Should the severely retarded be allowed to reproduce?


PDA

View Full Version : Should the severely retarded be allowed to reproduce?


Wulphy
03-30-2009, 07:21 PM
Lets keep the "My cousin is extremely retarded and I still love him" things out of here, because it's not based on logic, it's based on irrational love.

Moving on:

Should severely mentally handicapped individuals be allowed to reproduce?

On the one hand:

-They contribute virtually nothing to society.
-Often lead to disciplinary problems in public schools, because teachers are not allowed to discipline the mentally handicapped by law.
-Huge legal struggles.

On the other hand:

-They are people too.
-We shouldn't discriminate.

We are not talking about executing the retarded, just preventing them from reproducing. As mental diseases are proven to be hereditary, is it moral to allow more severely handicapped individuals into the world? Is it moral to prevent them from reproducing?

Discuss.

Kensai
03-30-2009, 07:22 PM
Why not? Perfectly "normal" couples still have retarded children, as well as the opposite.

My parents were retaded and Iturned out fien.

Edit: Seriously though severely retarded people will have great difficulties raising and supporting a family. Just look at sarah palins daughter. Pregnant teen? Way to go, champ.

It might be an issue but I don't like the idea of telling who can or can not reproduce.

gunther_sucks
03-30-2009, 07:22 PM
This is not Nazi Germany.

They should do what they want.

katenotreally
03-30-2009, 07:23 PM
when you say "allow" it makes it seem like they are less than you are. there's no way you could outlaw the reproduction of the severely retarded, and i presume it'd be hard for you to try and prevent it...

Wulphy
03-30-2009, 07:23 PM
Why not? Perfectly "normal" couples still have retarded children, as well as the opposite.

My parents were retaded and Iturned out fien.

True, but studies have shown that the children of the mentally handicapped are much more likely to inherit the disease.

And you asked your retarded father for a handjob? I think that's abuse :p:

TunerAddict
03-30-2009, 07:23 PM
I'd say we shouldn't stop at stopping them from reproducing, but terminate the retarded at birth as well.

Yes, I'm well aware that I'm an asshole.

Darksucker
03-30-2009, 07:24 PM
No. No. No. Think of what it would be like to be raised by two people with a combined IQ of 100. They would be unable to care for the child. No way.

JohnnyGenzale
03-30-2009, 07:24 PM
My parents were retaded and Iturned out fien.



Don't you mean retartet?

ep1kz
03-30-2009, 07:26 PM
from a logistic point of view: no

from a humanitarian(?) point of view: yes

quite simple really

theres no possible way you can outweigh the logistic point of view without bringing morals into play. it simply makes more sense in many different ways

which view do i hold? dont know really

frottage
03-30-2009, 07:27 PM
RIP Merrill.

If you'd not allow this fine man to reproduce, you should be shot. Who knows where the cooking world would be today without Merrill.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1552007/merrill_howard_kalin_cooking_with_retards/

Wulphy
03-30-2009, 07:28 PM
RIP Merrill.

If you'd not allow this fine man to reproduce, you should be shot. Who knows where the cooking world would be today without Merrill.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1552007/merrill_howard_kalin_cooking_with_retards/

He's not actually retarded.

Zoot Allures
03-30-2009, 07:28 PM
No. No. No. Think of what it would be like to be raised by two people with a combined IQ of 100. They would be unable to care for the child. No way.

This, you gotta think of the kids of these people. If they cant care and look after a child then no.

thefuzz454
03-30-2009, 07:32 PM
What do you mean provides nothing to society? Many retarded people have jobs, even if it is just tedious factory work. And the ones that are too severely handicapped to work won't be reproducing anyways.

But on topic: I don't know, it's a fine line.

Grindar
03-30-2009, 07:32 PM
My parents were retaded and Iturned out fien.

Only Kensai thing that I've ever actually lol'd at.

Madster24
03-30-2009, 07:32 PM
i think we should just flip a coin

Darksucker
03-30-2009, 07:34 PM
i think we should just flip a coin

And the rest of society will just go with it, right?

chrispfried
03-30-2009, 07:34 PM
Any person with a mental retardation, has something wrong with a chromosome, usually they r missing one, and therefore cannot reproduce

Le_Bunny
03-30-2009, 07:34 PM
I don't think there'd be any enforcable way to stop it, unless it meant castration... and that sounds inhumane.

Trefellin
03-30-2009, 07:35 PM
I think that severely retarded or horribly deformed people should have been destroyed before birth. They do have a right to life but I think that they have a right to dignity which is more important.

Darksucker
03-30-2009, 07:35 PM
Any person with a mental retardation, has something wrong with a chromosome, usually they r missing one, and therefore cannot reproduce

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Not really.

Rhoads_1096
03-30-2009, 07:35 PM
Thay can do what they want
Nazi
And I don't know what Kensai's definition of "fine" is

breadstick
03-30-2009, 07:36 PM
Personally, no. I don't think they should be allowed to. Firstly they don't have the means to raise a child and secondly the child will most probably be severely retarded too, putting an even greater burden on society.

chrispfried
03-30-2009, 07:39 PM
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Not really.

correct me please, i thought i was right =(

Wulphy
03-30-2009, 07:39 PM
Nazi


You're an idiot.

ilovemySG
03-30-2009, 07:41 PM
nobody is stopping them from producing, but do u ever hear of a handicapped (severely in the mind) couple having children?

Jesse Mrau
03-30-2009, 07:42 PM
This is an extremely touchy subject.

Personally I feel that it would horribly unfair for the children (even if they somehow do not share the same mental handicap), because the only way to care for these children would be either adopted parents or care workers that would aid the family. I feel that parents should be responsible for their kids, and I don't think that the very severely mentally handicapped have the capacity to do so.

Jackal58
03-30-2009, 07:43 PM
They already do.

