Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[heaventorn]

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.

And this is why I try to stay away from debates. There's never any progress or evolution of ideas. It's three groups becoming engrossed in their own ideas.

 

[Jonluw]

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.

And this is why I try to stay away from debates. There's never any progress or evolution of ideas. It's three groups becoming engrossed in their own ideas.

Indeed, but you can actually have an interesting discussion once in a blue moon.

 

[HighLordJimmy]

Depends on how badly their mental capabilities are restricted. If, for example, there's a person with an exceptionally low IQ (say 70) then I would be in favour of letting them breed. However, if we're talking about someone with an extra chromosome 21 then no (although someone with an extra/deformed chromosome 21 is not necessarily able to reproduce). People in such circumstances would have almost no idea of the responsibility and effort required to raise a child. Sure it's discrimination, but it's for the better. The child of someone who is severely mentally disabled will inevitably end up being looked after by the state and hence becomes a burden to society. Moreover, the child is unlikely to be able to live a 'normal' life (that is, if he has been taken into care) and so it hurts the child. There's also the problem that the disorder (if it is genetic) may be inherited by the child, and again the child becomes society's problem.

Put quite bluntly, if the child isn't going to be cared for properly, you're going to be bringing someone to the world who is going to live an unhappy life, and hence it should stopped. Sure the kid might end up as the next Einstein, but there's an equal if not larger chance that he'll be the next Hitler.

 

[EeveeElectro]

I don't think anyone should be deprived of human rights, but my auntie and I were talking about this a while back actually. I think it's quite sad that a child with down syndrome can't live a very long life, so we should try make their short lives as good as possible.
A boy with learning difficulties managed to receive all A-A*s in his GCSE and has gone on to better things. Like someone mentioned, Mozart had a disabled mother, but that didn't stop him accomplishing great things.

 

[Flying Dagger]

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.

jesus christ is your enter key broken?

The world economy is actually back on track. Though I still can't quite believe you think that the disabled should be the ones paying for the bailing out of the banking system.
any child "may" be handicapped, any parent "may" be neglecting, this doesn't really reflect why you are penalising the disabled.
I call bullshit on studies showing foster care ruins childrens lives. Especially the sort from birth.
if the kids are truthfully not getting more then that a day, you should probably call social services on them.

 

[Flying Dagger]

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.

Sorry, I'm currently arguing with three different people, the occaisionally point slips through.
It is the right of two consenting adults to have a child.
this however is usually just shorted to the right to have children.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Not by some, sure. The issue at hand is I'm not interested in the sake of the child. That's why I didn't have him--THEY did. If THEY can't support him, that doesn't make it MY burden to carry. I am responsible and choose to take steps to ensure I do not have a child, because I do not want one, nor do I want anyone else to have to raise my child. It's cold, yes, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or illogical about it.

And before you mention it, I support public schooling even though I do not have children. Hell, I AM a teacher. And I work just as hard to teach to children of wholly disinterested parents as I do any others. It just frustrates me to see the cycle going uninterrupted because no one has the balls to step up and say, "No, it is NOT your choice, because WE are having to deal with the consequences."

Your view of the world is so removed from reality, it's chilling.

No. My view of the world is chilling, but it is based solidly in reality. Not "all of reality," but the reality is that in some areas, it happens a ton. And even ONE child is too many for a family that doesn't want/can't support a child.

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.

It's happening, and it shouldn't happen. We're not talking about the scale of the problem. Very few people commit murders or own pet tigers, but we write legislation and enforce laws about those.

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?

1) Sure, let's give the blind driver's licenses while we're at it. Some disabilities mean that a person just isn't equipped for that particular opportunity. Again, I'm not saying "You better have an IQ of 150 before you have a kid." I'm saying "If you are not mentally capable to live alone and hold down a job that pays enough, you're not parental material." These are the more severe cases of mental handicap.

2) No. Not everyone does. Not automatically, at least. I think a person has to do more than biologically survive as a human being until sexual maturity before they "deserve" to attempt parenting. I think the public has a right to expect that person to have a place to live and a relatively stable job, and be capable of handling THEMSELVES materially and intellectually, before that person can act "entitled" to pump out five kids.

We all have the equipment, but I just don't think that means we automatically have the RIGHT. Only if you can raise your children without shifting the financial burden to everyone around you--that's when no one has ANY right to tell you a damn thing. But if I'm going to pay even a fraction of a cent (especially if that fraction of a cent is more than you YOURSELF are contributing), then you lose a certain measure of autonomy in that decision.

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.

And I haven't argued in the least to cull any section of society, or to obliterate anyone. I didn't say people were beyond improvement. I just think they should have to improve BEFORE having the kid, instead of claiming they'll do it AFTER (and then not).

