Should the mentally handicapped be facilitated/allowed to have children.

RampagingBadger

I heard recently about a case in a friends workplace where the mentally and physically handicapped adualt daughter of one of his colleagues had come home pregnant. On further investigation he found that she had actively tried to become pregnant and was very happy with the situation. Now his daughter is profoundly mentally handicapped and will require care all her life. There's a very high chance (even if the father is mentally and physically unimpared) that the grand-daughter will also be similarly handicapped. I was wondering what people thought of this. Should she be helped to have the child she obviously wants or is it just cruel to bring another similarly handicapped human being into the world? If abortion was legal should the parents have the say as to whether or not to abort the child? Or should they have the option to neuter their daughter should they want to?

Your thoughts please

(P.S. A debate on abortion is off topic.)

The Corinthian

I recently read of a case (I can’t remember the exact details, so correct me if I’m off), of a couple, both severely handicapped and dependant on the State, who had managed to give birth to about nine children, of which all but one was similarly handicapped and would also be dependant on the State for life.

Hereditary diseases and defects are commonplace - none of us have a clean bill of health in this regard; even if it is nothing more than a slight propensity for heart disease or a heart murmur, inherited from one of your parents. Of course, in all but the most extreme of cases, such diseases and defects little affect us, let alone cause us to be dependant on others for day-to-day living. However, when does an individual become a permanent drain on Society, to such a level that similar offspring are not desirable? A dispassionate balance sheet analysis would tell us this.

Welcome to the wonderful World of Eugenics

Of course someone will pipe up and cite either Steven Hawkins or Christy Brown - and I don’t know if either of their disabilities are genetic and can be passed on to offspring, but for argument’s sake, let’s say so. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that whatever perceived value to society they may have, it is heavily outweighed by the burden of those who are not as gifted.

(Of course, the utility argument need not be limited to the handicapped. In particular Welfare States such as Ireland or Germany, there has developed an underclass of families that are completely dependant on the State, generation after generation.)

Additionally, another issue to consider is the propensity of genetic transmission of a condition. If one is to advocate sterilization, should an individual be sterilized if they have a 60% chance of passing on their condition? Or 50%? Only 25%, perhaps? Or even 5%? What about the sterilization then of genetic carriers - such as women who carry the gene for haemophilia, even though they do not suffer from it themselves?

Of course, the idea behind eugenics is as old as modern medicine - or more correctly, as a result of modern medicine. Once upon a time, individuals with genetic defects would die shortly after birth as there was often no way for treating their conditions. With the advent of modern medicine and later the Welfare State, the life spans of such individuals could be greatly enhanced to the point that they could breed and pass on their defective genes to a future generation. As a result many began to consider that we were interfering with natural selection.

The question of whether it is right or not to sterilize such individuals, however, is more complex. It is certainly interfering with their rights to reproduction, if admittedly for the greater good. Yet does the end justify the means? On the other hand, given this the right to freedom for many such individuals is already compromised as they often spend their lives in the care and as wards of their families and/or the State. In a similar fashion is it moral for an individual to reproduce in the first place, given the burden that the offspring are likely to be upon their family and Society in general?

Given the nature of Western Society, being both liberal and consumerist (read: hypocritical humanism) introducing such sterilization programmes would be too unpalatable for a population that would prefer not to know how their fillet stakes get to the supermarket. However, a policy of actively, if not aggressively, discouraging such unwanted reproduction would be far more likely as it can be justified far more easily in humane terms.

I mean, did you really think that the First World’s preoccupation with the use of contraception in the Third World was entirely related to the spread of AIDS? I’m sure Malthus would think that thought very amusing...

chill

The issue is a difficult one, but in my opinion the issue should be a combination of the level of mental handicap and the risk of tranmission.

A mentally handicapped person should be looked at for their ability to make a rational decision to have children and an ability to care for and parent the children - and this should then be balanced with the risk of transmission of the condition, IF that applies.

Of course this is a subjective decision and with that comes the risk of criticism. But on the other hand a fair assessment of the person shoudl be able to produce a fair result imho.

Eugenics bull**** should play no part in the subject.

The Corinthian

First of all, my use of either Steven Hawkins or Christy Brown as examples were probably off topic as neither are mentally handicapped.

Originally posted by chill
Eugenics bull**** should play no part in the subject.