BlackandSilver
03-30-2009, 07:43 PM
To be honest, if they honestly are so impaired that they can't raise a child, no. I know it's harsh, but it's just going to create one more family of people who can't do this, or can't do that, and they'll cash in on it and get all kinds of money from the government, which is from tax dollars.

That tax money has a lot more important places to go than a poorly raised child's half usefull education, and later wellfare. Also, the parents will continue to make bad calls that could potentially harm the child, sometimes in ways the parents don't know how to fix.

This will lead to what could end up as another mental disorder passed down, or a mindset passed down , or another physical genetic disease passed on. This will further degrade that family to a lower standard, and they'll stop working and start collecting unemployment, and have kids younger, drop out of school from aggrivation, apathy, or other mental problems. Now, there are MORE children who will repeat their parents, because it worked for their family, so why not them?

Because, after 100 or so years, their residence will degrade, too. Their former classmates might have had a disruption in their education, their collegues will have impairment, and society will go down that much more.


This, of course, is if EVERYTHING goes like I thought it would.

Everyone Dies
03-30-2009, 07:43 PM
They contribute nothing to society, and why do we need any more children polluting the world?

Wulphy
03-30-2009, 07:44 PM
They already do.

...and?

Pinky19
03-30-2009, 07:46 PM
This is not Nazi Germany.

They should do what they want.
The **** it aint.

daryle_goh
03-30-2009, 07:46 PM
true that allowing retarded people to reproduce is potentially highly problematic.

but think about this another way: if we ban retarded people from reproducing, it will pave the way for a whole series of reproduction bans on several other races/types/religions/tribes/cultures.

we must understand that we cannot take such a risk. we must not allow for the mentality of a "superior race" to influence our decisions.

Darksucker
03-30-2009, 07:47 PM
correct me please, i thought i was right =(

There are certain defects that also have the effect of sterilization, but your everyday severe retardation has little to nothing to do with the southern plumbing.

Wulphy
03-30-2009, 07:49 PM
There are certain defects that also have the effect of sterilization, but your everyday severe retardation has little to nothing to do with the southern plumbing.

:haha

Pernell
03-30-2009, 07:49 PM
We Shouldnt Discriminate? OF COURSE WE SHOULD! They're retards, their not like normal people, they're dangerous!

Heres your handgun, Mr. Retard.
Oh, heres your drivers Liscence, Mr. Retard.

theres a reason we dont do these things. Theyre RETARDED.

No, they shouldnt reproduce either, they cant care for the child.

Jackal58
03-30-2009, 07:50 PM
...and?
I quite enjoy reading their commentary in the Pit on a daily basis.

Grindar
03-30-2009, 07:51 PM
There are certain defects that also have the effect of sterilization, but your everyday severe retardation has little to nothing to do with the southern plumbing.

Quickly becoming my favourite UGer.

Gord@k
03-30-2009, 07:53 PM
Sure they should be allowed wouldnt really matter seeing as in 99% of the cases they cant.

daryle_goh
03-30-2009, 07:53 PM
We Shouldnt Discriminate? OF COURSE WE SHOULD! They're retards, their not like normal people, they're dangerous!

Heres your handgun, Mr. Retard.
Oh, heres your drivers Liscence, Mr. Retard.

theres a reason we dont do these things. Theyre RETARDED.

No, they shouldnt reproduce either, they cant care for the child.


1) we ban retarded people from reproducing

2) several years later, under a brilliant disguise, some ****head like bush places a ban on a certain tribe/religion.

3)after several years more, bans start to involve more and more groups of people

4) by 2100, it becomes entirely "moral" and "correct" to prevent a certain group from reproducing.

5) by 2200, it becomes a weapon in which a powerful individual can wipe out an entire kind simply by influencing leadership decisions.

Madster24
03-30-2009, 07:55 PM
And the rest of society will just go with it, right?

either way not everyone will go with it, someone is always unhappy no matter what
so why not flip a coin


but really there just be different laws for different circumstances, like say a married couple had a disease that made them feel constant pain, do they had the right to make a child that will suffer for the rest of there life. i personally dont think so. although id feel very bad for that couple

Pernell
03-30-2009, 07:58 PM
1) we ban retarded people from reproducing

2) several years later, under a brilliant disguise, some ****head like bush places a ban on a certain tribe/religion.

3)after several years more, bans start to involve more and more groups of people

4) by 2100, it becomes entirely "moral" and "correct" to prevent a certain group from reproducing.

5) by 2200, it becomes a weapon in which a powerful individual can wipe out an entire kind simply by influencing leadership decisions.

Meh, speculation

archerkoala
03-30-2009, 08:03 PM
correct me please, i thought i was right =(

meh, mental retardation or any defect/mutation or whatever would be caused from a missing or mixed up gene/set of genes on a chromosome, they wouldn't be missing an entire chromosome.

TeslaWolf
03-30-2009, 08:08 PM
No, everyone is not born equally, and some need to have their rights taken away from them for the good of everyone else.

EDIT:I also believe people should not be able to procreate based upon there financial situation, and ability to properly care for a child. And that those who disobey should receive a harsh punishment. Does this make me an asshole?

walkinbazooka
03-30-2009, 08:22 PM
Yes. That is all.

withgunstoglory
03-30-2009, 08:25 PM
wait, they're not allowed to punish retarded people? Doesn't that go against don't discriminate?

mamosa
03-30-2009, 08:27 PM
Wait...when were they released from their cages where they were beaten mercilessly by guards with pixie sticks?

hippyguitardude
03-30-2009, 08:29 PM
while i don't go as far as saying retarted folk shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, the theory of evolution would make it seem that they would be less desirable to the oppossite sex and thus get less bang-bang.

i also don't believe in life-guards because idiots don't watch their kids and smart people do. natural selection.

freedoms_stain
03-30-2009, 08:34 PM
while i don't go as far as saying retarted folk shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, the theory of evolution would make it seem that they would be less desirable to the oppossite sex and thus get less bang-bang.

i also don't believe in life-guards because idiots don't watch their kids and smart people do. natural selection.It's not uncommon for mentally retarded people to get it on with each other.

