quote:Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.

Quote:

Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?

I don't know if I would advocate putting mentally retarded children in the system the way it is handled currently. The chances of that child being adopted, I'm guessing, would be very slim (along with minority children, etc.).

Then perhaps a close examination and possible overhaul of the caresystem is in order.

But it's not all about the system: people who want to adopt want "perfect" children and in most cases, white healthy children.

Try to change *that* "system".

No I dont mean change the system by which people adopt. I mean change the system which takes car of those children who arent going to be adopted and whose parents arent able/allowed to raise them. In such cases the care afforded those children by the state should be the best your society can offer in terms of trained careworkers, foster families and specialised units which give the basics of a homelife to these kids. In such a system it is less critical that each child be adopted out. As long as the care they recieve is intimate enough ( small scale carehomes with permanent staff who can provide a reasonable rolemodel as defacto parent figure or heavily governed fostering )they can be given much of what they would have/should have been getting from their flesh and blood in terms of foundation and character building. With enough attention given to the care system it is possible to give these kids warm and affectionate environments in which to grow up.

another judge decision regarding having kids
 

Scripps Howard News Service
May 07, 2004

- CAMPBELL COUNTY, Ky. - A judge has been giving some men who are tens of thousands of dollars behind on child support the option of going to jail or having a vasectomy.

Family Judge D. Michael "Mickey" Foellger also suggested to at least one woman - who was having her eighth child taken away from her because of neglect - that she have a tubal ligation.

As the only family-court judge in the county, Foellger said he adopted the policy because he feels it's an effective way to get his message across - that having children is a responsibility that is not for everyone.

"If these children are in poverty because these guys are not paying their child support, I have no qualms about it," he said. "I don't think these men deserve to have any more children."

- Cincinnati Post

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story...-05-07-04&cat=

Watch it...

Eh, no. I was actually thinking along the lines of the post you made directly after the above one.

*Coughs* aheh.
May I refer my honourable friend to the reply I gave earlier.


Whilst we're on sweeping generalisations about other people's arguing techniques I would point out Lady Sidhe's tendency to print ranting diatribes which focus on individual non typical cases and then spin off into right wing stereotypes
I dont imply what is meant by those rants, I take them to their logical conclusion or I interpret what is said according to the words that are printed. If someone doesnt want to be interpreted as a right wing extremist maybe they shouldnt use their terminology and arguments.

Do I believe she is a fascist? No I dont. I am sure she is as horrified by the idea of fascism as most of us are. Do I think some of her ideas verge into their territory? Well frankly yes. Eugenics can sound a little fascistic when proposed as solutions to social problems. Not of course that this is something just Lady Sidhe argues. I notice quite a few people on this board are comfortable with such matters

There used to be a saying in my country. "Say what you like about Hitler at least he made the trains run on time" Perhaps then not all his ideas were so way off base? That's the trouble with fascism. As a political ideology it has certain elements within it which ordinary decent folks can relate to and see the value of.

You think I can argue better than this? I am flattered really. No really Onyx. Coming from you that means a lot.

Just to reign this away from personal insults and back to the issue at hand. What about people who are not mentally disabled/retarded whose future progeny are substantially at risk from certain serious hereditary disorders ? Would you advocate enfored sterilsation so as to prevent that furture child having to suffer ?

What if tests have shown that a feotus is likely to be born with downsyndrome? What if the child is likely to be profoundly disabled? Would you advocate enforced termination? ( assuming this is discovered early enough )

My Apologies. After looking back at my post, I realize how harsh it sounds. I didn't mean for it to be that harsh.

.......Likewise it was not really warranted or fair that I respond to a shot across my bow from OnyxCougar by swinging at Lady Sidhe:P

Onyx.
I disagree. I merely point out what I see as the implication inherent in what I have read. When you make a statement your words carry a literal meaning but they also (often) carry with them implications. Your words do not exist in a vacuum, if someone suggests that the mentally retarded shouldnt be allowed to breed the implication is clear, without that person having to say we should sterilise them. If someone's words carry with them an implication of something else/ further, then I will use that in my argument. It's a fairly standard debating technique. I would point out also that I am often misunderstood ( by you) to have implied someone's words to have been other than they were when in fact I was taking what they had said to absurdity to illustrate a point.

Enforced Termination? No. If the child was shown to actually be Down's or profoundly retarded then sterilization can be considered I think.

So, if a person had a strong probablity of passing along genes which may result in severe disablement of their future child, is it their choice or the governent's as to whether or not they take that risk?