quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Alright, I understand where you are coming from, and like I said, I am on the fence when it comes to this. However, I do not think it fair to leave a helpless child with someone who is unsound, without any other option. A lot of the time, the kids don't even realize that "mommy" or "daddy" is any different, and they develop some very hindering attributes to their personalities. Once they find out, it can also be a very damaging experience. In the end, my concern is more for the child, not so much the parent.

isnt the whol gay marriage debate against defining what is and is not a family based on traditional mindsets?

Who are we to judge what a capable family is and who can and cannot properly love a child? Gay people are "different" from most of society.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Very few people should be allowed to have children....forget whether they are physically or mentally challenged.

hahah EXACTLY!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 isnt the whol gay marriage debate against defining what is and is not a family based on traditional mindsets? Who are we to judge what a capable family is and who can and cannot properly love a child? Gay people are "different" from most of society.

I think it's apples and oranges.

Gay people can provide 'normal' care, at least functional mentally to provide adequate care for kids.

Mentally handicapped people may not be.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I think it's apples and oranges. Gay people can provide 'normal' care, at least functional mentally to provide adequate care for kids. Mentally handicapped people may not be.

It may be apples and oranges or it may not be depending on where you stand in this debate. Some people could argue successfully for what "normalcy" is based on how it is applied against mentally disabled people if this were to become a law. After all the premise is what is fair for the children. Some people may argue successfully that the only thing fair to a child is a mom and a dad not a dad and a dad and base the whole thing on how that premise was applied to the mentally handicapped cases.

You cant just think one way for one case and completely disregard that way of thinking in another. Thats called hypocrisy.

what people fail to think about when adovcating freedom restricting laws is the big picture and how certain precedents may be applied in the future in seperate cases that seem to be unrelated but actually are related.

I look to the pathetic smoking and pitbull laws that we have as examples. Dont think for a second they wont use the same tactics, precedents and procedures against alcohol next. Only this time it will be easier because the precedent has already been set with banning smoking.

And dont think that pitbulls will be the last breed to be banned. Now that this has happened they can easily add different breeds to that list or possibly other so called dangerous animals. (which are probably for the most part harmless). Down the road i can see the day when all dogs are banned because some idiots who dont like dogs will argue "why should i have to deal with someone else's dog". This mentality already exists in our society on SO MANY different levels.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 isnt the whol gay marriage debate against defining what is and is not a family based on traditional mindsets? Who are we to judge what a capable family is and who can and cannot properly love a child? Gay people are "different" from most of society.

Yet again, it seems you are over seeing my point. I do not think that a mentally handicapped person cannot love their child equally as much as a mentally abled person, I just don't think that they can properly raise the child with sound decisions and proper example.

A person with schizophrenia raising a child is more likely to instill an irrational paranoia onto the child, or drag the child through unusual circumstances that would otherwise be avoided if they could think properly; circumstances that can be both emotionally and mentally debilitating. This is only a couple of examples, however I am sure there are a million other scenarios.

My point is, is that these children are brought up without a sturdy ground of level thinking and can adopt the bad examples a mentally handicapped person may portray. I do not think this is healthy, or fair to the child, or the future generation of people raised by a mentally handicapped individual.

The child can develop a lot of serious social stigmas, irrational fears, resentments etc. which follow them into adult hood. Then as adults we have a bunch of socially inept, emotionally vulnerable individuals that have difficulty carrying on with regular life.

Obviously this is NOT the case in all situations, but I know this happens.

I am not saying that people should not be "allowed" to have kids by law, I am saying that I don't think they should.

I also think that there should be a very strongly encouraged program for children of mentally handicapped parents to easily have themselves involved.

I don't think any of you understand the degree of lonliness and pain a child can feel when they have a mentally handicapped parent that they don't understand.

And what about their family? would they not seek stability in their families? What if a small child has a mentally disabled sibling? Should that person be taken away from that sibling so as to not upset them?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 And what about their family? would they not seek stability in their families? What if a small child has a mentally disabled sibling? Should that person be taken away from that sibling so as to not upset them?

Yet again completely different. A sibling is not in charge of raising their sister or brother, and trying to produce a decent human being with sound judgement. A parent is a role model, a power figure. You are supposed to "do as your parents tell you to", and kids will without question for the younger years of their life.

If a mentally ill individual has this control over a younger mind, they could do a countless number of hurtful things.

And Jayx1, perhaps you have a perfect family, but not everyone does. Sometimes, it isn't an option for a child to turn to their family, or for the disabled person to either. And even if they could, does the average family member have the ability to sort out a child who has been lead by a mad person? Especially considering a childs likelihood to defend their parent out of loyalty?

quote:

Originally posted by loca Unless she was a single mother with no family whatsoever, then i think it's absolutely fine. A person who has the mental illnesses you talk about is not _constantly_ under the influence of that illness, and if they are they would not be free in society. As for the side effects on the child, i highly doubt the doctors treat pregnant mothers with those drugs. And after the child is born i don't see how the drug would have a side effect on them, as i'm pretty sure breast feeding is not recommended either.

A person with a mental disability is ALWAYS under the influence of the illness. The medication only alters it to be more socially acceptable, and bring them back to a level of normality. Regardless though, they always have the illness, and the effects of the illness will always play a role in who they are and how they behave. Many people like this are free in society, my two relatives included.

I know for a fact that a doctor will treat a pregnant mother with a drug to keep them from being in an "ill" state. Sometimes that is the only choice depending on the severity of the illness. And whether recommended or not, doesn't mean they wont do it.