Anyhoo, Evolution has nothing to do with retards who are capable of reproduction since most genetically retarded individuals are also sterile, so the only ones capable of reproducing would be ones who had retardation induced via head trauma.

greatone_12
03-30-2009, 08:36 PM
No, everyone is not born equally, and some need to have their rights taken away from them for the good of everyone else.

EDIT:I also believe people should not be able to procreate based upon there financial situation, and ability to properly care for a child. And that those who disobey should receive a harsh punishment. Does this make me an asshole?

Yes it does make you an asshole. But your point makes sense, especially after all of this octomom stuff the media keeps telling me about.

Oheric
03-30-2009, 08:38 PM
No. They should be discarded at birth.
And babies can't reproduce.
Unlesss.......

Wyatt4prez
03-30-2009, 08:39 PM
If they are severely retarded would they even know how to reproduce?

Trefellin
03-30-2009, 08:41 PM
If they are severely retarded would they even know how to reproduce?

Retard's intuition?

Mudmen190
03-30-2009, 08:45 PM
1) we ban retarded people from reproducing

2) several years later, under a brilliant disguise, some ****head like bush places a ban on a certain tribe/religion.

3)after several years more, bans start to involve more and more groups of people

4) by 2100, it becomes entirely "moral" and "correct" to prevent a certain group from reproducing.

5) by 2200, it becomes a weapon in which a powerful individual can wipe out an entire kind simply by influencing leadership decisions.

I seriously could not see this happening. Ever.

NoiseBox
03-30-2009, 08:45 PM
Well, eventually population control is going to have to become the norm; why not start now?

For some its not really a problem because they aren't really intelligent enough to reproduce anyways. And what threshold would be set as OK to reproduce or not ok? How is it going to be decided? I've thought about this before. I want to say no they shouldn't be allowed to, but I'm not God, and if god doesn't exist then I feel that people should not be allowed to wield such power as being able to say who can and who cannot reproduce.

mr.happyman
03-30-2009, 08:50 PM
i don't think you need to worry about that. who's gonna want to have sex with the severely mentally handicapped? only other severely mentally handicapped people would do it with other severely mentally handicapped people. do you think they'll beable to do it properly? i mean, your average couple has a hard enough time getting pregnant.

hyroglyph!c
03-30-2009, 08:51 PM
human rights.

Pernell
03-30-2009, 08:52 PM
If they are severely retarded would they even know how to reproduce?

SOMEones not seen the retard porn :haha

freedoms_stain
03-30-2009, 08:52 PM
Well, eventually population control is going to have to become the norm; why not start now?

For some its not really a problem because they aren't really intelligent enough to reproduce anyways. And what threshold would be set as OK to reproduce or not ok? How is it going to be decided? I've thought about this before. I want to say no they shouldn't be allowed to, but I'm not God, and if god doesn't exist then I feel that people should not be allowed to wield such power as being able to say who can and who cannot reproduce.lol, as if intelligence was an important factor in reproduction.

Organisms without brains manage it, I dare say retards could figure it out.

walkinbazooka
03-30-2009, 08:53 PM
i don't think you need to worry about that. who's gonna want to have sex with the severely mentally handicapped? only other severely mentally handicapped people would do it with other severely mentally handicapped people. do you think they'll beable to do it properly? i mean, your average couple has a hard enough time getting pregnant.
This is true. The few times I've had sex it took like five minutes to get it in and neither of us were even sure if we were using the right hole.

NickTNT
03-30-2009, 08:56 PM
Even if they werent allowed to reproduce, what will we do to stop them?

mr. cool
03-30-2009, 08:56 PM
yes they should because of the severe ethical issues involved...keep using logic and soon pretty much everybody you and me included should probably not reproduce, what about peopl with bad genes, etc. Also who would decide? how would a cut off be determined etc. theres just too many ethical hurdles and its with logic like that your heading down a slippery slope arguement to steralizing everybody.

porker
03-30-2009, 08:57 PM
just TRY and stop them.

seriously, i find it rude to even bring this up.
we're all just people.

Robino_Ibanez
03-30-2009, 09:01 PM
I believe that it is considered a form of genocide to prevent a group of people from reproducing in an attempt to remove them from the gene pool. By doing this for those with mental problems, we just open up the door to allow leaders to remove freedoms from religious, racial, and all kinds of groups.

That being said, another main issue here is the status of the children that would be born from reproduction of parents who'd end up unable to care for them. Maybe records could be placed on births where mentally handicapped people would be unable to care for their kids in order to pre-plan adoptions?

freedoms_stain
03-30-2009, 09:02 PM
Even if they werent allowed to reproduce, what will we do to stop them?Forced sterilisations.

Hey, it worked in India and China.

Limons
03-30-2009, 09:12 PM
This is true. The few times I've had sex it took like five minutes to get it in and neither of us were even sure if we were using the right hole.

Lol, sigged.

Capitalistklok
03-30-2009, 09:17 PM
as a direct answer to your question... i dont think there is really an issue with them reproducing if they are severley retarded.

however if it was up to me... i would make people apply for a permit to reproduce to prove that they have some thing to contrubute to society. for example i wouldnt let those on welfare reproduce UNTIL they get off it, also fellons may not reproduce, and i wouldnt even let lazy ass holes who want my hard earned money to sit around(communist/socialist) reproduce....

god i just made a ton on friends on UG lol

Darksucker
03-30-2009, 09:26 PM
I believe that it is considered a form of genocide to prevent a group of people from reproducing in an attempt to remove them from the gene pool. By doing this for those with mental problems, we just open up the door to allow leaders to remove freedoms from religious, racial, and all kinds of groups.

That being said, another main issue here is the status of the children that would be born from reproduction of parents who'd end up unable to care for them. Maybe records could be placed on births where mentally handicapped people would be unable to care for their kids in order to pre-plan adoptions?