My second last paragraph was especially for people like you. You effectively argue in principle for selective breeding for the greater good (i.e. forcibly stopping genetic undesirables from passing on their genes, a.k.a. eugenics) in the majority of your post then say that eugenics should play no part in the subject.

Thus as long as we don’t officially call it eugenics then it’s all right?

I won’t tell you how fillet stakes get into the supermarket then... :rolleyes:

Typedef

I don't think I accept the burdon on society argument.

For example, Dole recipients are a burdeon on society, as are the long term unemployed, yet, I don't think that is sufficient justification to stop said individuals procreating.

I agree that the Welfare State leads to generations of unemployed people, almost as a way of life.

In a free and fair society, while, the so called majority, may find the idea of the mentally handicapped procreating and creating more, handicapped or retared people, an awful prospect, there is, to my knowledge, no legislative basis for the State to intercede in the procreation choices of a person who is deemed to be an 'adult' and is not under the legal supervision of the State or another person.

Ergo, for so called 'high' functioning Down's Syndrom people, where the syndrom, is in fact a genetic abnormality, it is in effect impossible to prevent (if one wished to do so) procreation of a mentally or physically handicapped person, unless one is actually in control of that person's medical decisions.

If one could bar a Down's syndrom person from creating 'more' Down's syndrom offspring, on the grounds that such a person is a burdeon on the State, then it would be possible to steralise all welfare recipients, or any other caveat to sliding scale(x) of entitlement, to self determination, one might wish to ascribe.

Again and again, one cannot escape the Orwellian notion, of the State dictating the freedoms of the individual.

Steralisation, is I think, utterly draconian and morally reprehensible. That said, do I want 'my taxes' going towards paying an encoumberance that could be avoided? No. However, I object to paying PRSI, since I'm not, have never been and will never be (within reason), umemployed, that doesn't mean I have a choice in the matter.

Should an individual be ... 'required' not to procreate, if there is certainty that the offspring will be mentally handicapped, well, yes. It is in fact, immoral to willfully cause distress to another person and moreover, to willfully cause life that will certainly 'never' be able to fulfill it's potential as a human.

That doesn't mean I support abortion though, but, enforced contraception, to prevent predication of mental handicap.

I don't support enforced contraception for the congenitally/genetically physically handicapped, since, I think that a person is essentially defined by what's in their head (or the potential to get there), rather then the ability of one's body to serve as a life support system for the mind.

Thus the base case of Christy Browne or Stephen Hawking is spurious, in my opinion (Hawking's affliction is degenerative, in any case).

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian

My second last paragraph was especially for people like you. You effectively argue in principle for selective breeding for the greater good (i.e. forcibly stopping genetic undesirables from passing on their genes, a.k.a. eugenics) in the majority of your post then say that eugenics should play no part in the subject.

Thus as long as we don’t officially call it eugenics then it’s all right?

As I thought this kind of thread brings out the political correctness nutters with their 'flexible' use of language.

People who are mentally handicapped to the point where they are unable to rationally make a decision about having children are no different to under age children who are also deemed by society to be unable to make a rational decision to have sex. That's why sex with children is 'always' rape whether they agree or not.

Your suggestion that people who have no concept of what they are doing because they lack the mental capability of understading it, should be allowed to have sexual relations and children is immoral and in my opinion disgraceful. You give no consideration to how they could possibly decide who it is they are to have sexual relations with, or whether they actually wish to have sex at all, considering their inability to understand what it means, and also gives no consideration as to how they will raise these children.

But as usual you are so hypnotised by the jingoistic use of the eugenics word that none of these issues, never mind the real meaning of the word, really matters to you does it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Typedef
I don't think I accept the burdon on society argument.

I read your post and you never really said why.

In a free and fair society, while, the so called majority, may find the idea of the mentally handicapped procreating and creating more, handicapped or retared people, an awful prospect, there is, to my knowledge, no legislative basis for the State to intercede in the procreation choices of a person who is deemed to be an 'adult' and is not under the legal supervision of the State or another person.

Not since the X Case anyway...

Ergo, for so called 'high' functioning Down's Syndrom people, where the syndrom, is in fact a genetic abnormality, it is in effect impossible to prevent (if one wished to do so) procreation of a mentally or physically handicapped person, unless one is actually in control of that person's medical decisions.

Actually, that is often the case. Most suffers of Down's Syndrome are wards of the Sate or more commonly their families who are in fact in control of their medical decisions.

