldn't survive in nature.
Quick Genetics Lesson:
Out of all the people we would deem to be "Mentally Challenged", I am going to say 99% of these cases are genetic. While accidents and post-conception diseases can cause intellectual disabilities, most cases are due to genetic diseases carried recessively by the parents, or issues during conception. While some of these forms of MR are harder to pass on genitally, it is probably safe to say some of their offspring may carry the same genes that are effecting their parents.
On Natural Selection:
If someone wants to reproduce with you, congratulations! You just passes the Natural Selection test. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, how smart you are; if you can court a mate, you've successfully won your place in the human race's gene pool. It's that simple.
The idea that as humans we have to "maintain Natural Selection" is ridiculous. It's in the name NATURAL Selection. It's a slow, but very efficient process that has been working for millions of years. It didn't need governmental regulation then, it doesn't need it now.
Out of all the people we would deem to be "Mentally Challenged", I am going to say 99% of these cases are genetic. While accidents and post-conception diseases can cause intellectual disabilities, most cases are due to genetic diseases carried recessively by the parents, or issues during conception. While some of these forms of MR are harder to pass on genitally, it is probably safe to say some of their offspring may carry the same genes that are effecting their parents.
On Natural Selection:
If someone wants to reproduce with you, congratulations! You just passes the Natural Selection test. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, how smart you are; if you can court a mate, you've successfully won your place in the human race's gene pool. It's that simple.
The idea that as humans we have to "maintain Natural Selection" is ridiculous. It's in the name NATURAL Selection. It's a slow, but very efficient process that has been working for millions of years. It didn't need governmental regulation then, it doesn't need it now.
Everyone here is talking about eugenics, perfectly built egentic children, and very thinly vieled godwins... but no one is actually talking about the kids. Is it fair to a child to be born into a world where from the VERY FIRST SECOND of existance you are restricted and physically or mentally below your fellow man by accident of birth... it seems so unfair. If by accident such a thing occurs it is a tragedy but it is bareable, no one is at fault, everything can be done to assist the child to lead as normal life as possible. However having a child in the KNOWLEGDE this will be its fate is pretty damn messed up...
Actually, it's choosing a hellhole piece of shit life over no life at all, but yeah.HG131 said:
You're surprisingly informed on natural selection, but I just have one thing to object to...ZantostheViking said:
No.
Seriously, no. Genetic causes are a source, but not nearly as prevalent as something as simple as <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency>not enough salt. Not taking into account tobacco and alcohol consumption by the parents, accidents during pregnancy or birth, lead/mercury/other toxic substance poisoning, physical injury, and malnutrition as widespread causes. However prevalent genetic mental disability is, "99%" is an absolutely absurd exaggeration.
Your friend sounds like all those folks in Alberta who thought it was fine to do that in the 1930s to mentally handicapped children. Now a bunch of them are grown up, have proved that their problem was way less then the government made it out to be, and have demanded a bunch of money.
It should always be the choice of the individual whether they breed or not. The fact is that alot of us have abnormal genes that can lead to problems in our offspring. You're incorrect in saying that mentally handicapped individuals naturally produce more handicapped children. For example, Down Syndrome rarely comes from the parents' genes, it usually stems from genetic adnormalities created in the womb. In reality, stuff like problems during pregnancy, lack of oxygen during birth or iodine deficiency are the primary causes of mental deficiency issues. All I'm saying is research the history and science of this stuff and you'll see that concepts like limited breeding is just bullshit eugenics.
It should always be the choice of the individual whether they breed or not. The fact is that alot of us have abnormal genes that can lead to problems in our offspring. You're incorrect in saying that mentally handicapped individuals naturally produce more handicapped children. For example, Down Syndrome rarely comes from the parents' genes, it usually stems from genetic adnormalities created in the womb. In reality, stuff like problems during pregnancy, lack of oxygen during birth or iodine deficiency are the primary causes of mental deficiency issues. All I'm saying is research the history and science of this stuff and you'll see that concepts like limited breeding is just bullshit eugenics.