Adoption system is under enough strain as it is. And it doesn't open doors to religion/ race stuff, as noone is going to go out there and equate Jew genes with cerebral palsy genes. There could be criteria: persons unable to care for their children or unable to provide a suitable home for them due to a severe mental or cognitive disability will not be allowed to have children.

Pac_man0123
03-30-2009, 09:28 PM
The fact that the metally handicapped are allowed to survive in modern society is part of what makes us advanced as a species and as people, so if we lose that then can we really say we've progressed as far as we like to say?

DarkChilli
03-30-2009, 10:58 PM
Not allowing retarded people to reproduce is considered genocide by the Geneva convention I believe. To TS: You really are a communist aren't you? Commiting genocide against the retarded and being a member of the Red Militia and Anti-Capitalist Coalition...

Edit: Crap you beat me to it

brentthecrass
03-30-2009, 11:46 PM
From a heartless, gene-purification standpoint: it is illogical.
But I say if they can figure it out, and can support a kid, let 'em go for it.

Jacob6293
03-30-2009, 11:56 PM
Yes. They are people who have feelings just like us. They feel love, sexual urges, and compassion just like us, so if they want to reproduce, who the hell are we to say no?

WyvernOmega
03-30-2009, 11:58 PM
The fact that the metally handicapped are allowed to survive in modern society is part of what makes us advanced as a species and as people, so if we lose that then can we really say we've progressed as far as we like to say?

Yes. It's like natural selection; the weak die and the strong remain.

bobby_splax
03-31-2009, 12:02 AM
I believe as humans they should do whatever the hell they want... but then again... even if the kid comes out normal... how would that kind of couple support the child?

all in all... i think they shouldn't. not that it's immoral. or wrong... just a bad idea.

just like how i wouldn't like it very much to give a blind person the keys to a car.

MandoDrew
03-31-2009, 12:13 AM
Any person with a mental retardation, has something wrong with a chromosome, usually they r missing one, and therefore cannot reproduce

An extra 21st, actually.

And males with Down syndrome are typically unable to father children, while females have a significantly lower rate of conception than the mentally healthy.

So on this whole whether they should be "allowed" to reproduce thing... if they can even manage to conceive in the first place is an even bigger obstacle.. and about half of the offspring of people with Down's have Down's themselves. 1 in 733 people has the disease, and that's about the same odds that the people that do have it can even procreate. So in short, why are we even having this conversation.

Random3
03-31-2009, 08:40 AM
Survival of the fittest. The reason why there arn't as many disabled people now is because they don't reproduce.

faultyy
03-31-2009, 09:01 AM
Yes, there's nothing funnier than watching 2 people with severe mental problems struggle to look after a child. Infact they should even make a sit com about it

-Worsell-
03-31-2009, 09:40 AM
They may annoy me at times
but...
on the other hand they are people.....ish

would they know what to do?
i'm not trying to be offensive
my mates brother (who suffers from autism) doesn't know how to put his pants on
so how would he know where to put his junk?

CliffIsAngry
03-31-2009, 10:02 AM
just replying to the thread title: NO. They should not be allowed to reproduce. being mentally retarded is not good for your off spring or for the human race. We didnt get to where we are now by having retards mate (eventhough some people -bush LOL are unexplainable).

JohnnyGenzale
03-31-2009, 10:04 AM
Lol, sigged.

If you say sigged, it means you actually put that in your signature. It's not something you say if you just find it funny or whatever... >_>.

fartz
03-31-2009, 10:06 AM
Do severely retarded people even want secks?

Archaon
03-31-2009, 10:17 AM
Lets keep the "My cousin is extremely retarded and I still love him" things out of here, because it's not based on logic, it's based on irrational love.

Moving on:

Should severely mentally handicapped individuals be allowed to reproduce?

On the one hand:

-They contribute virtually nothing to society.
-Often lead to disciplinary problems in public schools, because teachers are not allowed to discipline the mentally handicapped by law.
-Huge legal struggles.

On the other hand:

-They are people too.
-We shouldn't discriminate.

We are not talking about executing the retarded, just preventing them from reproducing. As mental diseases are proven to be hereditary, is it moral to allow more severely handicapped individuals into the world? Is it moral to prevent them from reproducing?

Discuss.
I think you should look up the definitions for 'logic' and 'irrational' before you open your mouth.

What you're talking about here is eugenics. Completely morally wrong.

If you say they contribute virtually nothing to society then you may as well throw music in there too. Just because it's not tangible it doesn't mean there's no contribution. I know one mentally handicapped person that works in a sports store (and he's convinced he's some kind of pro hockey player - it's cute) and he knows more about the job and everything involved than most of the others that do the same thing.

They are not worthless like you've made them out to be, and to be quite honest, you've presented a poor argument.

edit:
I'm sick of seeing the world move down this path of efficiency. What happened to our morals and spirits? If something becomes obsolete we have to salvage or discard it? Come on...

Twyman88
03-31-2009, 10:34 AM
All I can say is..Gattaca man. With the news that in some places parents are now able to choose the color of their childs hair, eyes, skin and sex, who knows how long before we are able to eliminate genetic disorders? And whos to say its right?

sglover34479
03-31-2009, 10:41 AM
true that allowing retarded people to reproduce is potentially highly problematic.

but think about this another way: if we ban retarded people from reproducing, it will pave the way for a whole series of reproduction bans on several other races/types/religions/tribes/cultures.

we must understand that we cannot take such a risk. we must not allow for the mentality of a "superior race" to influence our decisions.

I like this guy.

sglover34479
03-31-2009, 10:44 AM
I think you should look up the definitions for 'logic' and 'irrational' before you open your mouth.

What you're talking about here is eugenics. Completely morally wrong.

If you say they contribute virtually nothing to society then you may as well throw music in there too. Just because it's not tangible it doesn't mean there's no contribution. I know one mentally handicapped person that works in a sports store (and he's convinced he's some kind of pro hockey player - it's cute) and he knows more about the job and everything involved than most of the others that do the same thing.

