PDA

View Full Version : Should the mentally retarded have the right to procreate?



the_GoDdEsS
04-14-2005, 12:05 PM
I’ll base the argument on an example.

There is a family of four in the neighbourhood. The father’s IQ is below average and so is the mother’s. They are probably diagnosed as slightly mentally retarded but can function on their own. They have two children. The boy is a complete idiot, you even see he’s retarded when you look at him. The older girl is healthy and normal.

Question is why do we let them have children? Doctors argue that they ‘might’ have healthy kids. Yes, see example above, they ‘can’. But I truly pity the girl having to grow up with them and I truly pity her genes and her future because the probability that her children are gonna be healthy is rather low.

Now, forget morals and think logically and rationally for a while. They will never give anything back to society, only degrade the genes of the human race until it dies out.

Comments?

RXP
04-14-2005, 12:11 PM
They shoudl adopt.

Betty
04-14-2005, 12:14 PM
Wow Sim, I'm impressed... I don't even know if I would go so far as seriously entertaining that thought.

I would like to think that things would work themselves out a la survival of the fittest... but unfortunately (fortunately?) we live in a society that embraces weakness and allows it to thrive.

(On that topic I must link once again for those who have missed it...
Harrison Bergeron (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) )

It's hard to judge because some parents with children with mental disabilities claim that they have brought so much joy to their lives, etc. Everybody has good qualities, etc, etc.

the_GoDdEsS
04-14-2005, 12:24 PM
I know it's pretty harsh. I was just trying to be realistic.

And I'm not arguing the fact that they could bring joy to the life of certain parents. It all depends on the attitude of the parents who have a child like that. I love children, I just don't think I could deal with that, I'd just be emotionally exhausted and unhappy in the end.

RXP
04-14-2005, 12:28 PM
(On that topic I must link once again for those who have missed it...
Harrison Bergeron (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) )
.

Story's stupid. I mean there's equality, then there's equality. Society should strive to be equitable not equal. Good read tho.

Also you didn't vote.

Dion
04-14-2005, 01:21 PM
Who ever gave us the right to decide for them? Sure, if one can't even take care of one's self but generally for the rest of them, just because we are smarter doesn't give us the right to do anything.
My mother is a psychologist and most of the times she works with the mentally retarded. You would be shocked from the things they have to tell you. They might be stupid but they understand what's going on around them.
And Goddess, you are right for the girl in your neighbourhood. However, following
your policy, let's take a shotgun and kill them all!! Cause that's what you' re saying. Wiping them out. My way is a little bit faster. :)

RXP
04-14-2005, 01:34 PM
No she's saying don't let future generations be born not wipe our the current generation.

Dion, your avatar is nice. Panther right?

SicN Twisted
04-14-2005, 01:46 PM
The better question is is it anyone's right to make desisions as to who can and who can't procreate? I don't like the idea of mentally retarded people raising kids, but I don't think it should be in anyone's power to tell them not to.

Vera
04-14-2005, 02:15 PM
I don't think one can leave moral & ethics out when pondering these things. I feel cruel doing that. I can't just be rational without thinking about the value of humanity and human needs. I just can't.

Our teacher read us Harrison Bergeron in Ethics class.

If I'm a Libertarian (sp?), and I guess I sort of am, I don't give a fuck if it benefits or doesn't benefit the society if they have more kids. It's their choice. Also, I can't value everything by it benefiting society or the human race. I may have the ration but I'm also selfish. And I constantly view the world through my moral.

My cousin is retarded and I'm certain it hasn't been easy on the family but my cousin is still human and has the right to live and be taken care of. If the society had been asked, I'm sure it'd want her not to have even born. But the society wasn't asked because the society has no say in these things. Just as they shouldn't.

the_GoDdEsS
04-14-2005, 02:40 PM
The better question is is it anyone's right to make desisions as to who can and who can't procreate? I don't like the idea of mentally retarded people raising kids, but I don't think it should be in anyone's power to tell them not to.