Again and again, one cannot escape the Orwellian notion, of the State dictating the freedoms of the individual.

The State already dictates the freedoms of the individual. It’s generally called the Hobbesian contract.

Thus the base case of Christy Browne or Stephen Hawking is spurious, in my opinion (Hawking's affliction is degenerative, in any case).

Errr... I accepted that in an earlier post.

Originally posted by chill
Your suggestion that people who have no concept of what they are doing because they lack the mental capability of understading it, should be allowed to have sexual relations and children is immoral and in my opinion disgraceful.

But I didn’t say that. Actually, while I didn’t directly express a personal opinion per say, my argument was probably far more favourable towards the position of discouraging or preventing the procreation of the mentally handicapped.

What I did was point out the hypocrisy in people who will argue that eugenics is abhorrent and then will argue for something which is effectively eugenics under a different name - that procreation should be controlled in such people based upon “a combination of the level of mental handicap and the risk of transmission”. Then you turned round and said that eugenics was abhorrent. However you want to justify it or dress it up as something else; if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with someone if they support even mild eugenics or eugenic policies and methodologies, but I do have a problem with someone who does not have the balls to admit it.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Typedef
That doesn't mean I support abortion though, but, enforced contraception, to prevent predication of ....

Enforced Contraception
Nice 1.

Talk about playing with words.

1st up, some extreme right to lifers, belive using contraception is abortion. Certainly those sacred sperm might agree! What about the morning after pill? Will you allow the use of that? It can cause the death of formed embryos.
Is that abortion?Which defenition of abortion will you use? What if the legal guardian's beliefs dont allow the use of such products? Whose views take precedence?

Also you'll tell me, you found a 100% effective method of contraception? 'Whooops, i really did take the pill, I dont know how it happened?'
Sterlisation is probably the only 100% effective contraception.

But that doesnt appeal to your sensitive nature.
In my mind Enforced Contraception= Sterlisation

So either be in favour of it, or dont be, but your word play doesn't wash.

X

patch

Firstly, abortion is great in some cases. Needed even. But that's off topic.

To answer the question. Should the mentally handicapped be facilitated/allowed to have children? NO.

Some people will argue equal rights dictate they can. That's all very well, but who's going to raise the child? Is the child not allowed a decent normal upbringing?
All that is BEFORE you even raise the point that the child may be handicapped also.

There has to come a point where common sense steps in and people realise that some things just shouldn't be done.

Havelock

On the core question. No the mentially and physically disabled should nbot be allowed procreate. They are unable them selves to look after the child and are increasing the burden on the state.

I have strong eugenical views, I personal think the state should enforce a eugenics program of sterilisation of those unable to contribute to the workforce of the state. The visiually disadvantagered (or what ever the current PC word is) and deaf can all work to full potential, they are not what I would consider disabled. I'm talking about born Quadrapedics, Downs Sydrome, etc... The State should also try to lessen its losses. Also I believe welfare should be limited and those on full welfare should not have a vote as they do not contribute and parties won't have to worry about them when deciding new economic policies. And why not sterlise them, give me one reason thats not bleeding heart liberalism?

Typedef

Originally posted by Xterminator
Enforced Contraception
Nice 1.

Talk about playing with words.

1st up, some extreme right to lifers, belive using contraception is abortion. Certainly those sacred sperm might agree! What about the morning after pill? Will you allow the use of that? It can cause the death of formed embryos.
Is that abortion?Which defenition of abortion will you use? What if the legal guardian's beliefs dont allow the use of such products? Whose views take precedence?
X

Sorry.

Please don't lay your "right to life"=="anti contraception" on me.

Totally seperate issues.

In my mind Enforced Contraception= Sterlisation

So either be in favour of it, or dont be, but your word play doesn't wash

I'm lost here.

You're the only one who is suggesting steralisation is analagous to contraception.

I propose, the law of the land should be that, if there is a high risk of mental retardation in offspring that 'couple(x)' should be legally obliged to use contraceptives. You can choose to break the law and face the consequences, just like every other 'law' in this society.

I think, that's a pretty simple porposition, and doesn't discriminate against mentally handicapped couples or 'ordinary' couples, since the base case, is the desire not to predicate mental handicap, if at all possible.

If your logic (about enforced contraception being equal to steralisation) held true, then outlawing rape, would imply that, every male would have to be emasculated.

Thanks.