They are not worthless like you've made them out to be, and to be quite honest, you've presented a poor argument.

edit:
I'm sick of seeing the world move down this path of efficiency. What happened to our morals and spirits? If something becomes obsolete we have to salvage or discard it? Come on...


This man knows his ****. Mentally retarded people aren't worthless, I know a lot of them, and they run a successful internet guitar forum :p
Seriously though, they are actually very dedicated to their jobs when they can do them, and they are people nonetheless, if someone if born with out arms, should you kill them at birth? They aren't going to be able to do much. The answer to that riddle is no.

Astyan
03-31-2009, 11:10 AM
Honestly, the question raised in this topic could be an issue if mental retardation was widespread. But as it is, the percentage of severely handicapped people is so low that we shouldn't bother wondering if health care services or anyone should prevent such individuals from reproducing. They'll never be a threat to the majority, it's not a kind of spreading disease we should fight or anything like that. In fact, very few people suffering from a mental handicap actually reproduce.

Such people do suffer in everyday life situations, though. So my opinion is generally that we should let the mentally retarded live a normal life without any interference, but any embryo showing signs of strong mental handicap at birth should be aborted as long as it is not fully grown yet.

OddOneOut
03-31-2009, 11:18 AM
Sure they should be allowed wouldnt really matter seeing as in 99% of the cases they cant.
That was my thought. Surely if they are severely retarded they wouldn't be able to anyway.

I think all you can do is explain to them, in a way they can understand, the consequences of having a child. I wouldn't want to say they're not allowed children.

chrispfried
03-31-2009, 02:35 PM
There are certain defects that also have the effect of sterilization, but your everyday severe retardation has little to nothing to do with the southern plumbing.

yeah i know there is no deffect down in the southern plumbing, but in order to reproduce, u have to give half? of ur chromosomes, and if ur missing one, either the baby will have a defect, or no baby will ever even be produced

thefuzz454
03-31-2009, 02:38 PM
^ I think you're thinking of downs and thats when they have an extra chromosome.

JamesDouglas
03-31-2009, 02:47 PM
I'm a huge fan of eugenics. So my answer is 'no.'

antianti99
03-31-2009, 03:04 PM
I don't think anyone should have their right to have children taken away. But at the same time having a child that you know will most likely be born severely disabled and you wouldn't be able to care for is just irresponsible. As it is now if two parents were too severely handicapped to care for their children would just have the child taken away by social services.

soccermom
03-31-2009, 03:05 PM
What? What is thing being debated. Someone give me an example of the SEVERELY mentally retarded having sex let alone reproducing.

And most forms of mental disorders like retardation happen because of mutations not alleles.

Zombee
03-31-2009, 03:06 PM
Good question.

No, their life is ****ty enough without us limiting them further.

sour cake
03-31-2009, 03:12 PM
no way, if it were the case then we should just kill every race/person for being different.

there still human and have a right to live, which is very surprising to hear from me.

HereticHammer01
03-31-2009, 03:21 PM
Should severely mentally handicapped individuals be allowed to reproduce?

On the one hand:

-They contribute virtually nothing to society.
-Often lead to disciplinary problems in public schools, because teachers are not allowed to discipline the mentally handicapped by law.
-Huge legal struggles.


So 1. you say that you have to contribute to society to be allowed to have sex...they re totally unrelated so not sure how you worked that out.
2.You re saying mentally handicapped are disruptive...bollocks, they are as disruptive as any other group of people, telling someone off is not counted as discrimination if they need to be told.
3.Legal struggles i m not sure what you re alluding to?

Archaon
03-31-2009, 04:21 PM
I'm a huge fan of eugenics. So my answer is 'no.'
Great, you can start off by castrating yourself.

I don't understand why people are so ****ing concerned with future generations you'll never be a part of. Here's a relevant quote I've taken from one of the greatest video games ever to grace the industry (Sid Meier's: Alpha Centauri):

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

soccermom
03-31-2009, 04:24 PM
Yeah fuck the future, gay orgy anyone?

iantheman
03-31-2009, 04:36 PM
pretty sure it's not much of a problem, since most of them don't get laid much.

yellowshirtguy
03-31-2009, 04:47 PM
On the other hand:

-They are people too.
-We shouldn't discriminate.



Because of what is quoted above, they should be able to. Obviously they shouldn't be allowed to donate sperm to a sperm bank or something, but there is no laws against that, that is just the sperm bank's job to filter out candidates and donors.

They should have every other right that any other "normal" person has. I am including the right to own guns, and everything else. If they can pass through any restrictions that a "normal" person is required to pass (be it any tests that everyone else must go through, like tests to allow someone to drive/ own guns/ anything else), then they have just as much right to those things as someone who is not mentally handicapped.

Mechanixx
03-31-2009, 05:26 PM
retarded people should be allowed to reproduce of course. no question about it.

+ its unlikely they would anyway. thereby eliminating themselfes from the gene pool.

Ovenman
03-31-2009, 05:31 PM
Well that couldn't possibly have negative consequenses.

sglover34479
03-31-2009, 05:41 PM
I think that if they can take care of them selves and don't have to have a nurse with them 24/7, then they should be able to.

bsoates
03-31-2009, 05:56 PM
I dont mean to sound ignorant, but I agree with the one guy above: Can severely retarded people even have sex?

Weeping_Demon7
03-31-2009, 06:03 PM
Only Kensai thing that I've ever actually lol'd at.
You've only been here a month. : :rolleyes:

Anyways, I am torn between two decisions.

Weeping_Demon7
03-31-2009, 06:04 PM
Any person with a mental retardation, has something wrong with a chromosome, usually they r missing one, and therefore cannot reproduce
You're stupid. Down Syndrome is the only form of mental retardation that has to do with lacking a chromosome. You're an idiot because you can't spell "are" right; you can't reproduce.
I think that severely retarded or horribly deformed people should have been destroyed before birth. They do have a right to life but I think that they have a right to dignity which is more important.
They have a right to dignity, so lets kill them. That's asinine wouldn't you agree?