That's the problem. You can't and probably should not.

And this really is a question of moral and ethics. Like I've said, I totally reduced it to the practical aspect.

dirtybird
04-14-2005, 03:02 PM
I would hate for the girl to have to take care of her brother, especially one who has problems of his own, because her parents can't.

the_GoDdEsS
04-14-2005, 03:04 PM
I know, they don't really live in such good conditions either.

dirtybird
04-14-2005, 03:29 PM
Do either of the parents have jobs? Or do they receive some kind of insurane money for being 'handicapped' ?

dirtybird
04-14-2005, 04:00 PM
Is there no other family to help, either?

nieh
04-14-2005, 04:59 PM
this topic makes me think of I Am Sam. That movie made me cry =,0(

If they're able to provide and they're able to teach their kids how to grow up to be decent humans beings, then it's not a problem. There's a LOT of non-retarded parents out there that do a much much worse job of raising their kids than the family you mentioned, so it's not fair to judge how good a job they'll do based on their IQ.

ruroken
04-14-2005, 06:16 PM
This is the funniest thread I have ever seen. :D

Amanda
04-14-2005, 06:19 PM
Well, considering that the disease is not genetic, i'll say yes. Because if the whole problem is just their ability to raise the child, i think that can be helped. Perhaps by some sort of constant government monitering...

ruroken
04-14-2005, 06:21 PM
Who would fuck them in the first place? :confused:

Amanda
04-14-2005, 06:23 PM
Ruroken...For Fuck's sake...

Dion
04-14-2005, 06:25 PM
By not letting future generations even to exist, due to procreation control the retarded will only appear in books.That's what i'm saying. Anyway it's their right. No one can or should tamper with it.

ruroken
04-14-2005, 06:27 PM
Ruroken...For Fuck's sake...
but... I'm serious... who would?

Dion
04-14-2005, 06:48 PM
You think that fucking an 11year old is normal?? Of course not!! Still, it happens.

ruroken
04-14-2005, 06:49 PM
wtf are you talking about? :confused:

the_GoDdEsS
04-14-2005, 10:40 PM
this topic makes me think of I Am Sam. That movie made me cry =,0(

If they're able to provide and they're able to teach their kids how to grow up to be decent humans beings, then it's not a problem. There's a LOT of non-retarded parents out there that do a much much worse job of raising their kids than the family you mentioned, so it's not fair to judge how good a job they'll do based on their IQ.

Nie point. Although I don't really think those two are that good at raising kids either. It's a rather messy business.

dirtybird
04-14-2005, 10:42 PM
Holy shit, think of when the girl is a teenager. Will they be able to meet her emotional needs at ALL?

the_GoDdEsS
04-14-2005, 10:47 PM
Seriously, I don't think they can meet her emotional needs now.

dirtybird
04-14-2005, 10:49 PM
Mayhap someone needs to step in and offer help? =/

Caijs
04-15-2005, 12:42 AM
they should cause its funny :D

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 07:26 AM
Morality is so damn subjective it should be discounted from inquiries such as this.

What you really have to examine is perhaps a different side of morality (a universal morality); fairness. Now, I know that you'll have your idiots preaching that life is sacred and all, but really, is it worth living as a thing in itself? Is life and nothing else an ideal worthy of protecting? But if it was then why do we strive for greater things, and why are we so obsessed with preoccupying ourselves with gossip and gadgets so as to shift our attention away from the realities of life? So really, what I'm getting at, is, is it a fair thing to subject a person to such a life? Is it really worth them living just so they can live? Do they not have the capacity for envy and frustration concerning all they cannot attain? What kind of life are you sentencing them to? And, honestly, would you wish it upon yourself, given that you still have your precious life to live as a consolation for your shortcomings?

And then, we have to consider if it is fair to subject others to their condition. And I don't mean is it fair to make a Hitler-like figure put up with cripples, I mean, is it fair to throw away the lives of many others in care for that person? Is it a fair thing to do to place that responsibility on others; that emotional load?

