Quote:
Originally posted by marichiko
Ideally, if you realize that you can't take care of a child, you should take steps to ensure that you don't bring one into the world. What about people who lack the capacity to make this decision for themselves? There you place a foot on that damn slippery slope. Human beings are not cats and dogs that we make decisions for in order to bring the population of domestic pets under control. At what IQ level do you set the line for enforced sterilization? 90? 80? What about a person who has an IQ of 79? Intelligence is not a matter of simple Mendelian inheritance. Multiple alleles, as well as environmental factors all play a role in a person's eventual IQ as an adult. If we set the precedent of sterilizing one segment of the population as "undesirable", isn't it that much easier to go after the next group and then the next? Where does it stop? I think the answer of "sterilize the bastards!" is too simplistic an approach to a very complex and potentially lethal question. Do we really want "Big Brother" intruding into our lives and deciding if we are fit to be parents or not? Would everyone who gave birth have to present some certificate of "eugenics" to the government or be forced to have an abortion? I am extremely wary of the seeming fast and easy solution of "sterilize them all!"
|
SM said it very well.
Actually, the way I see it is this: you have to take a test in order to get a driver's license, so that you can be trusted to be on the road. Why is it that you don't have to take a test to be a parent? Doesn't being qualified to raise kids rate just as high on the priority scale as being able to drive?
Secondly, environmental factors don't have that big an effect on mental retardation. You don't become functional if you're profoundly retarded, and you don't go from being functional to being profoundly retarded short of something like lead poisoning or an accident. There's a difference.
And why shouldn't we take steps to bring the population of unwanted children under control? I'm not advocating abortion, I'm advocating PREVENTION. For those who lack the capacity to make the decision for themselves, or who are, because of that lack of capacity, subject to possible sexual victimization, SOMEONE has to make the decision for them. You don't miss what you never had.
As to the IQ level one sets for enforced birth control or enforced sterilization, I've already established my opinion on that one: if you're not able to take care of yourself to the point where you must be institutionalized so that someone else can take care of you, then you should not be allowed to have children.
I'm not saying they're "undesirable." I'm saying that they aren't able to take care of themselves, and therefore should not be allowed to bring into the world children that they can't take care of. I personally think people with a history of abusing children should be sterilized. It's nothing personal. It's what's best for the children, or potential children. There's nothing wrong with requiring profoundly retarded people to be on norplant or some other type of birth control. I advocate Norplant because it isn't something that has to be remembered, either by the individual or by the caretaker. It's continual birth control for five years.
Perhaps if there were standards for becoming parents, there would be fewer abused children out there. Do you think a floridly psychotic person with delusions of persecution, who won't take their meds, should have children that they could possibly incorporate into their delusions and possibly harm? And since we know that schizophrenia runs in families, should we expose these children to possible mental illness in themselves?
I'm not talking about a Big Brother situation. I'm talking about common sense. If you abuse your child, they take it away. You're not allowed to have that child anymore. If you neglect your child, the state likewise steps in. Profoundly mentally retarded individuals will neglect a child because they don't know any better. Therefore, they, like any other neglectful parent, should not have said child. The best way to prevent neglect on the part of the profoundly retarded person is to prevent them from having children in the first place.
Sidhe