Should the mentally challenged be allowed to procreate?

Recommended Videos

Wardnath

New member
Dec 27, 2009
1,491
0
0
Number 1: Did it ever occur to you that not everyone who is mentally challenged suffers from a mental condition?

Number 2: What are you gonna write out after that? The autism spectrum? Homosexuality? Colour? Might as well prevent anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes from procreating at that point.

Number 3:


Edit: Since this'll likely need mentioning, list of Escapists known to be on the autistic spectrum.
 

m.zajac

New member
Jan 25, 2010
151
0
0
NeedAUserName said:
Not all mentally challenged people have mentally challenged children, nor do all non-mentally challenged people have non-mentally challenged kids.
This guy has it right.
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
justjrandomuser said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Read this it pretty much covers the whole idea.
No, no it does not and I am sick to death of hearing this "OMG YOU ARE NAZI FOR SUGGESTING THIS" bullshit whenever this topic comes up.

There are a ton of good reasons to not allow people that suffer from major mental handicaps to have kids, yet instead of actually trying to debate it the haters just resort to the lowest form of political argument in history: "YOU DIRTY NAZI!!!!!"
I'm sorry, but there are things you can't invoke Godwin on, and eugenics is one of them. Especially when the other person didn't even mention Nazis. You think they came up with that idea themselves? Hitler cribbed off of the ideas of various racial "scientists" of the day. Eugenics wasn't a purely Nazi form of idiocy, it was quite widespread.

There is no point to preventing people from breeding if they manage it on their own, and if they want the child to be born (I have nothing against abortion in general). There's always the possibility that one or both would be unfit parents, but as there's still no guarantee, they would simply join the ranks of the otherwise normal people unfit to be so.

versoth said:
The same can be said for so many other diseases. If we screened every single child in the world (not saying that it is practical or going to happen or anything like that, this is just a trip down the hypothesis lane) and avoided all genetic diseases we can screen for and detect, they would be virtually nonexistent within two generations.
If you're going to bring up technology and methodology that far advanced, why on earth doesn't your hypothetical include the possibility of genetic cures? That's the potential of genetic engineering.

I mean, even aside from your absurd "within two generations" speculation. Aborting every child with a given disease will only reduce its prevalence in humanity indirectly, by lowering the population as a whole. If you're suggesting doing something about carriers of genes that, if expressed, can cause certain things, you're talking essentially wiping out a substantial chunk of the human race for, again, things they have no control over.
 

MetroidNut

New member
Sep 2, 2009
969
0
0
Wardnath said:
Number 1: Did it ever occur to you that not everyone who is mentally challenged suffers from a mental condition?

Number 2: What are you gonna write out after that? The autism spectrum? Homosexuality? Colour? Might as well prevent anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes from procreating at that point.

Number 3:
Your second point brings up a very good argument - stopping certain groups from procreating seems like the first step on the Road to Fascism. Maybe it would be more humane than a policy of genocide, but...it still seems like it would be a step towards fascism if you ask me.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
People with STDs are still allowed to have sex, even though that's not helping anyone. It's called "freedom". And "America". And "Fuck Yeah".
 

randomsix

New member
Apr 20, 2009
773
0
0
Freeze_L said:
HappyPillz said:
Pirate Kitty said:
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.
Those who do not study history shall be doomed to repeat it.
See: Mussolini and Hitler
Exact same logic was used by them to get rid of those they felt were "inferior" and because the pepole went along with it we now have to learn about the slaughter of millions of pepole. Eugenics is bad, this thought processes is bad, and it only leads to genocide. Also, i doubt those who are bound to wheelchairs and cant feed themselves, are going to be reproducing anytime soon, the pepole eugenics targets is not them, but pepole with any "disability" functional or not.
Once you justify killing or sterilizing anyone, you are a stones throw from expanding those you deem to be "handicapped". It never stops at the pepole you are thinking of, who don't reproduce anyways, it turns to those with autism and like syndromes, and i know more than a dozen functional autistics, then to those with learning disabilities, which would include a great number of pepole who only think in different ways then others, then it moves on too physical disabilities, and racial differences.

Eugenics is bad, the "weakest links" as you call them are anything but that. Pepole are Pepole not animals and definitely not cattle to be breed. Eugenics is bad for so many reasons, one could not count them all. it is truly an Evil prospect, formed of cold flawed logic, and illuminated by twisted beliefs.
Hitler wasn't bad because of his eugenic program, insofar as it was a eugenic program. He was bad because that eugenics program was based on incomplete science and racism and used murder and torture to achieve it's ends (and he tried to take over the world).