Weeping_Demon7
03-31-2009, 06:10 PM
1) we ban retarded people from reproducing

2) several years later, under a brilliant disguise, some ****head like bush places a ban on a certain tribe/religion.

3)after several years more, bans start to involve more and more groups of people

4) by 2100, it becomes entirely "moral" and "correct" to prevent a certain group from reproducing.

5) by 2200, it becomes a weapon in which a powerful individual can wipe out an entire kind simply by influencing leadership decisions.


Sorry dude, but that isn't gonna happen, plus, it's so hard to argue a slippery slope like that. And don't try to bring your politics in here.

XxLloydxX
03-31-2009, 06:11 PM
Have sex for pleasure, of course they can. But to reproduce? No, because giving life to a retarded child is just sad.

Trefellin
03-31-2009, 06:11 PM
They have a right to dignity, so lets kill them. That's asinine wouldn't you agree?

I'm going on the fact that I'd rather die than have to suffer the indignity of being mentally retarded.

Wulphy
03-31-2009, 06:12 PM
I think you should look up the definitions for 'logic' and 'irrational' before you open your mouth.

What you're talking about here is eugenics. Completely morally wrong.

If you say they contribute virtually nothing to society then you may as well throw music in there too. Just because it's not tangible it doesn't mean there's no contribution. I know one mentally handicapped person that works in a sports store (and he's convinced he's some kind of pro hockey player - it's cute) and he knows more about the job and everything involved than most of the others that do the same thing.

They are not worthless like you've made them out to be, and to be quite honest, you've presented a poor argument.

edit:
I'm sick of seeing the world move down this path of efficiency. What happened to our morals and spirits? If something becomes obsolete we have to salvage or discard it? Come on...

Which is why I said severely mentally disabled. When you have a relative who is disabled, you will always love them no matter what. That is irrational.

Wulphy
03-31-2009, 06:16 PM
So 1. you say that you have to contribute to society to be allowed to have sex...they re totally unrelated so not sure how you worked that out.
2.You re saying mentally handicapped are disruptive...bollocks, they are as disruptive as any other group of people, telling someone off is not counted as discrimination if they need to be told.
3.Legal struggles i m not sure what you re alluding to?

1. Having children who contribute nothing is just more nothing that we don't need.

2. Not true. Look at some severe autistic individuals and tell me they aren't disruptive. It's not their fault, but it happens.

3. Parents sue schools. Happens every day.

Archaon
03-31-2009, 08:26 PM
Which is why I said severely mentally disabled. When you have a relative who is disabled, you will always love them no matter what. That is irrational.
How is it irrational to ****ing love your relative, despite any ill conditions?
1. Having children who contribute nothing is just more nothing that we don't need.

2. Not true. Look at some severe autistic individuals and tell me they aren't disruptive. It's not their fault, but it happens.

3. Parents sue schools. Happens every day.
1) Who's "we"? Are you honestly telling me that you're upset over the fact that there are mentally handicapped people out there that are consuming resources, just like any other living organism? You haven't even bothered to read or understand my previous post. Just because there is no physically tangible contribution, it doesn't mean there is none. Using this logic, we may as well ban music, since it contributes nothing, right? Let's completely ban any foods that are consumed for pleasure and reduce everyone's diets to some kind of nutritious goop which will be consumed 3-4 times a day.

These people are spiritual motivators to some. "I'm glad I'm not that guy; maybe my life isn't so bad after all"
They are workers.
They are loving family members.
They provide jobs for their caretakers.

2) Anyone can be disruptive. Irrelevant point. I've never seen a mentally handicapped person halt or slow down the progress of a class in session. I have seen a lot of normal people do it though.

3) Yeah, parents sue schools. Good observation, genius. It's not just the parents with mentally handicapped children; it's everyone. I can't even recall a single instance where this has happened.

This is just horrid. Anyone that actually supports eugenics ought to be immediately castrated. These are the ****ers that are slowing down mankind's progress.

master
03-31-2009, 08:39 PM
Natural selection will eventually weed their genes out of existence anyways, no?

bigbunny
03-31-2009, 08:41 PM
Yes the severely retarded should be allowed to reproduce, our children's children need lulz too!

Archaon
03-31-2009, 08:43 PM
Natural selection will eventually weed their genes out of existence anyways, no?
No.

Yanks4Life92
03-31-2009, 08:46 PM
Yes, yes they should.

SpelChek
03-31-2009, 08:52 PM
The question here is why would we need to make laws against it? I don't think many normal people want to have sex with a retarded (mentally handicapped whatever floats your boat) person.

chrispfried
04-01-2009, 06:54 AM
You're stupid. Down Syndrome is the only form of mental retardation that has to do with lacking a chromosome. You're an idiot because you can't spell "are" right; you can't reproduce.




o ok i see, so all other mental retardation's can reproduce? (wow that sounded retarded)

mergapoot
04-01-2009, 07:05 AM
If the child has a 100% chance of being severally disabled as well then no i don't think it should be allowed, but if there is reasonable chance of it not being disabled and the parents would be able to look after the child then i'm fine with it.

faint_spirit
04-01-2009, 07:37 AM
No. It's as simple as that.

freedoms_stain
04-01-2009, 08:07 AM
You're stupid. Down Syndrome is the only form of mental retardation that has to do with lacking a chromosome. You're an idiot because you can't spell "are" right; you can't reproduce.downs syndrome, otherwise known as trisomy 21 is caused by the presence of an extra copy of chr 21, not a missing copy. There is only one type of monosomy in humans that isn't fatal and mental retardation isn't among its symptoms. I an't remember the name but it involves females having only 1 sex chr.

Yngwi3
04-01-2009, 02:39 PM
I... agree... with the notion that they shoudn't.

Wulphy
04-01-2009, 02:50 PM
How is it irrational to ****ing love your relative, despite any ill conditions?

