Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

[BiscuitTrouser]

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...

 

[Eri]

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...

Agreed. I had slight bullying when I was younger and there was nothing wrong with me. One can imagine how bad it'd be for the mentally challenged. Especially if they ended up normal.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Oh, foster care, that's a good idea. Take them from one hellhole piece of shit life to another. Real smart.

Actually, it's choosing a hellhole piece of shit life over no life at all, but yeah.

 

[NeutralDrow]

snip

You're surprisingly informed on natural selection, but I just have one thing to object to...

Out of all the people we would deem to be "Mentally Challenged", I am going to say 99% of these cases are genetic.

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.

 

[Blind Sight]

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.

 

[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.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

Procreate? Yes. Raise their kids? Probably not, depending on how severe their handicap is.

 

[Eri]

Procreate? Yes. Raise their kids? Probably not, depending on how severe their handicap is.

Ahahahaha. NO. If anyone's having kids they sure as hell better be able to take care of them, I sure have no interest in footing the bill.

 

[KyriaAsimi]

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?

 

[AdmiralMemo]

Procreate? Yes. Raise their kids? Probably not, depending on how severe their handicap is.

So who gets the kids? Unwilling relatives? Foster homes?

Foster homes or adoption agencies, if no one in the family wants them.

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.)

 

[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.