Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[Ulixes Dimon]

Thank you camazotz for being open minded in an environment that scorns any form of beneficial science that "TRESPASSES INTO GODS DOMAIN."

There's a reason for that scorn. It was called thalidomide.

That incident was due to an incomplete study of a drug before its release. I can hardly think of any situation in which some new idea or invention can be used without thorough testing.

 

[Wardnath]

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.

Ahahahahahaha.

No.

Autism is not and never has been caused by vaccines.

 

[thahat]

someone posten something about freedome here.
that not letting them make babies would not be freedome.
jeah. indeed it would not be, BUT.
we dont give them freedome anyway, because we have to take care of them.
freedome, real freedome. is also the freedom to take the consequences.
in the natural world, these people would not even reach the baby-making point.
and if they would? then i dont declair them mentally chalanged. hell, they cant be much worse then all these idiots racing around on scooters stealing purses... XD

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Do you know how many "normal" people abuse their children ?
What about the parents who neglect their children because they're too busy playing WoW ?
Most of the children in care of the state come from none mentally challenged parents.
It's kind of hypocritical to say that if we "normal" people have a hard time raising our children than those "less capable" people shouldn't be given the same chance to fuck things up.

 

[Lilani]

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.

Your wheelchair analogy refers to a completely different kind of freedom. We are talking about freedom in regard to rights given by the government, not freedom in regard to physical limitations. What you said is like comparing WWII to Vietnam. Totally different situations.

In other news, as someone said earlier, I don't think it's my place to decide. Obviously there is SOME sort of mental clarity needed for two mentally handicapped individuals to become pregnant in the first place, so I think from there it's up to them, their doctors, and their family/guardians.

For all other situations...well, frankly, there are just too many situations and possibilities for one sweeping "law" to cover. There are too many different types and levels of severity of mental illnesses, and too many ways to gauge mental clarity to fairly justify something like that.

Plus, I think it sets a bad precedent for the future. Assuming we're talking about America here: we get bent out of shape when we're told we can't protest at a soldier's funeral. So how is it anywhere NEAR alright to tell people we don't know whether or not they can have children?

And besides, if they do prove to be incapable of properly managing their children, there are already systems in place to handle that.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to ALL Americans. Any other situations must be dealt with on a case by case basis, on a personal level, not a federal level.

 

[HappyPillz]

Your wheelchair analogy refers to a completely different kind of freedom. We are talking about freedom in regard to rights given by the government, not freedom in regard to physical limitations. What you said is like comparing WWII to Vietnam. Totally different situations.

In other news, as someone said earlier, I don't think it's my place to decide. Obviously there is SOME sort of mental clarity needed for two mentally handicapped individuals to become pregnant in the first place, so I think from there it's up to them, their doctors, and their family/guardians.

For all other situations...well, frankly, there are just too many situations and possibilities for one sweeping "law" to cover. There are too many different types and levels of severity of mental illnesses, and too many ways to gauge mental clarity to fairly justify something like that.

Plus, I think it sets a bad precedent for the future. Assuming we're talking about America here: we get bent out of shape when we're told we can't protest at a soldier's funeral. So how is it anywhere NEAR alright to tell people we don't know whether or not they can have children?

And besides, if they do prove to be incapable of properly managing their children, there are already systems in place to handle that.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to ALL Americans. Any other situations must be dealt with on a case by case basis, on a personal level, not a federal level.

My wheelchair analogy wasn't just referring to their physical limitations. I meant how some handicapped people can literally do nothing for themselves, they are completely reliant on others for everything, so no aspect of their lives are free. Of course these people would be incaple of reproducing anyways.
I don't disagree with your views at all. I know I worded my original post pretty badly so I sounded like some kind of douchbag supremist, so I'll start again. Of course mentally disabled people should be allowed to reproduce, why should anyone have the right to stop them? But idealy, from a biological standpoint, they woudn't.

 

[Pegghead]

Yes.