Edit:

Havelock, you need to stop trolling. It's boring and silly in one of these 'serious' debates (tm).

chill

Originally posted by Typedef
I propose, the law of the land should be that, if there is a high risk of mental retardation in offspring that 'couple(x)' should be legally obliged to use contraceptives. You can choose to break the law and face the consequences, just like every other 'law' in this society. [/B]

What a completely dumb idea. Are you seriously suggesting that seriously mentally retarded people have any understanding or appreciation of this kind of silly law and the possible implications of breaking it ? :rolleyes:

Sangre

Just doing a casenote on a case here for my degree. The case lends heavily on the American case Buck v bell, where a woman of 2nd generation 'imbeciles' didnt want to be sterilised, it is a very important and interesting case. I havent read this thread as Im busy with the casenote, but I recomment some read this case if they have access to it. Ill give someone the case citation if they want it.

Originally posted by Sangre
The case lends heavily on the American case Buck v bell,

no it doesnt

Silent Grape

it depends on the mental illness. also i think its up to the people caring for the disabled person, in conjunction with the disabled person, to decide about their personal future which doesnt involve any of us, nor is it any of our business.

the idea of enforced contraception or steralization is absolutely atrocious. its the worst form of discrimination, like when a couple decide to have an abortion because their child is disabled in some way.
so what are some of u suggestion here, fazing out mentally disabled people???

Sangre

I think it's unfair to have a child know it will be mentally disabled.

Sangre

I cant really see someone who is severly mentally handicapped as anything more then a child, not even that. And why not faze them out? Is there something good about them, do they live a proper life?

If being handicapped is removed through genetic advancement or improved foetul medication or whatever, this would in essence faze out handicapped people, but I cant see many people curseing these advancement.....

/me goes off to watch Gattaca.

RampagingBadger

Quote:

---

the idea of enforced contraception or steralization is absolutely atrocious. its the worst form of discrimination, like when a couple decide to have an abortion because their child is disabled in some way.

---

On the continent (i.e. in Holland, Germany etc..) it's pretty much standard procedure to abort mentally handicapped foetuses. In fact in Germany the law states that you can't abort after the 1st 8 weeks unless the child is handicapped, in which case you can abort at up to 30 weeks. I don't think this is attrocious, I'd like to have such an option myself (if I were a women).
You have to remember that these people are mentally like children. If a 12 year old child decided with her parents she wanted to have a child and they went ahead with it there'd be uproar. I fail to see the difference here. Having a child is a huge decision. If you don't have the faculities to consider it properly you shouldn't have the right to make the decision yourself.

chill

Originally posted by Silent Grape
it depends on the mental illness. also i think its up to the people caring for the disabled person, in conjunction with the disabled person, to decide about their personal future which doesnt involve any of us, nor is it any of our business.

I don't agree. Carers do not have unlimited rights over the person in their charge. Society has a responsibility to ensure that a handicapped or mentally ill person is treated within reasonable parameters.

the idea of enforced contraception or steralization is absolutely atrocious. its the worst form of discrimination, like when a couple decide to have an abortion because their child is disabled in some way.
so what are some of u suggestion here, fazing out mentally disabled people???

Well yes actually. Why would you want to continue to have disabled people being born if it can be avoided ? The atrocious idea is yours imho - the idea that there is some virtue in continuing to have people born who are disabled.

That does not mean I have any negative attitudes towards existing disabled people who should be given every opportunity and service that the state can reasonably offer, but...

If genetic tests can be developed that allow parents to choose whether or not to have a disabled child then why shouldn't they decided to wait and have an able child. ?

chill

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
In fact in Germany the law states that you can't abort after the 1st 8 weeks unless the child is handicapped, in which case you can abort at up to 30 weeks. I don't think this is attrocious, I'd like to have such an option myself (if I were a women).

Many people here in Ireland have tests for genetic abnormalities. We did. Many then choose to abort at an early stage. We thankfully did not need to, but might have.

You have to remember that these people are mentally like children. If a 12 year old child decided with her parents she wanted to have a child and they went ahead with it there'd be uproar.

Exactly. Such a person is indeed the equivalent of a child.

I fail to see the difference here. Having a child is a huge decision. If you don't have the faculities to consider it properly you shouldn't have the right to make the decision yourself.

Totally correct.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
Eugenics bull**** should play no part in the subject.

Originally posted by Silent Grape
so what are some of u suggestion here, fazing out mentally disabled people???

