TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Mentally handicapped having children?
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]


Posted by StereoPrincess on Nov-30-2005 20:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Porky
yes

they are still human, not animals


well actually animals can have kids whenever they want.


Posted by Moral Hazard on Nov-30-2005 20:40:

quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
well actually animals can have kids whenever they want.


touche!


Posted by Vivid Boy on Nov-30-2005 21:15:

why shouldnt they have kids? its not their fault they met chuck norris.



or is it?


Posted by Porky on Nov-30-2005 22:42:

quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
well actually animals can have kids whenever they want.


what i meant was that handicapped people still have rights as humans

...

another thought, arn't certain mental illnesses genetically inherited? I know of a family with 2 normal kids, and 1 mentally handicapped kid (i think down syndrome). if these handicapped people have children, isn't there a chance for them to NOT be handicapped and be perfectly capable functioning human beings? Forrest Gump comes to mind.


Posted by Porky on Nov-30-2005 22:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Vivid Boy
why shouldnt they have kids? its not their fault they met chuck norris.



or is it?


the more important question being... vivid are YOU allowed to have kids????


Posted by tha_broad on Nov-30-2005 23:07:


Posted by DigiNut on Nov-30-2005 23:24:

Sorry Theresa, but all you're doing is repeating the same points over and over again about why you think that mentally handicapped parents wouldn't be able to take care of their children.

You've consistently and thoroughly failed to address the real issue here, which is that the individual's human rights, handicapped or not, ALWAYS override the rights of their yet-to-be-conceived children. The topic is not even open for discussion as far as I'm concerned - what you're advocating is fascism and if you read a little bit about Adolf Hitler's ideology, you'll find that what you're suggesting is very similar. He also advocated preventing handicapped people from having children, usually by sterilization.

It doesn't matter that you're advocating for the sake of the children. In a free society the state cannot ever be involved in something so overwhelmingly personal and private - it's a gross violation of the most fundamental of human rights.

This would have been a much more interesting debate if the question was merely whether or not they should have children, as opposed to should they be allowed to have them. By advocating for the latter you're essentially telling us that you're a maladjusted authoritarian wanting to impose your will on the rest of the world. Sorry, but that's how I see it - I cannot even believe you're still going on about this.


Posted by RandomGirl on Nov-30-2005 23:39:

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Sorry Theresa, but all you're doing is repeating the same points over and over again about why you think that mentally handicapped parents wouldn't be able to take care of their children.

You've consistently and thoroughly failed to address the real issue here, which is that the individual's human rights, handicapped or not, ALWAYS override the rights of their yet-to-be-conceived children. The topic is not even open for discussion as far as I'm concerned - what you're advocating is fascism and if you read a little bit about Adolf Hitler's ideology, you'll find that what you're suggesting is very similar. He also advocated preventing handicapped people from having children, usually by sterilization.

It doesn't matter that you're advocating for the sake of the children. In a free society the state cannot ever be involved in something so overwhelmingly personal and private - it's a gross violation of the most fundamental of human rights.

This would have been a much more interesting debate if the question was merely whether or not they should have children, as opposed to should they be allowed to have them. By advocating for the latter you're essentially telling us that you're a maladjusted authoritarian wanting to impose your will on the rest of the world. Sorry, but that's how I see it - I cannot even believe you're still going on about this.


"Should mental handicapped people have or be allowed to have children?"

This was the technical question. I asked both should they be allowed to have them, and should they have them. Both seperate questions.

You're focusing on the "allowed" one, which is fine, but don't suggest that this is what I am focusing on, because I am not.


Posted by Vivid Boy on Dec-01-2005 02:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Porky
the more important question being... vivid are YOU allowed to have kids????



haha i should only be allowed tohave one to replace myself when im dead. however if i have a kid im gonna train him to be my own personal butler so he wont be like me at all..hes just gonna serve me day in and day out and do things like cook and clean


Posted by loca on Dec-01-2005 04:59:

quote:
Originally posted by tha_broad


That is exactly what i thought of when i saw this thread


Posted by Porky on Dec-01-2005 05:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Vivid Boy
haha i should only be allowed tohave one to replace myself when im dead. however if i have a kid im gonna train him to be my own personal butler so he wont be like me at all..hes just gonna serve me day in and day out and do things like cook and clean


VIVID BOY CLONES!!! the end of the world is nigh!!! run for your lives!!!!


Posted by RandomGirl on Dec-01-2005 07:10:

quote:
Originally posted by loca
That is exactly what i thought of when i saw this thread


I never saw the film, but can someone please explain what happens in it?

EDIT:

Never mind I looked it up!

Plot Summary for
I Am Sam (2001)

Sam Dawson has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old. He works at a Starbucks and is obsessed with the Beatles. He has a daughter with a homeless woman; she abandons them as soon as they leave the hospital. He names his daughter Lucy Diamond (after the Beatles song), and raises her. But as she reaches age 7 herself, Sam's limitations start to become a problem at school; she's intentionally holding back to avoid looking smarter than him. The authorities take her away, and Sam shames high-priced lawyer Rita Harrison into taking his case pro bono. In the process, he teaches her a great deal about love, and whether it's really all you need.

Can I point out that "she intentionally holds back" because she doesn't want to out smart her father. Do you not think this is unhealthy?


Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.