Here's a solution that will solve everyone's problems, given that they are OK with abortion:
Every cycle of life (from the time one generation is born to when it stops producing new life) choose a genetic disorder. Abort all fetuses with the genes that contain this disorder (note that this allows carriers to have children because even a heterozygous and homozygous couple has a 1/4 chance of having a child without a particular gene).

Result is the next cycle of life is free of that disease. Repeat with a new disease until all major genetic disorders are eliminated.

Note: this method presupposes a way to accurately screen fetuses' genes.
 

theSovietConnection

Survivor, VDNKh Station
Jan 14, 2009
2,418
0
0
SimuLord said:
Hey, where's that XKCD about Idiocracy?


I'd have to say it depends on the disease/disorder in question. For example, I'm 75% more likely than the average person to develop Lou Gherig's Disease, a trait that would be passed on to any potential offspring. As such, I've voluntarily taken my own oath to not reproduce, so as not to subject anyone to that horrible horrible disease.
 

LooK iTz Jinjo

New member
Feb 22, 2009
1,849
0
0
No simply because they would not be fit parents. Think about it, many of these people can barely take care of themselves, how are they going to go taking care of a kid?
 

RootbeerJello

New member
Jul 19, 2009
761
0
0
SimuLord said:
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.
/thread

Stepping away from the obvious moral implications and onto slightly more solid ground, why should we give a shit about the strength of the gene pool? We have technology to do that evolution shit for us , and it's not like we're going to have a species-wide draft to take up arms against the martians any time soon. And if you go back to before technology, we were all in competition for survival, and it was a tough world, so challenged people were eliminated by natural selection. Please correct me if I'm missing something, but the only reason I can think someone would care about the alleged purity of the gene pool is because of some twisted race pride bullshit.

EDIT: Oh yeah, there's that whole deal about who would take care of the child. Sadly, that's a pretty massive stumbling block, and I personally would never take an action to subject a child to a socially crippling childhood, but assuming someone can help raise the child, go crazy, and if not, I guess that's the major flaw of my view.
 

Lynx

New member
Jul 24, 2009
705
0
0
Jiraiya72 said:
I can understand they're human too but also that having more challenged children wouldn't be helping anyone. What do you think?
I can think of a few mentally challenged geniuses throughout history who've contributed with a lot to this world, and I can also think of a hell of a lot of people who AREN'T mentally challenged that haven't contributed with shit.

The only legitimate reason why a mentally challenged person should be refused the right to have a child is if that person cannot in fact take care of said child. But even then, there is a thing we like to call foster care.
 

DeadFOAM

New member
Aug 7, 2010
201
0
0
The side of me that separates morality from logic says they shouldn't. But then the moral part of me says they should. Logically, they shouldn't because they may not be able to properly care for their child. But morally, they are still people and should have the same rights afforded to everybody else. It's a huge dilemma that won't be solved on an internet forum =P
 

Divine Miss Bee

avatar under maintenance
Feb 16, 2010
730
0
0
if they're not too "challenged" to procreate, i don't really see why not, unless it's a genetic condition. but if they're too handicapped to procreate anyway, it's not even an issue. i think it's not something we should involve ourselves in too much-let them make up their own minds, if their handicap is one that they can do so.
 

starwarsgeek

New member
Nov 30, 2009
982
0
0
I disagree with your friend. Deciding who can procreate and who cannot is a VERY slippery slope, and it would not end well.
 

The_Amazing_G

New member
Sep 13, 2009
193
0
0
Yes. Why the hell not?
That would follow the same moral compass as saying you should abort any baby that has a defect or metal illness.
 

The_Amazing_G

New member
Sep 13, 2009
193
0
0
Canid117 said:
I don't feel like getting into a debate about eugenics so here is a picture of an adorable puppy.


Alright I'll weigh in. I do not support Eugenics.
I think I'll start keeping a picture of a puppy in my wallet so I can do this in real life.
 

The Rockerfly

New member
Dec 31, 2008
4,649
0
0
It depends how disabled they are

My girlfriend has dyslexia and I have a genetic sleeping disorder, both could be seen as disabled. Both of us are perfectly normal people, she does theatre studies and I do marketing at university and no one would be wiser unless we said anything

However if you mean the sort of people who are bound to a wheel chair, can't recognise their own parents or are a danger to themselves then I honestly don't think should. It's cruel to the potential child