Originally posted by chill
Well yes actually. Why would you want to continue to have disabled people being born if it can be avoided ? The atrocious idea is yours imho - the idea that there is some virtue in continuing to have people born who are disabled.

Eugenics (n). The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Silent Grape
also i think its up to the people caring for the disabled person, in conjunction with the disabled person, to decide about their personal future which doesnt involve any of us, nor is it any of our business.

That’s not quite true. The people caring for the disabled person are not immortal and if a mentally disabled person who requires care produces another mentally disabled person who requires care, then somewhere along the line new people will be required to care for that person.

Also, that a mentally disabled person has the right to decide on their reproductive powers is also debatable. We do not give similar rights to sexually mature children, as has been pointed out, for very practical reasons.

Finally it does involve us in that through charity or the welfare state we will be funding it. If the mentally disabled and their offspring were to be left to fend for themselves without assistance, financial or otherwise, from Society you’d have a point. Otherwise it is very much our business.

the idea of enforced contraception or steralization is absolutely atrocious. its the worst form of discrimination, like when a couple decide to have an abortion because their child is disabled in some way.

Out of curiosity, when is discrimination good and when is it bad? And why is it bad here?

Havelock

Typedef: My opinions posted here are my serious opinions. I have no truck with the idea that all men are created equal etc. In my opinion there is no balancing god or karma that will amke things "fair".In my opinion the socity's survival and development is more important than the individuals.

These maybe unpopular ideologies, but they are mine, they are thought out and I am willing to discuss their pros and cons with anyone, so why is my opinion treated as farsical?

simu

It's pretty simple - ppl should not have kids if they can't look after them, whatever the reason for this may be. Unless this woman's parents are willing to look after the child (becoming its parents too, effectively), it should be put up for adoption.

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Eugenics (n). The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

:rolleyes:

Proof that this is irrelevant to the issues in this thread - yet again.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
Proof that this is irrelevant to the issues in this thread - yet again.

Pointing out where you seem to contradict yourself or at least less than honest in this thread is perfectly relevant to it.

Bottom line is that you are discussing eugenics. Your own words have been remarkably clear-cut in the definition - no ‘flexible’ language was necessary. However, you are also apparently dismissing the topic from discussion, preferring to describe it in a more indirect manner.

You’re reasons for this, I can only surmise are delusion (you honestly don’t realize that you advocate eugenic policies) or hypocrisy (you know what you’re saying but would, for whatever reason, prefer not to admit it).

Nevyn

they shouldnt, but then again niehter should junkies. but you have to get a person delared totally unfit to make any decisons about thier person to enforce
contraception on them,

A judge can not order a Junkie mother with over 4 kids who have been take into care to get and implant or injection.

ColinM

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Pointing out where you seem to contradict yourself or at least less than honest in this thread is perfectly relevant to it.

Bottom line is that you are discussing eugenics. Your own words have been remarkably clear-cut in the definition - no ‘flexible’ language was necessary. However, you are also apparently dismissing the topic from discussion, preferring to describe it in a more indirect manner.

You’re reasons for this, I can only surmise are delusion (you honestly don’t realize that you advocate eugenic policies) or hypocrisy (you know what you’re saying but would, for whatever reason, prefer not to admit it).

Jesus, Corinthian, you have the patience of a saint here! How can you argue with someone who doesn't understand the argument!

I seem to remember that Hitler was evil. I think he used to be fairly into eugenics. Therefore I'm dead against it myself, but I agree with you, Chill - I'd be all on for employing techniques gained from the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding alright.

Nevyn

Originally posted by ColinM
I seem to remember that Hitler was evil. I think he used to be fairly into eugenics. Therefore I'm dead against it myself, but I agree with you, Chill - I'd be all on for employing techniques gained from the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding alright.

well that is one big contradiction :rolleyes:

selective breeding has happened from when humankind was able to figure out what was desirable in a mate. big strong mate big strong children ffs. Nothing-new there.

yes there is a big difference between
killing off those that are disabled and mentally ill and saying they should not have children.

IT is not that long ago where sterilities was order of the day in state run mental homes and borstals ECT.

My father has epilepsy and it is not that long go he would have been locked and way and rendered incapable of having children. But there is a big difference between that type of a case and a person with the full grown functioning adult body with the mind of a 10 to 12 year old.