And them we have the other issues, such as the fact that if such people don't reproduce, not only will no others (and their children at that... imagine their heartache to discover they've spawned a life of equal inabilities) suffer in similar ways, but from a genetics (or are we talking eugenics here?) point of view, it purifies the Human Race and allows us all to evolve more rapidly and efficiently.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 07:29 AM
Oh, and I agree with nieh (well, I'm going to take his sentiments and distort them for my own use); we should extend the prohibition of reproduction to those able-bodied members of our societies who would be better off 'removed', per se.

Vera
04-15-2005, 08:27 AM
The last time racial eugenics were considered was in Hitler's Germany. You might want to not bring up those again, for the sake of your own credibility in this argument.

How do you know what kind of a life those kids will have or not have? Just because they're not intellectually developed enough to be fully functioning citizens in the society, does it mean their life can't be full? Does it mean they can't be satisfied with it? Retarded people also have feelings and they too are able to experience happiness over things.

Sentencing them to a life? If they are born, they might not have the same abilities in life as every healthy newborn, but we might as well talk about the world we live in today, polution and crime and AIDS and hunger and obesity and oil resources running out - every baby who is born is sentenced to a life on this planet.

And if you're talking about wasting society's money on looking after mentally retarded people when that money could be spent on looking after other people, then well, that's just not the society does. A society is supposed to look after each individual. The society, in my opinion, isn't allowed to say who is allowed to have kids and not. Especially when it's all based on probability accounts. It's likely but is it inevitable? No.

And where do you draw the line? Who would you not allow to reproduce to keep the human race pure? It's not just our genes that make us.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 08:55 AM
The last time racial eugenics were considered was in Hitler's Germany. You might want to not bring up those again, for the sake of your own credibility in this argument.
Who said anything about race?


every baby who is born is sentenced to a life on this planet.
And thus forms the basis of my argument; even the best case scenarios of a birth and its subsequent life aren't very favourable.


And if you're talking about wasting society's money on looking after mentally retarded people when that money could be spent on looking after other people, then well, that's just not the society does. A society is supposed to look after each individual.
That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was focusing on the load society places on the individuals who have to perform such tasks. I'm all for helping everyone, but what we're effectively talking about is the future; making it so we don't need to help anyone, and not as a result of malice.


And where do you draw the line? Who would you not allow to reproduce to keep the human race pure? It's not just our genes that make us.
Indeed, hence my follow-up post.



How do you know what kind of a life those kids will have or not have? Just because they're not intellectually developed enough to be fully functioning citizens in the society, does it mean their life can't be full? Does it mean they can't be satisfied with it?
Touché. I envy the naïvety (and I mean that in the sense of being happy/satisfied and not worried with all this shit we are; not implying any negativety towards them. Think of Lenny in Of Mice and Men as an example) of people so dispositioned at times... ignorance really is bliss, isn't it?

Mota Boy
04-15-2005, 08:55 AM
Yeah, we all know where eugenics has led in the past.


The problem becomes, what's the cutoff? How can you scientifically decide whether or not someone is retarded enough to procreate. Can a man with an I.Q. of 76 raise kids but a man with an I.Q. of 75 not? What about someone who passes down bipolar genes? Schizophrenia? Multiple Sclerosis? A criminal? If we're talking about cleaning up the gene pool, where do we stop?

For decades... centuries even, the educated have mourned the fact that the poor and the ignorant seem to be reproducing at a higher rate than the intelligentsia to such an extent that the entire human race will suffer. And yet, while we as a race may be blinder than we were centuries or millennia ago, we are no less intelligent. If anything, we've grown smarter over the years. I think that if you're worried about the overproducting of the retarded, then you should raise more kids yourself. It might be one thing to worry about if retarded couples each produced forty kids, but we're talking two, one normal. Even if both children were retarded, having two kids isn't enough for a sustainable population. They're hardly flooding us out.