However, the side effects I was referring to was the effects on the parents, which in turn affects the child. For example, a drug that causes extreme drowsiness = a constantly sleeping or tired parent, which in result means negligence to the child.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker If you're interested in questions like this - you should read the book: Practical Ethics by Peter Singer Peter Singer's remarkably clear and comprehensive Practical Ethics has become a classic introduction to applied ethics since its publication in 1979 and has been translated into many languages. For this second edition the author has revised all the existing chapters, added two new ones, and updated the bibliography. He has also added an appendix describing some of the deep misunderstanding of and consequent violent reaction to the book in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland where the book has tested the limits of freedom of speech. The focus of the book is the application of ethics to difficult and controversial social questions. Read this for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

FANTASTIC read...

one of the books I read for an ethics course in university...you may not agree with everything he says, but his writing is remarkably thought provoking.

he's also written a few other gems...Animal Liberation and How are we to Live? along with editing a collection of papers, simply titled Ethics.

pick it up if you're interested in applied ethics...you won't be disappointed...good call RJ!


FWIW, I voted for the last option, thought it's hard to avoid saying "no". To deny the mentally challenged the option to have children opens up a pandora's box...do we deny those who are economically challenged that right? the "dumb"? the neglectful? Where exactly do we draw the line on who is "too" mentally challenged to have children?

ultimately though, mentally challenged parents must be held to the same legal standards for raising children as anyone else. If they are deemed "unfit" to be parents, their children will be removed from their care.

Last edited by MarkT on Nov-30-2005 at 05:51

http://www.bccla.org/positions/pati...rilization.html

___________________
[alk]

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I think it's apples and oranges. Gay people can provide 'normal' care, at least functional mentally to provide adequate care for kids. Mentally handicapped people may not be.

I have worked with people with disabilities. Both during highschool summers and through co-op placements at one of my old jobs.

My experience would lead me to be mainly no to children issue.

Special circumstances barring their actual emotional development may apply - people with asperger's syndrome and cerebal palsy can be very highly functional and independant.

The problem with many people with mental disabilities is their lack of EMPATHY and their self-absorbedness with themselves. You may run risk of the child being neglected in many cases because they are not aware of when to administer care or recognize danger or induct survival instincts for protection of the child itself.

Example:

Baby cries - what happens? - it causes frustration to disabled parent - with the inability to controls ones emotions - baby gets thrown to the floor or hit to be quiet - compulsive behaviour of the type is very scary indeed. Potential for great harm is increased dramatically. Without empathy - why would there be any remorse felt to control actions.


you may have just read this example/argument and thought - WOW that sounds like many so-called NORMAL people out there in society......I could draw the same parallels.


I have always said that a parent that is self-absorbed and neglectful of his/her children whether through physical violence or extreme and unjust punishment - may as well be MENTALLY DISABLED


Under no circumstance do you ever have a right to touch another person violently and the fact that people do this everyday to their children and others BY CHOICE is DISPICABLE.

at least mentally disabled individuals have a valid medical excuse for not recognizing and controlling their actions - what the hell is rest of societies reason????

IT IS TRUE MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING CHILDREN WHO SHOULDNT BE!!!!!

We have this industrialized/mechanical world that we have created for ourselves - we no longer need to spawn many children to work the farms nor to bring in income for the parent to sustain families. We are all able to secure our own imprints in this society based on our own individual efforts and as members of this society have an obligation to this society we have created to keep things in perspective and be responsible for all our own actions.

Where is the personal responsibility in the fact that if you have children and you choose to not do your job (raising you child) someone else will do it for you.

FUCK THAT

Psychological testing or 100% personal responsibility requirement documents to be signed before birth moves forward could be a way to deal with the multitude of births that happen everyday in this MODERN society by people who are ill-equipped, ill-prepared, and psychologically unfit for parenting.

Like divorce - bad parenting is rampant because we have accepted it within our society and excuse it as our right and personal freedom of choice.

The minute you have a child your life is now responsible for another and why in the HELL should I personally have to pay anything to help sustain "your choice" of life-destiny - if in the end you can always just give it up for adoption and not have to deal with your resposibilities on a whim?????

Now in a different country where social programs to clean up peoples messes are not rampant - then of course more power to you because you need the children for sustainment and are not milking future government resources in regards to your bad parenting. THIS IS HOW IT WAS FOR MILLENIUMS and as it should have stayed on a larger scale. THAT I understand - and is the reality for billions around the world.

But this consumer-based/material based society we have created - in order to function needs personal responsibility from each individual to make it work properly.

Handicapped or not - there must be guidelines in place within society to prevent unwanted, uncared births and pregnancies and the people who are irresponsible for the job as parent after the fact.

I am whether through choice or not - who knows?? (Nuture vs Nature) with my lifestyle choice of Gay - not increasing our population - even though I have always had in my mind that it would have been nice to have children and have not fully ruled out the possibility.....

But I would never for a minute think about this situation (child-rearing) or bring it to happen without many things in place first.....such as sustainability of income and proper nuturing/naturing environments.

Heck I feel so strongly about this issue to even sign a document stating my responsibility to said child and forgo my options of a state-maintained existance/sustainability for my child under any circumstance.

There must be consequence for actions. I choose to live in this society and therefor I have rules that I must follow.


kinda ranted a bit off.....


but - whatever


bottom line:

too many children being born

we do not need to continue propagating the earth with offspring for survival

huge drain of resources sustaining irresponsible childbirths and people who have them

lack of individual social responisibility leads to decay within society as a whole.


and if a person with mental handicaps can wrap their head around this concept and deal with this responsiblity - then all the power to them

but if so many in society without these mental handicaps cannot even do this.........

I am afraid the number of handicap people that can shall be extremely minimal.

___________________
IF YOU GOT TRANCE IN YOUR PANTS WHIP IT OUT!!! IF NOT JUST WHIP IT OUT ANYWAY!!!

Last edited by Sean Cassidy on Nov-30-2005 at 06:40