ColinM

Originally posted by Thaed
well that is one big contradiction :rolleyes:

Well I guess pagans don't tend to notice blatant sarcasm, eh!

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Pointing out where you seem to contradict yourself or at least less than honest in this thread is perfectly relevant to it.

Yes it is - if it were true - which it isn't.

Bottom line is that you are discussing eugenics. Your own words have been remarkably clear-cut in the definition - no ‘flexible’ language was necessary. However, you are also apparently dismissing the topic from discussion, preferring to describe it in a more indirect manner.

No - I am not discussing eugenics and neither is anyone else except you who seems obsessed with the term and concept.
Almost any definition of 'Eugenics' will produce approximately the following elements:
"improving genetic qualities by selective breeding"
The subject being discussed here by me and others has no element of 'improvement', no element of 'breeding' and is solely concerned with the issues of the protection of those deemed to be seriously mentally retarded or disabled and with the welfare of children that would result.

You’re reasons for this, I can only surmise are delusion (you honestly don’t realize that you advocate eugenic policies) or hypocrisy (you know what you’re saying but would, for whatever reason, prefer not to admit it).

Your obvious obsession with eugenics and your determined mischaracterisation of the thread, my comments and others as eugenics is wrong and very tiresome. It contributes nothing to the discussion and only attempts to divert what is an interesting and important exchange of views.

ColinM

You’re reasons for this, I can only surmise are delusion (you honestly don’t realize that you advocate eugenic policies) or hypocrisy (you know what you’re saying but would, for whatever reason, prefer not to admit it).

I can't believe this. I really am astounded. You seem to be going for option A, Chill, but you also seem to be edging for a nuance of option B as well. I really don't see how what Corinthian has explained to you can be explained any more clearly. I don't know why I'm getting involved, because I give up already!

I'm also quite surprised that there aren't any bleeding heart liberals extolling the virtues of being mentally retarded - you know - how loving and happy they are and what joy they bring to othes, how they never show any malice towards others, and if only we were all like that, etc.

I am glad to see though that someone has at least gone some way towards making the broad point that it's only a small step between preventing these people from having children to actually murdering me because I might have caught the 'flu once.

If we could have some more of these kind of arguments, then we'd have something to debate here, but I think I'll hold off while everyone is actually agreeing and yet trying to argue that they aren't.

Typedef

Originally posted by ColinM
I'm also quite surprised that there aren't any bleeding heart liberals extolling the virtues of being mentally retarded

That's an amazingly ignorant and self righteous thing to say.

Well done. No doubt you vote for the right wing Ireland for Irelanders party, because once you heard a shrill left winger, say something you disagreed with.

Myself, I vote for the Typedef-for-supreme-benovalent-dictator-party, for similar reasons.

ColinM

Careful now, Typedef, or I'll phase you out with eugenics!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
No - I am not discussing eugenics and neither is anyone else except you who seems obsessed with the term and concept.
Almost any definition of 'Eugenics' will produce approximately the following elements:
"improving genetic qualities by selective breeding"
The subject being discussed here by me and others has no element of 'improvement', no element of 'breeding' and is solely concerned with the issues of the protection of those deemed to be seriously mentally retarded or disabled and with the welfare of children that would result.

But you have advocated for the improvement of humanity and the use of controlled breeding as a means to achieve this. You admitted that you were advocating the “fazing out mentally disabled people” as that you considered “to continue to have disabled people being born if it can be avoided” to be “atrocious” is pretty clear-cut.

In short you have argued for the use of controlled selective breeding so as to eliminate an undesirable trait in humanity and hence enable the hereditary improvement of the human race. I can’t explain it more plainly to you without the use of finger puppets, TBH.

You were discussing eugenics - both aims and methodology. Blind denial is pretty pointless at this stage. Deal with it.

Your obvious obsession with eugenics and your determined mischaracterisation of the thread, my comments and others as eugenics is wrong and very tiresome. It contributes nothing to the discussion and only attempts to divert what is an interesting and important exchange of views.

The discussion of eugenics is perfectly relevant. You yourself are advocating eugenics, even though you’d prefer not to admit this and others have touched on the issue in this thread. When the subject of control of reproduction for the betterment of society is being discussed, it’s perfectly relevant and reasonable to discuss the entire school of eugenics.

Additionally, while you seem to think the topic of eugenics is irrelevant, you’ve not argued a cogent reason as to why. You appear to simply find it uncomfortable to discuss, even though in all but name you support it.