1) Who's "we"? Are you honestly telling me that you're upset over the fact that there are mentally handicapped people out there that are consuming resources, just like any other living organism? You haven't even bothered to read or understand my previous post. Just because there is no physically tangible contribution, it doesn't mean there is none. Using this logic, we may as well ban music, since it contributes nothing, right? Let's completely ban any foods that are consumed for pleasure and reduce everyone's diets to some kind of nutritious goop which will be consumed 3-4 times a day.

These people are spiritual motivators to some. "I'm glad I'm not that guy; maybe my life isn't so bad after all"
They are workers.
They are loving family members.
They provide jobs for their caretakers.

2) Anyone can be disruptive. Irrelevant point. I've never seen a mentally handicapped person halt or slow down the progress of a class in session. I have seen a lot of normal people do it though.

3) Yeah, parents sue schools. Good observation, genius. It's not just the parents with mentally handicapped children; it's everyone. I can't even recall a single instance where this has happened.

This is just horrid. Anyone that actually supports eugenics ought to be immediately castrated. These are the ****ers that are slowing down mankind's progress.

Chill out, man. This is an internet forum for christ's sake.

supralightning
04-01-2009, 02:53 PM
yes.

nobody has the right to enforce such a rule

you aren't better than anyone else

sock_demon
04-01-2009, 03:00 PM
Yes, just because they're retarded doesn't mean they can't love one another.

jjlane86
04-01-2009, 03:02 PM
NO THEY SHOULD NOT!

Look what happened as a result...his name is T(o.ot)


Here is just one of the outcomes of such things being permitted http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1098167

Tazeyo
04-01-2009, 03:08 PM
I'm sure they got it all sorted out.
Let 'em love!

JohnnyGenzale
04-01-2009, 03:13 PM
Chill out, man. This is an internet forum for christ's sake.

Great comeback.

CHOCOmoney
04-01-2009, 03:19 PM
IMO they can do whatever they want as long as they dont mooch off of tax payers

rob878
04-01-2009, 03:29 PM
IMO they can do whatever they want as long as they dont mooch off of tax payers

But they will...

It would be stupid of the human race to let "retards" pass on these inferior genes. We should stop them and then the human race will improve as there will be less and less retards in the world. Yes there will always be a few in the future due to mutation but with science advancing very quickly soon enough every baby born will be a "designer baby" with exactly the genes the parents want them to have.

But this will be impossible to enforce anyway....

Archaon
04-01-2009, 06:23 PM
Great comeback.
That's what I was thinking. But, hey, at least it's better than the common Christian retort against atheists...

isabiggles
04-01-2009, 06:30 PM
I think that if he can find where the weeny goes he should be allowed entry into the magical garden.

Archaon
04-01-2009, 06:33 PM
IMO they can do whatever they want as long as they dont mooch off of tax payers
*mega-facepalm* :o

Do you even have a job?

JohnnyGenzale
04-01-2009, 06:37 PM
IMO they can do whatever they want as long as they dont mooch off of tax payers

So, the mentally disabled should not be supported financially from taxes etc?

Misticalz
04-02-2009, 10:17 PM
And the rest of society will just go with it, right?


It's good enough for the SuperBowl :shrug:

Misticalz
04-02-2009, 10:19 PM
IMO they can do whatever they want as long as they dont mooch off of tax payers speaking of Mexicans, of course


Fix'd

xiphos
04-02-2009, 10:38 PM
I consider liberals severely retarded. So, no they should not reproduce. We don't need any more frickin libtards.

yellowfrizbee
04-02-2009, 10:46 PM
Of course they should you silly duck :haha


If they can and want to then you cant stop them. They are humans too.. What are you gonna do, make it illegal? Are you out to create a perfect world or something :haha?

The_Raven
04-03-2009, 07:40 AM
No. No. No. Think of what it would be like to be raised by two people with a combined IQ of 100. They would be unable to care for the child. No way.

This. We have to look at the bigger picture

gallagher2006
04-03-2009, 07:58 AM
They're not pets...

It's not like we can make it illegial for retards to breed without a license

matt169
04-03-2009, 08:04 AM
-They contribute virtually nothing to society.


So because someone contributes virtually nothing to society because of something that happened to them through no fault of their own they shouldn't be "allowed" to reproduce. Wow, why don't we start denying cancer patients reproducing abilities as well as they have more chance of passing to the next generation.

Thats called selective breeding and it's ethically wrong. :rolleyes:

I'm with Kensai on this one.

SlackerBabbath
04-03-2009, 09:17 AM
The problem with interfering with someone's rights to reproduction because of a geneticaly inherited mental condition, is the question of where you stop.
The obvious reason for the notion would be because the mentaly handicapped would be detrimental to society in some way, so if you OK the steralisation of the geneticaly mentaly ill, that opens the flood gates of the steralisation of any other condition that is deemed 'detrimental to society' too, including geneticaly inherited physical conditions.
This then makes society see people with any severe physical condition as detrimental, geneticaly inherited or not. They become second class citizens, regarded as a drain on resorces. People who are perfectly geneticaly 'normal' but have had a terrible accident would also be included in this group.

And that term 'geneticaly normal' is a very dangerous term, in order to define which people are steralised and which are not, people will have to define what is geneticaly 'normal' or 'abnormal'. But what is 'geneticaly normal'? Evolution relies on genetic mutation, should we effectively end our own evolution by stating what is genetical normal and steralising all other versions?

Even worse, what if someone defines something like having 'white skin' for example as geneticaly abnormal? It's a fact that many more white people get skin cancer than black people, so you could possibly argue that having white skin is geneticaly detrimental to society. Practicaly every race of people have some genetic trait that in another culture is regarded as detrimental. Many native Africans for example are lactose intolerant.
Tallness has been suggested to be associated with better cardio-vascular health and overall better-than-average health and longevity, so should we steralise all short people?
In direct correlation to the original question of mental illness, epidemiological studies have also demonstrated a positive correlation between height and intelligence. The reasons for this association appear to include that height serves as a biomarker of nutritional status or general mental and physical health during development and that common genetic factors may influence both height and intelligence.

