Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[viranimus]

No. Just no.

Unfortunately there is no way to rationalize this to the public to keep from getting angry responses regardless of the merit or lack thereof, so why even bother?

 

[Blue_vision]

Allowed to, I'll say yes. Advised to, no. Anyone with a genetic disease/disease carrier should be very cautious around having children, until the point that we have all-reaching, government-paid gene therapy. Don't restrict people's rights, but I'd say people should be very careful around it.

 

[00slash00]

i dont think being mentally challenged is hereditary. even if it is, its kinda fucked up to say "you cant have kids because i think theres enough of you people already." the real issue is whether or not they would be capable of raising a child

 

[Nieroshai]

I don't believe in eugenics, so I'd say if they CAN breed, then why not? But who's going to intentionally have sex with, pardon ly language, a retard, and bear a child? Other than another one? It's not going to ruin our gene pool because it'll basically destroy itself. And also, who gets to decide who does and doesn't breed? What IQ qualifies you?

 

[SimuLord]

Allowed to, I'll say yes. Advised to, no. Anyone with a genetic disease/disease carrier should be very cautious around having children, until the point that we have all-reaching, government-paid gene therapy. Don't restrict people's rights, but I'd say people should be very careful around it.

All-reaching, government-paid gene therapy is just eugenics by another name. Imagine a world where everybody was "perfect" genetically. Might as well just build humans on assembly lines at that point.

Can you imagine if Mozart were born and raised/educated in modern America? They'd have medicated him into perfect mediocrity, and if his creativity persisted they'd probably have him writing ad jingles.

I'm not normally anti-science, but genetics and the engineering of mankind is an affront to the gods---but more than that, even when I was an atheist I still thought it was an affront to everything that is beautiful about the human animal.

 

[thethain]

Technically even having sex with someone with an IQ below a certain range can be considered statutory rape anyways. Which would mean it was illegal for them to have sex ergo have a baby.

So to answer your question, it is already illegal for mentally retarded people to have kids..

We are nazis..

 

[camazotz]

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 don't need to type anything in response to the OP, you did it for me, thank you!

This is a question Germany tackled back in the 30's. I would like to think we've learned something since then. Besides, it's almost criminal to think that denying rights to the handicapped who suffer from genetic conditions is somehow fair in a society where we are on the cusp of a major revolution in gene therapy. The children of these people will, in all likelihood, have access to treatments and therapy that will--of their own free will and choosing--aid them in removing debilitating recessive genes from their children in turn.

 

[camazotz]

Allowed to, I'll say yes. Advised to, no. Anyone with a genetic disease/disease carrier should be very cautious around having children, until the point that we have all-reaching, government-paid gene therapy. Don't restrict people's rights, but I'd say people should be very careful around it.

All-reaching, government-paid gene therapy is just eugenics by another name. Imagine a world where everybody was "perfect" genetically. Might as well just build humans on assembly lines at that point.

Can you imagine if Mozart were born and raised/educated in modern America? They'd have medicated him into perfect mediocrity, and if his creativity persisted they'd probably have him writing ad jingles.

I'm not normally anti-science, but genetics and the engineering of mankind is an affront to the gods---but more than that, even when I was an atheist I still thought it was an affront to everything that is beautiful about the human animal.

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.

 

[justjrandomuser]

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

Read this it pretty much covers the whole idea.

 

[MetroidNut]

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.

Agreed on all points. I mean, every single one. You, sir, have covered my views well enough that I'm afraid I don't have anything to add.

 

[Litchhunter]

One of the main issues to this is, what falls under "mentally challenged"? My brother has issues with the speach part of his brain, a body that dosen't function well unless he is given the correct amount of certain things, and has issues with social relations. He is also the smartest kid of his age I know when it comes to math, he plays with calculaters as we may play with videogames. So where does that fall? To much gra area. I'm not argueing for or against it, just pointing out a glareing flaw. (Oh, and to all the people saying no on the grounds of it "weakening the gene pool", Id like you to think for a momment, how many people are there in the world? What does it really matter if one person is weaker than others? It's like saying "you cant bench 2/3 your weight, you cant breed because only the strongest should survive.")

 

[VicunaBlue]

Ehh as long as they aren't diagnosed with a specific mental condition, as in just dim, I think they should be allowed too.

Not really for transhumanism, through any means.

 

[SimuLord]

Allowed to, I'll say yes. Advised to, no. Anyone with a genetic disease/disease carrier should be very cautious around having children, until the point that we have all-reaching, government-paid gene therapy. Don't restrict people's rights, but I'd say people should be very careful around it.

All-reaching, government-paid gene therapy is just eugenics by another name. Imagine a world where everybody was "perfect" genetically. Might as well just build humans on assembly lines at that point.

Can you imagine if Mozart were born and raised/educated in modern America? They'd have medicated him into perfect mediocrity, and if his creativity persisted they'd probably have him writing ad jingles.

I'm not normally anti-science, but genetics and the engineering of mankind is an affront to the gods---but more than that, even when I was an atheist I still thought it was an affront to everything that is beautiful about the human animal.

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.

Diabetes, cancer, that sort of thing I have no problem with.

But you just know they're going to use this for stuff like autism spectrum disorders (if in fact autism has a genetic component, which hasn't been established one way or the other). I "suffer from" PDD-NOS (or "atypical autism"). I don't consider it a disease, and if someone went into my DNA with a wrench and "fixed" it, I would cease to be the person that those who love me think is so wonderful. That's a big loss for me AND them.

And why stop there? The problem is that once there is a way to create designer children, social norms and expectations will use that to widen the class divide, creating a race of supermen who consider it their right to rule over the imperfect. We won't need government to do it for us---the free market will take that and run with it.

So yeah. Diabetes? Down's syndrome? The breast cancer genes (and genes for whatever other cancers have a genetic link)? That's one thing. But laws have to be passed to make sure it goes that far and no further.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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

 

[Isaac The Grape]

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

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.

First, decide on what, exactly, constitutes at "mentally challenged?" Where do we draw the line and decide A is mentally OK, and B is retarded. If we can't come to a consensus, then I'd let the "mentally challenged" retain their freedom to knock each other up.

Argument, won.

EDIT: And now someone is probably going to start a thread on freedom of expression and systems of policy making.

 

[The Austin]

Nay, nay I say!

Well, it really depends on the mental condition.
If they are physically able to take care of the baby, than go for it. Otherwise, hell to the no.

 

[TeeBs]

Sure, I mean who doesn't love Radio

 

[emeraldrafael]

OA (Original Author) your avy sums up my feelings on this topic rather well, and probably alot of other peoples.

OT: I think they should. Not to be mean or rude, but who is better to raise a Mentally challenged person then another Mentally challenged? They say people who sure like experiences often understand each other best. And there are levels of Mental Retardation. Some people i got to school with are Mentally Challenged (i'm in college, just so you know), and you wouldnt know it until you heard them talk slowly, like they;re thinking about what they have to say before they say it.