Havelock

I think its clear that some people don't want to be associated with supporting eugentics, as the stigma attached to it since the second world war.

I think eugenics is a required part of socity structuring, if the human race is persistant in its over breeding attempts, that at least trys to prevent the severly disabled producing children that are either disabled or that they are incapable of taking care of. Its just commen sense. The validity of the points in favoure of steriliation, espically those of mental maturaty, is enought to provoke thought from those willing to actually conside others opinions.

To those are squimish about admitting they are insupport of such an idea, I would suggest asking your self why. Is it just the dirty past of the topic or can you put forward other arguements.

Typedef: you still haven't answered my question.

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian
But you have advocated for the improvement of humanity and the use of controlled breeding as a means to achieve this.

No I have not. Though I can see that you are determined to insist I have irrespective of the facts.

You admitted that you were advocating the “fazing out mentally disabled people” as that you considered “to continue to have disabled people being born if it can be avoided” to be “atrocious” is pretty clear-cut.

No. I advocated medical and scientific advances that reduce the number of disabled people. That is nothing close to eugenics. There is no selective breeding involved for example.
Yes I did make the second point about avoiding disabled people being born. But again you make NO connection with what the word eugenics actually means. Either you realise that or you honestly don't know waht the word means.

In short you have argued for the use of controlled selective breeding so as to eliminate an undesirable trait in humanity and hence enable the hereditary improvement of the human race. I can’t explain it more plainly to you without the use of finger puppets, TBH.

This is a simple and complete mis-statement of what I said.

I made NO statement about selective breeding whatsoever. Maybe your finger muppets can lead you to a dictionary.

You were discussing eugenics - both aims and methodology. Blind denial is pretty pointless at this stage. Deal with it.

repeating a nonsensical lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

The discussion of eugenics is perfectly relevant. You yourself are advocating eugenics, even though you’d prefer not to admit this and others have touched on the issue in this thread.

No I am not and I am vehemently against eugenics.

When the subject of control of reproduction for the betterment of society is being discussed, it’s perfectly relevant and reasonable to discuss the entire school of eugenics.

yes, but that is not the subect of this thread and your obsession with it says more about you than about the subject or anyone else.

Additionally, while you seem to think the topic of eugenics is irrelevant, you’ve not argued a cogent reason as to why. You appear to simply find it uncomfortable to discuss, even though in all but name you support it.

if you bothered to read my posts above instead of being so determined to misrepresent my comments you would see that I made it completely clear why.

My contributions to the subject have been almost exclusively based on the protection of mentally disabled people from having sexual relations and children because of their inability ot comprehend the meaning and implications of such relations and the likely product, children. I did make the comment that the likelyhood of their children being also disabled was a factor, but again that does not come close to making it a eugenics issue.

If you don't understand that then your motivations are deeply suspect.

Capt'n Midnight

"Anyone can have a kid - but you need a license for a dog"

You could say that only parents who can look after thier children should be allowed have them. Who decides who is allowed ? How do you apply it ? And given the sort of parents wandering around in the general population hadn't that be sorted out first - lets face it there are lots of parents who have proved they should not be allowed have another child..

And then there is the old one - what's the difference between a social worker and a rotweiler ? - you've got some chance of getting your kid back of a rotweiler

---

I'll remind people that during the flu pandemic in 1919 sneezing / coughing was banned, but no one has ever been able to enforce a ban on sex (even though it didn't exist here until recently)

---

Remember the guy who killed the nurse in the park (was found hiding in the atorney generals house) one story was that he was gay - anyway - his child was born with syphalis & hepatitis.

---

So the question is do you apply the same standards wrt. how the child will be treated to the general population and if so do you do it to them first ? Only after you have resolved the question of quality of care for the children can you work back to the quality of life factors..

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
No I have not. Though I can see that you are determined to insist I have irrespective of the facts.

Simply saying you have not does not make it so. I have explained why you have and you have failed to disprove it.

No. I advocated medical and scientific advances that reduce the number of disabled people. That is nothing close to eugenics. There is no selective breeding involved for example.

What on Earth do you think selective breeding is? It’s not just encouraging desirable subjects from reproducing but also discouraging or preventing undesirable subjects from reproducing.

Breeders must prevent random mating from coming about, and limit mating to those individuals who exhibit desired characteristics.

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

Yes I did make the second point about avoiding disabled people being born. But again you make NO connection with what the word eugenics actually means. Either you realise that or you honestly don't know waht the word means.

