[Comrade Ogilvy]

Should severely handicapped people with strongly hereditary handicapps etc. be allowed to reproduce?

[Groovesmith]

Well take some like Stephen Hawkings... sure he's handicapped and he is still a brillant person. I recall i also met one kid in my school who had severe problems and still the kid managed to excel in pratical education. Sure handicapped people might be seen as a drag to society (less productive) but when you really thinik aboiut it.... you dont need every physical feature to work perfecty at a certain job.

I would consider something more on the lines of genetic reconstruction, however I am unaware if they can yet do that effeciently; couple more years id say. Nonetheless its unjust to say that you shouldnt be allowed to reproduce simply because you have severe handicaps etc etc.

[Truth-a-naut]

Yes, but Hawkings wasn't born like that; his body degenerated over time.

[Todd D.]

Yes. You cannot make restrictions on people's ability to have sex.

[Groovesmith]

Yes, but Hawkings wasn't born like that; his body degenerated over time.

Im a wanker then.... did not know that. So he didnt have any genetic problem which lead up to that? I mean just because you dont devlop it at birth... doesnt mean you dont have the possiblty to genetically devlop it later.

[unPerson1]

People with severe genetic mutations and diseases should not be allowed to reproduce.

Why? It isn't fair to their children, who don't get a fair chance to live in the world. Sure, life isn't fair in general, but why let something that we can prevent happen?

I can't imagine why someone in their right mind would want to have children knowing that they will turn out blind, mute, unable to walk, etc.

[Todd D.]

So let's extend that to the limit. Let's not let people with sickle cell anemia, HIV in general, or a history of cancer reproduce? Quite frankly that is just stupid.

[Boondock Saint]

Quite frankly that is just stupid.

Which brings us to the next group to be sterilized ...

[Yeddi]

Why? It isn't fair to their children, who don't get a fair chance to live in the world. Sure, life isn't fair in general, but why let something that we can prevent happen?

But isn't any life better than no life? It's not as if they would have absolutly terrible lives, i mean their parents were able to meet, fall in love (presumably) and reproduce. What's wrong with that life.

The same logic could be aplied and say, Ethiopians are not allowed to reproduce... look at their country, they'd have a terrrible time, best to stop them existing. Actually the whole African continent is in pretty bad shape, lets say none of them can. And those working class.. they're being exploited! what kind of life is that, no kiddies for them.

[Maxim Litvinov]

OK. I believe that it should be decided according to specific circumstances, with only the most critical of situations being worthy of 'denial of reproduction'.

But I also think a lot of people don't understand the denial of reproduction POV. So here is my elaboration.

When we are talking about severely handicapped people, we are often talking about two things -
i) people who can't care for themselves.
ii) people who can't be deemed responsible for their own actions.

That is, for (i) someone might not be able to perform everyday actions like getting dressed, going to work, taking a shower etc.

If it is probable that two such incapacitated people will be attempting to bring up a similar baby, then this is a difficult situation. Presumably, if they are responsible adults then they should have this choice. But, it must be noted that they will be bringing a child into the world that they cannot look after. Just as they need carers, so will their child. This should be a serious concern.

But (ii) is the most complex. Parents of intellectually-handicapped children don't want their children falling pregnant, or having babies. Why? Because it is the babies' grandparents who ultimately have to bring up the children.

Furthermore, if the person is so handicapped as to not realise the results of their actions, then they will not link sex to pregnancy and will not have made an informed decision about sex in the first place. Pregnancy will be traumatic, and they won't be able to bring up the children. Sex, in certain circumstance may be also automatically considered 'rape', from the POV that the subject cannot offer informed consent. Allowing this whole process to take place some would say would only occur as the result of negligent parenting on behalf of non-handicapped parents.

Now, as I said at the start, I don't believe government should intervene because I know situations differ from person to person. The types of situations on this thread range from two intelligent, informed adults deciding to have a child even though it may be handicapped, through to two people with a combined mental age below 10 being allowed to have unprotected sex without knowing the consequences. Horses for courses.

[Truth-a-naut]

But isn't any life better than no life?

Applied to what?
Someone who has lived... or someone who has not yet lived?
If it's the latter the whole concept is irrelevant.

I don't think it's possible to create a 'pure' species though, we'd be continually sterilizing ourselves into oblivion.