And Pie... "fairness"? Is it fair to let ugly poor people exist, taunting them with images of wealth and good looks? Is it fair to have society pay for them through welfare, "free" education and myriad other services? Also, poor people are probably lazy and stupid, and ugly people are really just holding humanity back. For they're sake, and for all of ours, we should kill them all off.

Harrison Bergenon was in a sixth grade reader of mine that I'd page through while ignoring the teacher. Interesting story, as with any Vonnegut, but it should be taken about as seriously as Ayn Rand in regards to a warning about the dangerous paths that society is pursuing.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 09:07 AM
And Pie... "fairness"? Is it fair to let ugly poor people exist, taunting them with images of wealth and good looks? Is it fair to have society pay for them through welfare, "free" education and myriad other services? Also, poor people are probably lazy and stupid, and ugly people are really just holding humanity back. For they're sake, and for all of ours, we should kill them all off.
Please, that example's cruddy. No, it's not fair to have society taunt the poor and ugly, and that should be stopped. But what would be the solution in the case we're discussing; stop everyone else being able-bodied?

And Goddamn, why does everyone who touches upon this topic feel the compulsion to justify their subjective moral stance by playing upon the biggest taboo available; the killing of those in question. It's been explicitly mentioned previously in this thread that to kill the current generation is not the question being debated at all.

And also, why do people feel the need to veer this subject onto the matter of IQ? We're not talking about the intelligent-elite purifying humanity. That's never been the premise.

wheelchairman
04-15-2005, 09:59 AM
My mind is torn in this.

I, though, think that a certain intelligence is needed to raise cihldren. The fact that they had one normal kid, doesn't even out the fact that the other is a retard. That percentage is far higher htan in normal healthy families, isn't it?

I'd say, it's irresponsible to allow them to breed, simply because they will never serve any real purpose in any form of society. And any society should strive for as healthy a population as possible.

The problem I get caught up in though, is where do we define what is retarded, and should we let the government have the power to prevent people from having children? I suppose though, that this is justified.

Mota Boy
04-15-2005, 10:15 AM
Re: Pie

To start off, I said "kill off" not "kill", using it as a synonym for eradicate. In the same way that you wish to eventually eradicate the retarded. My choice of phrasing reflected my views of the draconian nature of the policy, but I wasn't advocating murder. But, to answer your question, killing is often brought up in eugenics because that was the ultimate result of the movement. As I said earlier, it's a slippery slope once you open the floodgates.

When I said "taunt" I also didn't mean overtly. When MTV shoves wealth and beauty into your face, it's not meant to make you jealous, but it does. To stop it would be to wholly reconstruct entertainment to be as drab as possible. Your justification for the eradication of the mentally retarded was, among others "Do they not have the capacity for envy and frustration concerning all they cannot attain?" Ugly poor people probably understand their situation more than than the mentally ill. Why must we sentence them to a less-than-perfect life?

And why did I bring up I.Q.? What kind of question is that? The definition of mental retardation is... *looks it up*... anyone with an I.Q. of or below 70. OK, I was off by five points. How can you possibly talk about retardation without bringing I.Q. into it? Or did you just think that we would choose who was retarded based upon personal subjective judgements?

Vera
04-15-2005, 10:25 AM
The mind boggles. I'm pretty certain that most of you considering denying them procreation support such things as adoption rights for gay people etc. See, that's equality. That's what equality is about.

What equality is not about is protecting human race. It's illegal for brothers and sisters to have kids (in most places, anyway) together, but in theory, that can't exactly stop them. What sort of awful methods are you planning on using? Sterilization? Forcing them to get abortions in case the woman does get pregnant?

I'm scarily reminded of Hitler, again.

(Btw, Talking Pie, you said "purifying the Human Race", thus suggesting that retarded people are a disgrace to our race, which is pretty much what Hitler said about the Jews. What the fuck, man, they're people as well. They've got rights just like you and me.)