I put a dictionary definition of eugenics down next to your own words, in context, and guess what - they matched.

Eugenics is the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. You have accepted Silent Grape’s accusation that you are suggesting “fazing out mentally disabled people” - a hereditary improvement of the human race. You even suggest “genetic tests can be developed that allow parents to choose whether or not to have a disabled child” – breeding doesn’t get more selective than that.

So if your views satisfy the criteria of improvement of the gene pool and you would use various criteria to select whether reproduction should be permitted or not, which part of the above definition are you missing out on?

repeating a nonsensical lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

All you’re doing yourself is simply denying my accusation. I’ve actually pointed out why. I’ve given evidence and I’ve refuted the limited arguments you’ve thrown back. The backbone of your argument on the other hand is simply denial.

Simply saying that I’ve misrepresented what you’ve said does not make it true either.

I did make the comment that the likelyhood of their children being also disabled was a factor, but again that does not come close to making it a eugenics issue.

What’s this then?

Why would you want to continue to have disabled people being born if it can be avoided ?

That’s not a factor. That’s a policy.

If you don't understand that then your motivations are deeply suspect.

Trying to deflect the argument is not going to prove you’re not either a hypocrite or deluded.

chill

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Simply saying you have not does not make it so. I have explained why you have and you have failed to disprove it.

I am under no obligation to prove anything. You repeatedly ignore the chasmic gulf between what I post and your obsessiveness with eugenics so what's the point in debating with you when you either fail to grasp the nonsense of your posts or you are simply a flamebait hypocrit.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by chill
I am under no obligation to prove anything. You repeatedly ignore the chasmic gulf between what I post and your obsessiveness with eugenics so what's the point in debating with you when you either fail to grasp the nonsense of your posts or you are simply a flamebait hypocrit.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking you to disprove what I've said of your views.

And again, trying to deflect the argument with innuendo and name calling is not going to disprove that you’re neither a hypocrite or deluded.

swiss

I just love these arguments.

This is a controversial issue, but for what it's worth, I would also agree that people who are profoundly mentally disabled should not be allowed to procreate. This is for the two reasons already cited, that

1) Such people cannot be reasonably expected to understand the consequences of their actions and/or reasonably look after the offspring.

2) If there is a higher incidence of mental retardation in the offspring of the mentally retarded, then I fail to see why we should try to propagate that trend.

Call it Eugenics (in fact, that's exactly what I'm going to call it). I'm not trying to create a 'pure' bloodline such as the so called "superior" Aryan race. I have no problem with inter-racial breeding, or people with physical disablilities conceiving a child. However, our higher cognitive functions are part of what defines us as human, and when we lose those, it is an immeasurable loss. Taking reasonable precautions, such as limiting/stopping the profoundly retarded from breeding is a logical basis for limiting this loss.

Beëlzebooze

this whole issue would create a new class of lepers.

just imagine if it was illegal for certain people to breed, that would entail that these people would have trouble finding partners, as potential mates would like to know beforehand if they where allowed to have children. Certain members of society would become outcasts, lepers, unclean. Lovely prospect.

There is a whole rake of diseases and illnesses that could be taken into consideration.

And the criteria for becoming an outcast? your offspring (not you) would cost society more that it could contribute.

Stark

Yes, whereas if the mentally disabled were allowed have children, I'd be just itching for a nice mentally retarded girl to settle down with, pity about the whole statutory rape thing, but hey we're being liberal here right?

I'm not arguing that people with minor defects shouldn't be allowed to procreate. But to promote the passing on of seriously debilitating diseases like Down Syndrome is just wrong. Not only will the resulting offspring be mentally handicapped and completely dependant on the state for life, but will suffer a whole host of physical complications as well.

Beëlzebooze

I was not promoting 'undesirables' having children, but just saying that you should be carefull what you wish for.

Being a burden on society is a pretty vague criteria for your purpose in life to be called to a halt.

But hey, as long as you think it's only going to happen to others, it's ok I suppose.

spooiirt!!

why would we want cappers to breed? so that one day well all be overun by a huge army of retards?

MiCr0

guess who's banned???

thats right - its spooiirt!!

Venom

No they shouldnt be allowed to have kids. If someone is not able to look after themselves they should never be allowed to look after a child. Anyone with the mentality of a child who needs care themselves can never make a good parent.