Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[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

 

[Continuity]

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.

I agree, and on a human time scale it's nonsense, Galtonian eugenics is pure elitist rubbish.
Personally I think the concept of "IQ" is almost in a similar vein, environmental factors are much more influential than inherited genetic ones when it comes to intelligence. Intelligent parents have intelligent kids largely because they provide a more intellectual upbringing. Its like the stats on college students having IQ's 10 points above the general public, that's not because smarter kids get to uni, its because having an education to that level makes you smarter.

However, over a large time scale, e.g. 100,000+ years plus evolution could certainly have an effect like the one portrayed in Idiocracy. Evolution is the most profound and powerful force in biology so it simply won't do to ignore its effects on mankind.

 

[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.

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

A) Not an optimist. Not a pessimist either, I vary from time to time.

B) I know what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

 

[Mikeyfell]

B) I know what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

so you either
1) think the human race is going to get better as time goes on meaning you're an optimist
or
2) you think the human race is fine now meaning you have no standards

 

[Merkavar]

i guess it all depends on if the mental challenge is genetic or not.

This, down to the very same wording. If its genetics thats the problem, then we have to take a page from Darwin's Theory and use natural selection to (for a lack of a better word) cull the defective DNA from the human gene pool. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but thats just what i think

if your using sterilisation in an unbiased way then there shouldnt be to much of an issue. its not like your killing the babies of these people. they are never born etc.

and as long as the people incharge dont have a bias and go around sterailising all the black people cause they got punched in the face when they were 7 because they made some remark about the aim of the black person after they missed several times when throwing rocks at them... i mean yeah, focus merk focus.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

B) I know what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

so you either
1) think the human race is going to get better as time goes on meaning you're an optimist
or
2) you think the human race is fine now meaning you have no standards

No.

The human race may well get better, or it may get worse. It's called evolution, and it's fairly well documented.

Regardless, the entire human race should not go extinct. Maybe it's too large as of now, but it shouldn't go extinct.

And on a further note, just because I'm not a nihilist doesn't mean I'm an optimist.

 

[emerald2142]

So your saying it's ok if the world is a bunch of drooling retards in wheelchairs as long as were adequate parents? No, thats just stupid.
And thats not what natural selection means, it means that that the superior organisms will live on to reproduce, and I sure as hell don't call the handicapped superior.

 

[jowo96]

If you are thinking from the view point that the person's child would end up being mentally deficient a lot of mental health problems have nothing to do with genetics. If you are thinking from the view point that the person is not fit to raise children, that depends on severity of the condition and what help they are able to get.

 

[teknoarcanist]

Hey, your avatar is what I did when I saw this topic

(Obvious troll is obvious.)

 

[Rathands]

Why do people start these threads. I know it's an off-topic forum but seriously, what the fuck? Forums really aren't suited for these kinds of discussions.

 

[Beastialman]

My short answer, no. My long answer, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

In all seriousness, I don't think so, mainly because the emotional damage that could happen to a kid if everyone in their school found out that their mom/dad was mentally retarded. Also the other thing I wanna question is, are they qualified to be parents? Not to sound crude but what if it's time for "The Talk" and the father feels embarrassed about talk about it?

 

[pwnzerstick]

Well is their mental depravity genetic, also would they parent the child?

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

I fully believe that they should, though it's not something to be taken lightly.

 

[Plurralbles]

can they provide for the child?

That is the only question worth considering and its answer is what this debate needs to end with.

 

[Shockolate]

Should anyone with any genetic defect be allowed to procreate?

There will always be errors. It's a fact of life.

 

[Mechanix]

If they are unable to raise a kid, they're probably not procreating anyway.