Also, I don't believe in a future where everyone is healthy and social services and medical services aren't needed. There is no such utopia developing for us, trust me. I also don't believe in building a world for the genetically most equipped people. Have you guys seen the movie Gattaca? That's what might happen if we start to trust genetics too much and stop believing in a person's ability to evolve on their own.

Harrison Bergeron in our class (I forgot to mention this) was presented as the egalitarist (sp?) depiction of equality. Everyone is equal = no one is better than anyone else. My teacher presented a shoe metaphor and told us that in one school the principal was obsessed with having children line up their shoes so that the heels all touched a certain line without going over it. In the egalitarist sense, that would mean that everyone would have the same size shoes. In the other theory (proportionalist theory?) everyone would get shoes of their own size but the equality is that they all still get shoes.

Or something. I sort of forgot about that.

Vera
04-15-2005, 10:28 AM
Sorry if I seem a bit hotheaded on the subject. Some arguments on the internet really hit a nerve sometimes.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 10:49 AM
To start off, I said "kill off" not "kill", using it as a synonym for eradicate.
In which case I apologise. Though it still stands for everyone who has suggested the advocation of murder.


When I said "taunt" I also didn't mean overtly. When MTV shoves wealth and beauty into your face, it's not meant to make you jealous, but it does. To stop it would be to wholly reconstruct entertainment to be as drab as possible.
That was the same definition of 'taunt' as I was using. And I agree about the consequences of reprogramming and so forth. But no one said there was a solution where everything worked out all nice for everyone.


Your justification for the eradication of the mentally retarded was, among others "Do they not have the capacity for envy and frustration concerning all they cannot attain?" Ugly poor people probably understand their situation more than than the mentally ill. Why must we sentence them to a less-than-perfect life?
Touché. But you can't predict looks, and so -- given that the matter in question is of pre-empting the thing -- we cannot apply the same suggested methodologies to such examples. And some might be annoyed you compared ugly people to the mentally ill. Ah well.


And why did I bring up I.Q.? What kind of question is that? The definition of mental retardation is... *looks it up*... anyone with an I.Q. of or below 70. OK, I was off by five points. How can you possibly talk about retardation without bringing I.Q. into it?
I said it in reply not particularly to you. But there are other factors in mental retardation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#Signs_of_mental_retardation). Although mainly, I was speaking of the tendancy of people to confuse a low IQ with dim/stupid (to an insufferable degree) people. Because we're talking about a condition, not just stupidity, which is how many people take it.


I'm scarily reminded of Hitler, again.
A result of assumptions you made; putting words in mouths, so to speak.


(Btw, Talking Pie, you said "purifying the Human Race", thus suggesting that retarded people are a disgrace to our race, which is pretty much what Hitler said about the Jews. What the fuck, man, they're people as well. They've got rights just like you and me.)
I know it's hard to say such a loaded phrase without conjuring images of Hitler and so forth. But what I was getting at is that it would remove the disability factor of humanity. And I'm not for one second suggesting that they have less rights or whatever, and I fully advocate helping and respecting those who already exist, but we're talking about people who do not yet exist, so the moral dilemma falls to pieces there really. They're not a disgrace, but wouldn't it be better (mainly for them) if they were fully-able?


Also, I don't believe in a future where everyone is healthy and social services and medical services aren't needed. There is no such utopia developing for us, trust me. I also don't believe in building a world for the genetically most equipped people. Have you guys seen the movie Gattaca? That's what might happen if we start to trust genetics too much and stop believing in a person's ability to evolve on their own.
I have seen that film, and again you're straying. That film highlights humanity's terrible tendancy to persecute those who are 'inferior'. But we're talking about pre-empting, not conditioning and slaughtering those who are already here (and see above for my empathy bit in regards to all this). Also, on an interesting note, has anyone ever thought that maybe with our increasing medicine and so forth, we're phasing the immune system out of the human race? When our bodies no longer need their own defences, they shall stop creating them. Then we'll really be fucked. And I agree; there is definately no utopia of any kind awaiting us.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 10:50 AM
Sorry if I seem a bit hotheaded on the subject. Some arguments on the internet really hit a nerve sometimes.
Ditto. No hard feelings if I accidentally offend?