Not only does being mentally challenged not ensure that their children will be but the mentally challenged are more than their disabilities. I have a good friend who's mentally challenged but he's far more than that, he's a musical prodigy who loves Nintendo and spaghetti that can kick my ass at foosball, why should he be denied the right to have children?

I facepalmed. He's function. We're talking about the non-functional types. The I'm-too-stupid-to-tie-my-shoelaces types.

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"?

Logic has a place in all decision, I agree, but morality must always comes first.

Ok, I made a typo. You said Weell. Second, I was just using it as a word that best describes it. Would you have preferred "very mentally challenged to the point that they can't preform standard tasks due to their low intellect"? Third, why does everybody think that everything is a slippery slope? Allowing laws hasn't turned us into Oceania, has it? Allowing porn hasn't turned us into roving bands of rapists, has it? Allowing eating meat hasn't turned us into cannibals, has it? Allowing defending one's self from attack hasn't turned us into raging murderers, has it? Allowing jobs hasn't turned us into slavers, has it? I can go on and on and on and on and on. Not everything is a gorram slippery slope!

I've said my piece and that piece still stands, disability's always gonna be a slippery slope no matter how you step it. I mainly just wanna ask one thing...

Gorram, like from Firefly?

 

[Pegghead]

I mainly just wanna ask one thing...

Gorram, like from Firefly?

Yeah, I tend to use it alot. I really like Firefly/Serenity.

Omg me too! I finished watching the series yesterday, I've seen the film too but was that really it? Like, no more plans for a show?

 

[J-meMalone]

Eugenics are just wrong in my opinion.

 

[jedizero]

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

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.

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

It's also important to keep this in mind.

Whys is 'discrimination on a genetic level' a bad thing, exactly?

Beware stating that some people should be forced to not have children. YOU, might be deemed genetically inferior.

I do believe that was the most thinly veiled knee-jerk-induction attempt I've ever seen.


So what. So what if I was deemed 'genetically inferior'.

You say that to provoke the instant reaction that "anything that happens to me that I don't like must be stopped at all costs".

Unfortunately, I see the big picture here. The few sacrifices for the good of the many, and if I am one of the few that must make sacrifices, I'll do my part.

The difference between us is that when I say 'Good of the many' I mean it. People like you merely use it as a rallying cry.

Actually I was more saying that if you start demanding that people be genetically screened to let some people procreate, and make sure others not, how do you know *you* are going to be deemed 'alright'.

The fact of the matter is that we have some basic human rights, and should continue to have so, if someone wants to have kids, so be it.

You do not have the right to suddenly cut someone's family line off. Nor do you have the right to demand someone doesn't procreate.

What're you going to do? Sterilize them? Lop their balls off? Scoop their ovaries out? If not then how are you going to stop them from breeding?

What if they've already made a kid? Are you going to kill the child? Sterilize them before they understand what that means? What if they or the one they're with are pregnant? Are you going to force them to have an abortion?

This is a very slippery slope you are traversing, and while no, taking the 'first step' does not mean that you'll continue down, but it is very much so a hard path to step away from.

I was adding the comment because 90% of people I've ever seen that say shit like this, but the instant they even think about themselves being deemed 'genetically inferior', OH LORD THIS WAS A BAD IDEA. There's also the fact that we have to ask ourselves, what is 'genetically inferior'? Tell me, if someone has ADD, does that mean that we shouldn't let them breed?
If someone is Autistic, do we not let them breed? What is, and isn't, a limit? Of course this also will lead to a lot of corruption, and abuse.

"Oh, hey, this guy is being an asshole to me. I should just pull a few strings and get him deemed genetically inferior, that'll teach 'em."

To put it bluntly, Eugenics are basically like the idea of the Idiocracy.
Which has been soundly obliterated by this fellow here.

http://xkcd.com/603/

 

[n00beffect]

Of course they should. They're human after all and every single human, no matter what colour, race, nationality, or mental disorter he/she has, should be treated equally. Besides, there's no hard evidence to support the theory that if two mentally-ill/disabled people have an offspring that it too will be disabled/mentally-ill. I mean, genetics is a weird creature, like many of you probably know, so that's not always the case.