I was watching a tv-show a few days ago which featured -among a few other things- a couple of two mentally handicapped people. Retards, if you will. They lived together and had jobs (packing boxes, ya know), and they were under permanent guidance by social security workers in terms of hygiene around the house, their bills, etc. So they live on their own and are capable of supplying for their basic needs (cooking, washing, etc.) but still need ppl to check on them and tell them to do this or that.

Now, after a while it became clear that they had a child together. What's more, the child was also retarded. It was in a special institute and they went to visit it a few times a week; they obviously couldn't raise it because of their situation.

So; question is: do you think a couple of two retarded people should be allowed to have a kid?

I personally think they shouldn't. Not because I have a grand eugenetic masterplan (heh), but just practically: Since they are almost unable to look after themselves, they can't raise a child properly. What's more, chances that their child will also be mentally challenged are high (which then requires even more specific care), and if it turns out to be of average intelligence it will soon grow too smart for its parents and dominate them. Not to mention how a child's upbringing could be influenced by having two mentally handicapped ppl for your parents.

So: if they have a kid, they can't properly raise it anyway...so I think it's better for both parents, kids (and even society) that they shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

But then, how to go about such a thing? Forbidding ppl to have sex is kinda hard. And they're not too bright with condoms or 'counting out' fertile days and all either, I can imagine. Only option left is 'castrating' one of the partners or both. But that's a discussion for another time. But can you make ppl to get an operation? Probably not, handicapped as they might be, they still have a legal and independent status. Hard to say.

Let's hear this.

Wow, youve surely opened up a can of good old Premium Worms.

Hmm, well:

- Firstly there needs to be clear specification in what you define as 'retarded'. There may be many different kinds of mental deficiencies. Perhaps there are some that actually dont effect the paternal instincs.

- There are problems regarding welfare. Should the people be paying to permanently support a family of any kind?

- Then liberty. After all, 2 retards are still 2 people. At the moment as far as im aware, their civil liberties remain the same.

- However there is a question of doing-the-right-thing in terms of socio-political responsibility from the governments side. Will the retarded parents give their kid a life of hell? If so then, perhaps the government should take responsibility and orphanise the kid so that he can lead a good life.

So i cant yet form an opinion on this matter because i know nothing about 'retards'.

There very certainly are degrees and variations, so that's indeed a good point. I don't wanna define mentally handicappedness/retardity here, but let's say this: for this discussion, I meant ppl that cannot take care of themselves properly without guidance from a social service of some sort. Or their parents, whatever. I know someone who's technically considere to be 'weak-minded', but is still perfectly capable of looking after himself and basic affairs. So he wouldn't fall under it.

And yeah, it's still a vague definition, I know...but if social security services have a means to judge if a) ppl aren't capable to look after their own interests (and thus need guidance) or b) that they can't raise a kid (and place it in an institutionà; they shouldn't have too many problems making a division on who can and can't raise a kid, right?


@ civil liberties: indeed, I mentioned that in my initial post too..I don't think the government can make them to get the surgery. But if the government can decide to take away children without parents' permission...see my point? It's not too different from each other.

Do you know how tempted I was to state you are on crack again?
To be honest I reckon it depends on the condition. If the people are unable to look after themselves then no because how can they look after the kid, if they can cope then yes tho.

Yes they should. Not allowing to engaged in their own free human will is worse then them having a retarded baby. They are people to and they have every right just as you and me to try to have children.

I mean if retarded people cant have children then there are thousands if not millions of people who should not be allowed to have children like, crack heads, abusvie parents, ex-child molesters, people in prison, etc. Think of all the single parent mothers with no job, 5 different baby daddies and 5 kids all on welfare.

If you claim retarded people cant have children because they cant take care of the baby well re-read the above paragraph.

I mean they probably shouldnt have kids but it is their right.

Though I certainly support peoples' freedoms, I think there are limitations. If the couple's retardation is hereditary, I wouldn't want them to have children. In a more perfect world, I would want to test the fetus for retardation and abort it if it is retarded. Call it scientific natural selection.

In cases where the kid would not end up retarded, he'd still need to be removed from the retarded family and raised in a more constructive environment. I'm sure the trauma of living in a foster family or whatever would be less than knowing your parents are retarded. Can you imagine how much that kid would get teased? man...that'd be a great way to brew a serial killer.

So, anyway, I think they should be able to reproduce only if the kid won't end up retarded, and then shouldn't be allowed to take care of it if it is.

2 more points:

- I think it'd be ok if retards were allowed to freely reproduce, however, they will follow the same rules that normal people do. That is, if they neglect their child it wil be taken from them.

- What is the significance of the risk that retards are reproducing? Perhaps the issue is so negligible that we should just let them do whatever the hell they want, simply because its so uncommon.

I'm pretty sure that's the way it works right now. Over here anyway. So like with 'normal' parents their kid is taken away if it doesn't get raised properly. But I'm sure the social services will keep an extra eye out for married mentally handicapped ppl.

And aight, who put the crack option up there? No votes for me being the awesomest 1337 guy evah...I feel neglected.

Well if you would say things like that people will be tempted. Anyway I think they is both merits to the arguments but it would cause problems either way.

I chose the crack option. Anyway, I made my point known. Lol...looks like a dead debate to me.

Lol @ crack ; and no matter if it is. We got a good spread of opinions and some good reasons/counter reasons. That's what it's all about. We're all total players in the moral discussion hood now. Except Satis, he's over at crack alley inc.

You did ask for it

I agree and disagree

I agree that if a normal child is born it probably would be best raised with a normal family.

I disagree that any type of abortion should take place. There is no such thing as scientific natural selection.

I also disagree in your augment about heredity. If we are going to use heredity as a standard for birth then that opens Pandora's box. I mean a man who has committed several crimes and is in prison is in no better possible to reproduce over a humble retarded person who works at McDonalds.

Also, there are many families with small case histories with having retarded people being born in the family, like once every 20 years. They too would be subject to such a hereditary requirement would they not?

The only way to handle this is to just let the chips fall where they may.

IMO, the bottom line is: there are logistical problems without allowing these people to breed, but giving government the ability to govern reproduction in any circumstance is wrong. YOU think it's OK because it isn't legislating YOU. If this law some how applied to any of you, you would think it was bullshit, and crying bloody murder about some goverment preventing you from reproducing.

Of course. But that's how it is with everything, isn't it.


That's also the idea social security is based on: it might not happen to you, but if it happens you'd wanna be on the safe side. Etc. It's not because we're all really altruistic dudes.


What I think it comes down to (in this discussion) is: to what extent is a given retarded person capable of making his own fate/living or taking responsibility for his actions? And that of his children.

It's a grey area and it'd need to be 'figured' out by ppl in the field (because there's great variation in how they are affected by their condition), but it should be possible. It's vague, sure, but it's prolly the best (which doesn't mean it's great) option.