Betty
04-15-2005, 11:07 AM
I'd say, it's irresponsible to allow them to breed, simply because they will never serve any real purpose in any form of society. And any society should strive for as healthy a population as possible.


I think this is very unlike you. Mentally retarded people can definitely serve a real purpose in the society. We had them working in our highschool cafeteria serving poutine. They can do easy labour. And they are pleasant and entertaining. We had another couple of guys working at our grocery store pushing carts, who were also always pleasant to be around. According to you lazy stupid people are important to society and should be given free rides but mentally retarded people, nope, they're useless? What the hell?

Also, to Dave who keeps explaining that he doesn't want to persecute those who are already alive. Do you not think that forbidding them to procreate is a form of persecution. That is one of the freedoms in life, a lot of people live to have kids, that is their one true source of joy. Not everybody is like that, but some feel that way.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 11:10 AM
And they are pleasant and entertaining. We had another couple of guys working at our grocery store pushing carts, who were also always pleasant to be around.
Totally.


Also, to Dave who keeps explaining that he doesn't want to persecute those who are already alive. Do you not think that forbidding them to procreate is a form of persecution. That is one of the freedoms in life, a lot of people live to have kids, that is their one true source of joy. Not everybody is like that, but some feel that way.
True, but, who ever said there was an answer where everyone was pleased? What if we changed it to the right of an AIDs victim to reproduce? That involves unprotected sex, and hence spreading a fatal disease, as well al likely infecting the child. Some things need to be dealt with brutally/apathetically for any resolve.

Vera
04-15-2005, 11:19 AM
*quotes herself as you obviously didn't answer this one*


What sort of awful methods are you planning on using? Sterilization? Forcing them to get abortions in case the woman does get pregnant?

See, I look at this as a human rights violation. No one is to tell anyone that they should not have kids. Mentally retarded people can produce normal babies. Non-retarded people can produce retarded babies. It happens. We can't get rid of the "problem" by saying "These people here can reproduce, but those people over there can't". It just doesn't work that way.

I'm sorry, but "purifying the human race" is an argument that has never been presented by credible scientists or geneologists. Just 19th century whackjobs and, you guessed it, Herr Hitler.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 11:27 AM
What sort of awful methods are you planning on using? Sterilization? Forcing them to get abortions in case the woman does get pregnant?
I don't deal with the practical application of these kinds of things. Besides becoming a target for mobs of Christians, my ability to withhold sympathy in light of rational thought would fall apart. I'm a person of ideas, nothing more.


See, I look at this as a human rights violation. No one is to tell anyone that they should not have kids. Mentally retarded people can produce normal babies. Non-retarded people can produce retarded babies. It happens. We can't get rid of the "problem" by saying "These people here can reproduce, but those people over there can't". It just doesn't work that way.
Indeed, it is a violation, but then you also have to weigh it up with the alternative and pick which of the two you consider more favourable. And I was assuming we were talking about hereditary disabilities, else (as you said) this whole argument would be nothing more than bigotry.


I'm sorry, but "purifying the human race" is an argument that has never been presented by credible scientists or geneologists. Just 19th century whackjobs and, you guessed it, Herr Hitler.
And I'd wager that the majority of the reason for that is because of the way in which Der Führer (and others whose racist/etc. views have since disgraced all of their opinions) has transformed it into such a loaded phrase. We all strive for perfection, it's what many people will cite as being what makes us different to animals (not that I believe there's much of a difference there).

Mota Boy
04-15-2005, 11:36 AM
They can do easy labour. And they are pleasant and entertaining.
Hey, stop stereotyping these people! One of my friends says that he knew this retarded kid in high school that, as he puts it, "would be a total asshole if he wasn't retarded."