[Yeddi]

Applied to what?
Someone who has lived... or someone who has not yet lived?
If it's the latter the whole concept is irrelevant.

I hate you goldstein, most of your posts are hilarious witisisms, and then you show that you think.
True, what diference does non life have to someone who doesn't exist never will exist? Nothing.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Before we can truly implement a system of sterilization of the handicapped, we must sufficiently educate society to the dangers posed to them from allowing the breeding of and by Ballasterexistenzen (valueless individuals). We can achieve this awareness through a variety of means, education films, speeches by party leaders and testimonies from medical professionals. Once society is sufficiently educated to the dangers of allowing these ballasterexistenzen to reproduce, it is but a small step to the next phases of our societical purification program.

Please consider this qoute from an enlightened colleague:

"It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelyhood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all eternity"

Dr. Arthur Guest, Director of Public Health, Ministry of the Interior (Third Reich), 1935

[Goranhammer]

As someone who still works a little in the mental health profession, I can say that there should not be anything that keeps them from reproducing.

A very small percentage of "handicapped" people are that way due to heredity. Many of them became so because of an accident. Many were due to actions while they were still a fetus or very, very young. These people, should they choose to reproduce, would have no greater risk of a disability than if two fully functional adults had a kid.

This is something I know a bit about, as I am going for my Masters in mentally impaired education. If you knew some of the kids I work (and worked) with, you'd understand.

[Astaroth]

I agree with Maxim here wholeheartedly. Government should not be involved in any way in this.

I have known several families of older downs-syndrome children who are well within and after the adolescent stage of growth. There is nothing impaired with their sex drives (as I understand it, but I should verify with Dra. Astaroth, my wife) and are quite akin to having sexual relationships. Much like young children who are exploring the unexplored, young adult handicapped 'children' in this case have quite a penchant for exploring sexuality, but have little understanding of what their hormones are suggesting to them, nor the consequences, as Maxim has put very well already.

At this point, it should not be the government, but the parents/legal guardians who should ensure that this 'mistake' does not happen.

I believe as a society we need to accept a level of personal responsibility on our procreation:

My wife this weekend was faced with a threat that she had heretofore never dealt with in her profession. She was working with a 'frequent flier' in the hospital, a potential IV drug user, and could not find a vein for her IV push. Following accepted procedures in this circumstance, she removed a glove to help her find a vein...she hit an artery. Her hand was fully covered with the highly pressurized burst of blood that came forth.

This is a low-risk scenario for HIV transfer, but it is STILL a risk...the patient was tested (negative) but did not alleviate her fear of transfer for quite awhile....why my digression here?

This kind of scenario, if it had played out to the worst of circumstances, could have put my wife and I into a lifestyle that we had no choice over--HIV marriage.

Would we go on and have kids?

I would say that it would be our SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY to say NO to procreation.

This is where I think the government should stay out, and we show personal responsibility to the morals and ethics of this society.

Astaroth

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Quite frankly that is just stupid.

Which brings us to the next group to be sterilized ...

Haha, too good Boon.

[Randomizer]

First of all we already take care of our genetics by not allowing incest. If we do not allow it because it brings children with defective genes, than by the same logics we could prohibit people with hereditary disabilities to reproduce. There is however a matter or determining when abnormalty is actually a disability. You can have a brilliant mind in a weak body after all. The traditional way of determining whether someone is worthy of passing his genes on is natural selection. Provided we had a society with zero welfare where you live or die by your abilities free reproduction under any conditions will be perfectly OK in my book.
However while I think that people should not have someone dictate them what they can and what they cannot do, in our society many people who wouldn't survive otherwise will live on thanks to state-funded medicine. Furthermore, it is the state that will take care of their children as well should the defective genes be passed on to them. Under such condition IMHO provided you have a person with severe disability (particularily, or rather only mental) the society has the right to limit reproduction. You could theoretically allow it provided any children in such cases will receive no support from the state, but this will create more problems than solve.

[1skull2hands]

Should severely handicapped people with strongly hereditary handicapps etc. be allowed to reproduce?

I don't see why not. The world is already full of freaks and sinners reproducing at an uncontrollable level! Why can't the cripples join the orogy as well?

Have you ever seen the movie's pumpkin or mask?
Those films bring light to the humanity behind mankinds physical differences!