I don’t know who would not “allow” them, but I’m sure there are people who separate two love birds if they live in a “home” together or something.
I personally think if they are semi-high functioning, they have someone to help them raise the kids and are not so retarded that they don’t know how to speak, that they should go ahead. Love is love, but everything should be explained to them.
I don’t have much experience or knowledge in this area and it’s been briefly discussed amongst me and my friends, but what do you feel about this issue?
Agree about the importance of having help in the parenting, certainly. Many people with mental disabilities have extremely loving and gentle natures and would make very affectionate and wonderful parents, but there needs to be somebody who’s able to cope with issues like getting a child to an emergency room, filling out a child’s insurance and liability-waiver forms at school, and all the thousand and one extra challenges of modern technologized life that parents have to handle.
I believe that if the retardation (or whatever) is non-genetic, and that the child will be either raised appropriately by the parents or given for adoption, procreation is no problem.
If the retardation (or whatever) is genetic of a sort that is a certainty to be passed on - well, I’ve been searching my soul on that one for decades, and I still can’t answer the question.
My personal decision has been not to pass on my manic-depressive prone, addictive-personality prone, and anti-social prone genes to another generation. I think I am not capable of making that decision for someone else, even for someone not capable of making the decision for themselves.
Huh? The mentally and developmentally disabled are just like any other large group of people. Some of them are as sweet as can be, and some of them are assholes. Because many DD people superficially resemble children in their behavior, the nice ones often seem to have an added sense of innocence and sweetness about them, and the mean ones are easier to write of as not knowing what they’re doing, but their personalities are just as varied as anyone else’s.
Sorry, now that I’ve posted my response, that word “many” is jumping out at me like it’s in 32 point flashing red letters. Somehow I read your statement as a more sweeping generalization than it was. Apologies, Kimstu.
No prob! You’re right that there are stereotypes out there of DD people just having angelic personalities in general, which are misleading. I guess this is influenced by some of the less-maladaptive-behavior trends of people with Downs syndrome? And doubtless also by the simple fact that DD people with nasty personalities or problem behavior often just aren’t allowed to interact with the general public as much.
My last job but one was working with DD folks, so I got to see the wide range. You’re right that some of them are awfully sweet, and some of them (not always the same ones) would make fine parents. FTR, the organization (and possibly the State of Colorado, since almost everything we did was dictated by state law) regarded sexual freedom as one of the rights of the DD. I have no idea what would have happened if one of the clients staying in a group home (a very coveted position, by the way, not a spot someone just got dumped to keep them out of sight) got pregnant or got someone pregnant.
Unfortunately, the supervisors were a small group and didn’t show the same diversity as the clients: there were far more assholes that would be statistically predicted. I didn’t last long there.
First, you need to differentiate between a mental disability and an intellectual disability. They are two quite different things (at least here in Australia anyway). People with mental disorders come under the psychiatric umbrella (for example, depression, bi-polar and schizoid diagnoses) which mostly do not affect intellectual processes. On the other hand, intellectual disability refers to what used to be called ‘retardation’ caused by brain damage, both congenital and acquired and means an individual has great difficulty learning, and that chronological and developmental age are quite a way apart depending on the degree of damage suffered.
That being said, for people with a mental disability, I think it depends on the nature of the illness and the compliance of the individual with medical advice and care. Well managed schizophrenia and bipolar (for example) just like any other ‘chronic’ illness should not preclude folks from having children if they so desire. Do you object to people diagnosed with arthritis or poor vision procreating?
For folks with an intellectual disability, that opens up a big can of worms. Having children is sort of seen as a rite of passage into adulthood (for those who choose it) and means that the parents are now grown up enough to take on the care and nurturing of little humans by themselves and without help. (Caveat: It means that you can attend to all the needs of your offspring without outside help, not that you must do it all the time, nor that extended family and friends are dispensible.)
Intellectually disabled people, let’s use a couple who have Down’s Syndrome as an example here, will be dependent upon outside help to raise children from the word go. I don’t think that is a good idea. While friends and family might rally initially to help the couple to cope with the new arrival, the novelty is going to wear off real quick when it dawns on them this is a life-time committment. Helping Joe and Judy change nappies and feed lil’ Joshua is one thing: being Joshua’s surrogate parent/s until he is eighteen or old enough to look after himself is another thing entirely.
And then there is the stigma attached to being the child of parents who are weird. No matter how loving they are, young Joshua is always going to be the subject of cruelty and jokes about his folks from other kids and some arsehole adults. And by the age of say 7 or 12 (depending on the degree of brain damage), Joshua is going to overtake his parents in intellectual ability which may result in him taking on the parenting role himself at an awfully tender age.
Huge issue, one that many parents of young ID adults living in group housing are now facing. Dunno if there is a definitive answer, but it sure is a doozy to contemplate.
May I just add that I don’t wish my ‘disapproval’ of ID folks having kids extended to their having sex. Sexual maturity (and the joy that comes from a loving sex life) and the ability to parent effectively are (in my mind anyway) effectively exclusive.
So they can have as much hot monkey-sex as they like, just no babies.
Eh, if the only people allowed to procreate were the ones who wouldn’t be mocked by their kids’ playmates and various arsehole adults for being weird, I bet most folks wouldn’t qualify, including some very intelligent ones.
Your point about the difficulty of finding adequate parenting backup is a good one, though. Caring for children does require adequate levels of functioning, sometimes exceptionally high levels of functioning, and unfortunately you never know when one of those times will occur.
There’s been cases here of parents organising sterilisation and/or abortions for their ID adolescent girls to much hue and cry from the civil lib and disability advocacy folks who claim it is an infringement of their human rights. It IS a touchy area: should an individual have to undergo surgery for something they have not given approval for? Where is the line of ‘competency’ drawn? If society thinks it is a good thing for that individual to not bear children even though that person wishes to have a child, at what point do the parents or the state step in and veto such a decision?
Eugenics is a dangerous topic, no question. All I have to say about that is that, in virtually every case, when we toy with stuff like this we get burned.
I don’t see how a potentially disabled person is any more of a burden than any other type of disabled person, including older people who may have advocated a policy like this earlier in their lives. I do see asking for approval from the government as a huge problem, however.
Thank you, Frank! I’m 43, female and bipolar. I also don’t have any children, mostly because I’m worried about how my disorder will affect them. Beside the fact that when I’m manic I’d probably scare the poor kids to death or scar them for life, I really don’t want to risk passing my faulty genes on. Hardly anyone I’ve tried to explain this to “gets it.” I’m glad somebody does!
On the subject of the OP, I don’t want the government or some other “them” going there. It’s way too slippery a slope!
As a former psychiatric nurse I have to admit that I believe that mentally challenged people should not be allowed to procreate. Of course I assume by mentally challenged you mean -
the religious right
Bush supporters
conspiracy theorists
the idiot half of the green movement
the Australian Labor party
the Liberals
scientologists
and possibly the Barmy Army.
On the contrary, retards and those with defective genes should be encouraged to procreate - what has posterity ever done for us ?
I fully support the right of a Downs syndrome individual to be a 747 pilot or even better an aviation Radar controller. Reminds me of Cyril K Kornbluth’s ‘The Marching Morons’
Actually I believe in strict eugenics, having a couple of non obviously visible physical deformities made my life a misery - and I would not want to inflict that on anyone else.
Some relatives of mine had a child that grew to an adult as a non sentient drivelling mess in an oversize pram - it ruined their lives.
Personally I would have everyone sterilized, and reverse the op if they proved themselves physically and mentally competent.