Oh yeah, and you [Dave, not Michelle] claim that we shouldn't prevent the ugly from reproducing because (to paraphrase) "we can't predict ugliness". I think we can more than we can retardation. Ugly people almost always have ugly kids. However, as per Sim's example, retarded people, even retarded couples, can have normal, healthy kids.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 11:44 AM
Oh yeah, and you [Dave, not Michelle] claim that we shouldn't prevent the ugly from reproducing because (to paraphrase) "we can't predict ugliness". I think we can more than we can retardation. Ugly people almost always have ugly kids. However, as per Sim's example, retarded people, even retarded couples, can have normal, healthy kids.
So, are we talking about hereditary (or most-likely hereditary) mental illness here? Because if not I've been suporting a stance of bigotry on the grounds of "well they might be like their parents" when nothing is known for sure... [but] in the way I've been speaking [at least], the illness can be predicted just as much or more than ugliness.

Vera
04-15-2005, 11:53 AM
I still don't agree with violating individual's rights to have children for the benefit of the human race. If genes is something that you want to focus on them why don't we find a cure for the thing instead of stubbornly insist on banning certain people some of their rights.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 11:58 AM
Because that wasn't the question asked in this thread. But yes, it would be a better course of action.

Vera
04-15-2005, 12:03 PM
I don't think the topic of the discussion has to limit our ideas for different solutions. And even if genetic, there is still no guarentee they will end up having retarded children.

Jimbob2005
04-15-2005, 12:12 PM
They have a right to procreate too - they are still humans, and the proportion of retards is very small

Jimbob2005
04-15-2005, 12:13 PM
But I truly pity the girl having to grow up with them and I truly pity her genes and her future because the probability that her children are gonna be healthy is rather low.

You're nasty

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 12:26 PM
See children, this is what morality and sympathy limits us to...

Betty
04-15-2005, 12:57 PM
Hey, stop stereotyping these people! One of my friends says that he knew this retarded kid in high school that, as he puts it, "would be a total asshole if he wasn't retarded."


Sorry, sorry! I should have said "can be pleasant". Basically they're like children right? For the most part kids are cute and fun in their innocence, but sometimes they can be devil children, and sometimes they can have temper tantrums when angry/frustrated, etc, which is must scarier coming from a 30 year old than a 6 year old.

This is one of those issues that I think is more hypothetical than practical, because it would be very difficult to impose. (Like the everyone speaking a single language thing). Honestly, sometimes I think it would be great to have parenting laws where if you suck you can't have kids, but that would be pretty hard to impose as well. Both in terms of actually stopping them from reproducing and in objectively determining the level of suckiness. It's pretty much the same thing here.

The Talking Pie
04-15-2005, 01:09 PM
Honestly, sometimes I think it would be great to have parenting laws where if you suck you can't have kids
Holy shit that made me laugh :D

ANeWLiFE
04-15-2005, 01:34 PM
They shoudl adopt.

Yeah, But what about the kids that have missing limbs? should they be able to procreate? my boy friend has no arms... Should he be able to procreate? With me that is... i am perfectly normal...Even though he has that defect, i love him do death. I would still WANT to be the mother of his child! But still, Every one should atleast have that feeing of knowing that they brought some kind of new life to this earth. No matter if they are retarded or smart. Thats just not right by hating on the retarded poeple. i know if i was Mentalt retarded, i wuould atleast want a chid to carry on. every girl wants that. Or so it seems... You should love them for who they are, Not what they are!

the_GoDdEsS
04-15-2005, 02:39 PM
You're nasty

I'm nasty? I'm sorry but be real for a while. Do you think kids want to be friends with her when they actually know what family she comes from. I'm glad for her she has at least one friend who is her cousin. Kids are evil like that, they won't accept you. Do you think she'll have a happy life when she's older? I seriously would hope so but the chances might be low. I'm glad she's going to school and managing well. I just feel sorry for her at times knowing her father can be a violent pig when he gets out of control and her mother's acting insane. They do get social support but their house barely looks like a normal safe home.