If you have an inadequate doctor, you strip him of his license. But furthermore, this doesn't happen very often because the doctor has to go through years of rigorous learning and screening and internship and evaluation before he even gets NEAR that stethoscope... he has to prove himself BEFORE being given the job. And then, if he fails, he loses the job completely and has to start over proving himself again.

And parenting is JUST as life-or-death as medicine, and should be treated as such.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

I don't know anyone who'd want to have sex with a retarded person...except, like, another retarded person.
Even still, if it were up to me, I wouldn't outright ban it, but I would actively discourage it.
Even if the child turned out completely normal, they'd be stuck with retarded parents. Having to care for their parents more than the other way around is something going against nature and just worse for the child. You could of course send the child to live with a relative, but then it just begs the question of why having it in the first place.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You could easily argue that overcoming problems is what strengthens the human race, not genetics. Children born with superior genetic 'stats' can waste their talent because they have nothing to live up to. Likewise, the awareness of inferiority can make people struggle harder to achieve something.

Caring for the least able members of our society also teaches a compassion which we, as a society, benefit from. A society which never faced that moral challenge doesn't seem like a particularly nice place to live.

All in all, do you want to live in a world of rich, genetically privilaged 'alphas' who have nothing to struggle against, who have already 'won' at life merely by virtue of being born, or would you rather deal with the full spectrum of what humanity can mean?

I imagine my opinion is obvious.

On parenting. Why assume that bad parenting results in bad children? Surely there's enough evidence to the contrary by now.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Sorry, I'm currently arguing with three different people, the occaisionally point slips through.
It is the right of two consenting adults to have a child.
this however is usually just shorted to the right to have children.

Still up for debate. One could argue:

"It is the right of two CAPABLE and consenting adults to have a child." This could mean that they are financially solvent, or at least marginally employable, or that they have the time and resources to devote to the appropriate development of a child.

One could also argue within your own presented definition that a person's mental handicap, if severe enough (which, as I've mentioned, is EXACTLY and nigh-exclusively the sort of mental handicap being spoken about here), can impair their ability to give informed consent to sex, let alone parenthood. That doesn't mean they're biologically incapable, but mentally, perhaps so.

I do think it very telling, though, that you require TWO consenting adults. Well... what about those situations in which a man didn't want a child, the woman lied about birth control, and she chooses to carry the child. He's not consenting to the CHILD, he just consented to SEX. Obviously it only requires ONE consenting adult and one other involved party.

Even so, your definition is the more sensible one. You're saying it should take into account the feelings of everyone involved (mother and father). Now, while this certainly could open the door for the man to say, "I don't want a child, she refuses to abort, so she waives any right to child support for failing to even consider my feelings," it more importantly raises a sub-issue... the feelings of everyone involved.

Well, if you are financially incapable of supporting your child, emotionally incapable of raising the child, or otherwise impaired in your ability, that means someone else (the public) will have to take up the slack. We just became one of those adults that needs to be able to consent (or not).

 

[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.

Sorry, I'm currently arguing with three different people, the occaisionally point slips through.
It is the right of two consenting adults to have a child.
this however is usually just shorted to the right to have children.

Relax, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But let me just copy this from the wikipedia article.

"...the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

I figure that if they are not able to care for the child due to serious mental disabilities, or if there is a high chance of the child inheriting the disability, that is not responsible reproduction.

 

[RedRussian]

Of course they should. Mentally challenged people are still people after all.

I guess the exception would be if they were so mentally unstable, that they would hurt the child.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

If it is a genetic disability and the child has a high chance of gaining it then no, think about it using a different disease instead, should AID sufferers/ 2 AID sufferers be allowed to procreate? Considering that the child is going to be likely to have the disease too, the parent is likely to die earlier and be unable to care for the child then the answer is no, yes it is deep and unfair but why increase the number of people with the disease when you can barely control it as is.

 

[esperandote]

Im in favor... of no being in a position where i have to take this desicion.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Not by some, sure. The issue at hand is I'm not interested in the sake of the child. That's why I didn't have him--THEY did. If THEY can't support him, that doesn't make it MY burden to carry. I am responsible and choose to take steps to ensure I do not have a child, because I do not want one, nor do I want anyone else to have to raise my child. It's cold, yes, but there's absolutely nothing wrong or illogical about it.

And before you mention it, I support public schooling even though I do not have children. Hell, I AM a teacher. And I work just as hard to teach to children of wholly disinterested parents as I do any others. It just frustrates me to see the cycle going uninterrupted because no one has the balls to step up and say, "No, it is NOT your choice, because WE are having to deal with the consequences."