He's function eh? Weell y'know the kinds of disabilities where you could know someone for twenty years and never even guess they had one, and then you have the kinds of people with disabilities whom you know from the get go have them, he's the latter. If you started off by barring the most basic right of them all to people who were too "stupid" to tie their own shoelaces (seriously, have you got some kind of grudge against the mentally challenged? Doesn't matter the context stupid's still an insult) then where does it end, would we become like Morlock Nazis and start breeding to create people whom the top dogs consider "Genetically superior"?HG131 said:
Logic has a place in all decision, I agree, but morality must always comes first.
While I do agree that government regulation on procreation would set a bad precedent, because I'm a lesbian and homosexuality was in the diagnostic manual for the crazies for way too long.
(I'm a historian, damn it. I know it's been acceptable on this earth for longer than it's been wrong.)
But i personally don't think people with serious genetic mental handicaps should be allowed to procreate, because I honestly think we are keeping back our own development as a species by encouraging it. I have a problem with the mentally challenge. I can't help it; I know it's my problem. Everyone gives me the 'It's not their fault' speech as if it's supposed to make me care.
Yes, they were born that way, but babies are also born without vital organs, with their legs fused together crushing their insides, and I've even seen one born without a face entirely.
I think these babies would be better off dying. I feel the same way for children who will never learn how to tie their own shoelaces or wipe their own asses.
Besides, if we stop reintroducing it into the genepool, eventually these disorders will go away. We'll get new ones, because mutation is always happening, but we'll drastically reduce the cases we have.
However, autism is a tricky one of these, because a lot of it is starting to seem to have to do with environmental causes, such as what we put in our food and the vaccines sometimes bred in chopped up fly larvae (Thanks H1N1!) that we pump into our kids.
Man, I'm starting to sound like a seriously strangely opinionated hippie. Or is that more like a conspiracy theorist?
(I'm a historian, damn it. I know it's been acceptable on this earth for longer than it's been wrong.)
But i personally don't think people with serious genetic mental handicaps should be allowed to procreate, because I honestly think we are keeping back our own development as a species by encouraging it. I have a problem with the mentally challenge. I can't help it; I know it's my problem. Everyone gives me the 'It's not their fault' speech as if it's supposed to make me care.
Yes, they were born that way, but babies are also born without vital organs, with their legs fused together crushing their insides, and I've even seen one born without a face entirely.
I think these babies would be better off dying. I feel the same way for children who will never learn how to tie their own shoelaces or wipe their own asses.
Besides, if we stop reintroducing it into the genepool, eventually these disorders will go away. We'll get new ones, because mutation is always happening, but we'll drastically reduce the cases we have.
However, autism is a tricky one of these, because a lot of it is starting to seem to have to do with environmental causes, such as what we put in our food and the vaccines sometimes bred in chopped up fly larvae (Thanks H1N1!) that we pump into our kids.
Man, I'm starting to sound like a seriously strangely opinionated hippie. Or is that more like a conspiracy theorist?
Foster homes or adoption agencies, if no one in the family wants them.Swollen Goat said:
What I really would like to believe is that those with genetic mental handicaps shouldn't be able to breed or raise kids (along with otherwise "normal" people who are stupid or just jerks). The only problem with that is that I know where that line of thinking heads.
Let's see...
First, we sterilize those who have genetic mental disabilities, because the parents would not be able to correctly care for their kids.
Sounds okay.
How about sterilizing those with HIV/AIDS, because the kid would end up with it and need a whole plethora of medications for their entire life?
Umm... Maybe...
How about sterilizing all black people because blacks have a much higher risk of heart disease?
Whoa... Wait a minute...
How about sterilizing all gays, bisexuals, and those who are carriers of those genes, because the kids will be persecuted?
Alright! Stop!
As you can see, you can rationalize sterilizing certain people based on genetic information with many "good" reasons. (Really, nobody wants to be raised poorly, get AIDS, have a heart attack, or be persecuted.) However, if you do such things, you get back to that whole "master race" thing, which Hitler tried. The only real difference is that he had people killed instead of sterilizing them.
Human rights, therefore, should allow the worst of mankind to survive, however you define "worst" in any case.
(Unless you are a very strong supporter of "survival of the fittest," in which case, all the more eugenics for you.)