Jimbob2005
04-15-2005, 02:45 PM
I'm nasty? I'm sorry but be real for a while. Do you think kids want to be friends with her when they actually know what family she comes from. I'm glad for her she has at least one friend who is her cousin. Kids are evil like that, they won't accept you. Do you think she'll have a happy life when she's older? I seriously would hope so but the chances might be low. I'm glad she's going to school and managing well. I just feel sorry for her at times knowing her father can be a violent pig when he gets out of control and her mother's acting insane. They do get social support but their house barely looks like a normal safe home.
Yes I understand, you do have a point - the way you put it was a little harsh, but it is still a good point - a retard will get annoying after a while, and yes, kids are often stereotypical arses who will berate you over the fact that someone in their family is a retard. I know this would make the world boring, but why can't everyone's life be easy :(

wheelchairman
04-16-2005, 03:58 PM
I think this is very unlike you. Mentally retarded people can definitely serve a real purpose in the society. We had them working in our highschool cafeteria serving poutine. They can do easy labour. And they are pleasant and entertaining. We had another couple of guys working at our grocery store pushing carts, who were also always pleasant to be around. According to you lazy stupid people are important to society and should be given free rides but mentally retarded people, nope, they're useless? What the hell?

Also, to Dave who keeps explaining that he doesn't want to persecute those who are already alive. Do you not think that forbidding them to procreate is a form of persecution. That is one of the freedoms in life, a lot of people live to have kids, that is their one true source of joy. Not everybody is like that, but some feel that way.
I meant in the future of mankind, not in purpose as terms of labor provided.

However I'd rather see those jobs go to the fully-functional unemployed.

Dead Cheerleader
04-16-2005, 10:32 PM
I'm all for taking rights away from people. This would be a good one if the individual is retarded due to a genetic disease, fucking duh. If not, then let em reproduce. But have any of you read Brave New World? I like the system they use in that book. I think most people should be sterilized, especially if you've had an abortion before, I think you should lose your reproductive rights after that. And there are lots of others who should be as well but...

Vera
04-17-2005, 06:47 AM
Yeah, basic human rights fucking suck ass.

I HOPE YOU ALL GET STERILIZED, BITCHES.

Milk-Man
04-18-2005, 02:49 PM
I’ll base the argument on an example.

There is a family of four in the neighbourhood. The father’s IQ is below average and so is the mother’s. They are probably diagnosed as slightly mentally retarded but can function on their own. They have two children. The boy is a complete idiot, you even see he’s retarded when you look at him. The older girl is healthy and normal.

Question is why do we let them have children? Doctors argue that they ‘might’ have healthy kids. Yes, see example above, they ‘can’. But I truly pity the girl having to grow up with them and I truly pity her..
Comments?
And are you the older girl that is healthy, normal and self-seeked?
If so, why dont you devote, complain to your parents why they dropped out of grade school.
Surely, your environment is pretty, and auspicious but still unpredictable.
I will be logical, and rational at the sametime. You can't blame morality for the degrade of humanity. Actually that's quite philosophical.
Does your society say, illiterate parents that suffer from dyslexia
and other impairments aren't enable to create birth, if so.
Come to the conclusion of closing this thread.

Milk-Man
04-18-2005, 02:51 PM
I don't think one can leave moral & ethics out when pondering these things. I feel cruel doing that. I can't just be rational without thinking about the value of humanity and human needs. I just can't.

Our teacher read us Harrison Bergeron in Ethics class.

If I'm a Libertarian (sp?), and I guess I sort of am, I don't give a fuck if it benefits or doesn't benefit the society if they have more kids. It's their choice. Also, I can't value everything by it benefiting society or the human race. I may have the ration but I'm also selfish. And I constantly view the world through my moral.

My cousin is retarded and I'm certain it hasn't been easy on the family but my cousin is still human and has the right to live and be taken care of. If the society had been asked, I'm sure it'd want her not to have even born. But the society wasn't asked because the society has no say in these things. Just as they shouldn't.

And are you the little disabled boy, that pulls weeds in your neighbor's lawn?