Public schooling is, of course, financially viable, morals aside. Not caring about the outcome of a complete stranger is understandable, yet only serves to underpin the differences in viewpoints between us.

No. My view of the world is chilling, but it is based solidly in reality. Not "all of reality," but the reality is that in some areas, it happens a ton. And even ONE child is too many for a family that doesn't want/can't support a child.

Moving slightly away from the OP here, the point in question was not about bad parenting in general (though if I had more time and less people to argue with I would cover that as well) but about if disabled people should be allowed to have kids

It's happening, and it shouldn't happen. We're not talking about the scale of the problem. Very few people commit murders or own pet tigers, but we write legislation and enforce laws about those.

Yes, while we legislate against these things, I do not believe preventing people murdering each other, or owning a pet tiger, would be quite as much as an infringement on rights as telling people with disabilities they have to be chemically castrated.

1) Sure, let's give the blind driver's licenses while we're at it. Some disabilities mean that a person just isn't equipped for that particular opportunity. Again, I'm not saying "You better have an IQ of 150 before you have a kid." I'm saying "If you are not mentally capable to live alone and hold down a job that pays enough, you're not parental material." These are the more severe cases of mental handicap.

2) No. Not everyone does. Not automatically, at least. I think a person has to do more than biologically survive as a human being until sexual maturity before they "deserve" to attempt parenting. I think the public has a right to expect that person to have a place to live and a relatively stable job, and be capable of handling THEMSELVES materially and intellectually, before that person can act "entitled" to pump out five kids.

We all have the equipment, but I just don't think that means we automatically have the RIGHT. Only if you can raise your children without shifting the financial burden to everyone around you--that's when no one has ANY right to tell you a damn thing. But if I'm going to pay even a fraction of a cent (especially if that fraction of a cent is more than you YOURSELF are contributing), then you lose a certain measure of autonomy in that decision.

Yes, obviously at the point where you know a person will be a danger to society, you stop carrying out the equality spiel. But you cannot know for sure that a child born to a disabled person will be a burden to society, and without the knowledge, one way or the other, you cannot make that call.

And I haven't argued in the least to cull any section of society, or to obliterate anyone. I didn't say people were beyond improvement. I just think they should have to improve BEFORE having the kid, instead of claiming they'll do it AFTER (and then not).

If you have an inadequate doctor, you strip him of his license. But furthermore, this doesn't happen very often because the doctor has to go through years of rigorous learning and screening and internship and evaluation before he even gets NEAR that stethoscope... he has to prove himself BEFORE being given the job. And then, if he fails, he loses the job completely and has to start over proving himself again.

And parenting is JUST as life-or-death as medicine, and should be treated as such.

As I have previously mentioned, this thread is about whether or not disabled people should be allowed to have children.
However, inadequate parents are stripped of their kids, and of course suggestions such as parenting lessons for expectant mothers are always welcome, if that was what people were suggesting, I wouldn't still be here hours later, arguing against this crazy course of action.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Well, if you are financially incapable of supporting your child, emotionally incapable of raising the child, or otherwise impaired in your ability, that means someone else (the public) will have to take up the slack. We just became one of those adults that needs to be able to consent (or not).

The government has made it's decision, and decides that it will take care of those unfortunate enough to be involved in these situations. the fact it's not on the government's agenda is point enough to show public opinion does not back it.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Relax, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

But let me just copy this from the wikipedia article.

"...the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so..."

I figure that if they are not able to care for the child due to serious mental disabilities, or if there is a high chance of the child inheriting the disability, that is not responsible reproduction.

That of course refers to some document of rights, I usually just quote from my beliefs.
To me, any action of preventing people from having a child together is a violation of rights.

 

[TheHecatomb]

No. For the children's sake. And come on, it's not like we're short on people or something.

 

[gbemery]

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

I think this pretty much sums up the whole argument. That's a really horrible logic to think mentally challenged people will give birth to only mentally challenged children. With that you might as well say criminals shouldn't have kids because they will give birth to more criminals.

 

[AKissAndAGunshot]

I am going to say this:
If we remove the right for "retards" to have children.....who's next?
Seriously.(I am about to make a below-the-belt attack on people who said "yes" on this forum question) If you guys are pro-choice on abortion, you're a bunch of F###ING hypocrites.
Ahem.
This actually started when we gave the state the right to kill anybody, even if it was for treason or something. Now, we have the right to kill babies. Who's next? If we restrict "retards", how do we know we won't end up restricting .... albinos? People with weak hearts? The poor? Spastics? People with nervous disorders? Insomniacs? Amnesiacs? People with medical depression? People with phobias?
We will have defined who is worthy of children.
America is (quote) "Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." I guess that didn't include the mentally disabled.