So it's not looking good for short people is it? And because some races are naturaly shorter than others that's another reason to call cirtain races geneticaly abnormal and steralise those races out of existence.

Y'see where it can all lead? A nightmare scenario. This is why we don't generaly mess about with the rights to reproduction of any particular group of geneticaly defined people, because we are all geneticaly defined and to someone from .

The Shroom420
04-03-2009, 09:35 AM
Because, after 100 or so years, their residence will degrade, too. Their former classmates might have had a disruption in their education, their collegues will have impairment, and society will go down that much more.


This, of course, is if EVERYTHING goes like I thought it would.


Ooo I love Idiocracy

pooflinger069
04-03-2009, 09:41 AM
Personally if I was retarded and had to go to the doctor a lot just to live I would want to be put out of my misery...I'm not sayin we should kill them all but I know I wouldn't want to live

Meths
04-05-2009, 03:49 PM
Lets keep the "My cousin is extremely retarded and I still love him" things out of here, because it's not based on logic, it's based on irrational love.

Moving on:

Should severely mentally handicapped individuals be allowed to reproduce?

On the one hand:

-They contribute virtually nothing to society.
-Often lead to disciplinary problems in public schools, because teachers are not allowed to discipline the mentally handicapped by law.
-Huge legal struggles.

On the other hand:

-They are people too.
-We shouldn't discriminate.

We are not talking about executing the retarded, just preventing them from reproducing. As mental diseases are proven to be hereditary, is it moral to allow more severely handicapped individuals into the world? Is it moral to prevent them from reproducing?

Discuss.

Are they?

And this begs the obvious question of where to draw the line. How retarded is too retarded?

soccermom
04-05-2009, 03:53 PM
People with diseases like Huntington's which is dominant should not be allowed to breed, its extremely dangerous.

Dobzilla
04-05-2009, 03:54 PM
Eugenics! Fuck yeah!

crazy8rgood
04-05-2009, 03:54 PM
I have a better question:

Who the **** has sex with a retard?

MightyAl
04-05-2009, 04:03 PM
I have a better question:

Who the **** has sex with a retard?
Other retards? Perverts? Lazy rapists?

crazy8rgood
04-05-2009, 04:05 PM
Other retards? Perverts? Lazy rapists?
:haha, just the thought of two retards ****ing is hilarious.

"Duh put it in dere?"

Meths
04-05-2009, 04:09 PM
^Yeah, disabled people are fucking hilarious.

Reported for being a fucking idiot.

People with diseases like Huntington's which is dominant should not be allowed to breed, its extremely dangerous.

Huntington's doesn't kick in 'til someone's about 50. They should be allowed to reproduce. Just like anyone else, no matter how shitty their genes.

Three things eugenecists should think about:

1)Who gives you the right to decide?
2)Where should the line be drawn?
3)If that line was drawn just a tiny bit higher, you'd be gone too.

MercyfulFate505
04-05-2009, 04:19 PM
And the rest of society will just go with it, right?

The coin is the law

It's not the government's business to tell a law abiding citizen that they can or cannot have children.

crazy8rgood
04-05-2009, 04:20 PM
^Yeah, disabled people are fucking hilarious.

Reported for being a fucking idiot.


You can't report me for that.

And I should probably rephrase: I don't think that people with disabilities are hilarious, what I DO find hilarious, is how awkward that would be.

Meths
04-05-2009, 04:30 PM
You can't report me for that.

And I should probably rephrase: I don't think that people with disabilities are hilarious, what I DO find hilarious, is how awkward that would be.

I can and I did. I'm pretty sure making fun of disabilities is against the rules and if it isn't, it should be.

You have no idea what it would be like so why don't you stop digging a hole and just shut the fuck up?

crazy8rgood
04-05-2009, 04:33 PM
I can and I did. I'm pretty sure making fun of disabilities is against the rules and if it isn't, it should be.

You have no idea what it would be like so why don't you stop digging a hole and just shut the fuck up?
Listen, you obviously have some sort of relative or somebody close to you with disabilities, I really don't find people with disabilities funny, at all. I already cleared that up, what I did think was funny is the awkwardness of that situation.

I have a cousin with tourettes, but I don't get all upset when people make tourettes jokes, things happen, getting upset over it isn't going to change that.

RocksAwakening5
04-05-2009, 04:34 PM
Thats a good question. Im on the fence sad to say.

soccermom
04-05-2009, 04:37 PM
Huntington's doesn't kick in 'til someone's about 50. They should be allowed to reproduce. Just like anyone else, no matter how shitty their genes.


Exactly, thats why its dangerous, Hidden and a dominant allele. if your mother or father suffers from Huntingtons, I don't think you should be able to reproduce.

Meths
04-05-2009, 04:56 PM
Listen, you obviously have some sort of relative or somebody close to you with disabilities, I really don't find people with disabilities funny, at all. I already cleared that up, what I did think was funny is the awkwardness of that situation.

I don't have any relatives with disabilities or know anyone with disabilities.

How would you know if the situation was awkward? Why do you think you have to be fully physically and mentally able to not be awkward when having sex? Why did you use an incredibly offensive stereotype of the mentally disabled when making a joke about it?

I have a cousin with tourettes, but I don't get all upset when people make tourettes jokes, things happen, getting upset over it isn't going to change that.

You're right, we should just let people get away with outrageous shit, that's a good way to improve things. :rolleyes:

Exactly, thats why its dangerous, Hidden and a dominant allele. if your mother or father suffers from Huntingtons, I don't think you should be able to reproduce.

Why? Is living 'til 50 not long enough for you? Why can crackheads raise kids but an academic with Huntington's can't? Why should you deny someone the right to reproduce on the chance (it's only a chance) that their kids might have a disease that doesn't kick in until you're 50 years old?