Thread: should bad people not be allowed to have kids?

Schizophrenia is one of the disorders where one may hear voices, however, the VAST MAJORITY of schizophrenics are not violent, the disorder can be treated with medication, and there are various levels of schizophrenia ranging from mild to severe.

I absolutely can't believe what you're saying. In your opinion, a person who has a disorder, with no violent past and no marks against them other than that they are disabled, should not only avoid having children, but be prevented from doing so if they wish. Some developmentally disabled people, with very low IQ's and mentallities should not have children. That does not mean you keep them from having one. I'm sure that doesn't make sense to you.

Let me put it this way. Are you really concerned for the child, or are you more concerned for yourself? The way I see it, most people are more concerned for themselves, worried about the behaviors and possible disabilities of these children as well. What does that make you? A genetic supremecist, a person who, more or less, believes that people with certain disabilities, disorders, and behavioral traits should not be allowed to exist. If you can't kill these people outright, you'll just keep them from having children to prevent the perpetuation of the trait.

In fact, while we're at it, how about we keep people with Alzheimer's from having kids. And, you know, ADD is really annoying too. You can forget about OCD, those people sure shouldn't have kids. Genetic Cancer trait? They might die too soon, better keep them from having kids, and their kids might get that trait too, better that they never exist in the first place and drag down our medical system. You can't have a mom who has seizures, so people with epilepsy are out. The mild schizophrenic who's in treatment? Well, they haven't displayed any violent tendencies, but they could get worse, so they're out. What about bi-polar disorder? Might be kind of wacky growing up with that, so they're out. And hey, you know what? Certain ethnicities seem to exibit more mental disorders than others, so we'll keep all of them from having kids too.

You see where this is going?

Originally Posted by erosennin

Schizophrenia is one of the disorders where one may hear voices, however, the VAST MAJORITY of schizophrenics are not violent, the disorder can be treated with medication, and there are various levels of schizophrenia ranging from mild to severe.

I absolutely can't believe what you're saying. In your opinion, a person who has a disorder, with no violent past and no marks against them other than that they are disabled, should not only avoid having children, but be prevented from doing so if they wish. Some developmentally disabled people, with very low IQ's and mentallities should not have children. That does not mean you keep them from having one. I'm sure that doesn't make sense to you.

Let me put it this way. Are you really concerned for the child, or are you more concerned for yourself? The way I see it, most people are more concerned for themselves, worried about the behaviors and possible disabilities of these children as well. What does that make you? A genetic supremecist, a person who, more or less, believes that people with certain disabilities, disorders, and behavioral traits should not be allowed to exist. If you can't kill these people outright, you'll just keep them from having children to prevent the perpetuation of the trait.

In fact, while we're at it, how about we keep people with Alzheimer's from having kids. And, you know, ADD is really annoying too. You can forget about OCD, those people sure shouldn't have kids. Genetic Cancer trait? They might die too soon, better keep them from having kids, and their kids might get that trait too, better that they never exist in the first place and drag down our medical system. You can't have a mom who has seizures, so people with epilepsy are out. The mild schizophrenic who's in treatment? Well, they haven't displayed any violent tendencies, but they could get worse, so they're out. What about bi-polar disorder? Might be kind of wacky growing up with that, so they're out. And hey, you know what? Certain ethnicities seem to exibit more mental disorders than others, so we'll keep all of them from having kids too.

You see where this is going?

Wow, you really enjoy putting words in peoples mouths just to spark an argument, don't you? I never said we should keep people who have a risk of passing on their genetic disabilities to their kids from having children. I never once said that. I was saying that we should keep people who are incapable of taking care of children from having them, key word "incapable". This means people with mental disabilities that make them imobile, severely mentaly challenged or subject to violent outbursts. Having a genetic dissability does not make you incapable of keeping care of a child nor did I ever mention that it did. So I guess this makes your argument pointless and unfouned. Try reading posts a little more thoroughly in the future before you decide to go on a rant.

Originally Posted by Exoparadapsyphobia

There are allot of people that I think shouldn't have kids. Like homosexuals, people under the age of 20, people with scitsafrinia or other severe mental conditions, convicted felans, murderers, rapists and people with drug addictions.

You should really remember what you wrote previously.

There is no aspect of the homosexual that makes them incapable of raising a child. In fact, you didn't mention one thing about 'incapable' until your second post about schizophrenia, nor did you mention what 'incapable' was. Kind of makes your reply unfounded, doesn't it? I don't have to put words in people's mouths when they've already said them.

edit: not to mention that there isn't actually any reason for any of the above, aside from possibly the rapist, to be kept from having a child. The only possible reason you can have is for the child, in which you would deny them the potential to even exist, or that you are afraid of what the child would become. So, I stand by what I said.

edit 2: Again, please, God, research what Eugenics was. You don't even realize what you're saying here or how horrible it could/can be. I'm not trying to paint you out like a bad person, but here we are, the vast majority, discussing some that is very, very similar one of the most attrocious things ever to happen in our history (short of the genocide that occured in WWII) like it's a good idea. Can you see where my frustration is coming from?

Originally Posted by erosennin

Again, please, God, research what Eugenics was. You don't even realize what you're saying here or how horrible it could/can be. I'm not trying to paint you out like a bad person, but here we are, the vast majority, discussing some that is very, very similar one of the most attrocious things ever to happen in our history (short of the genocide that occured in WWII) like it's a good idea. Can you see where my frustration is coming from?

Are you even attempting comprehend what I'm trying to tell you? I never said people with bad genetics should be kept from having children. I think you're becoming frustrated at your own selective reading, please show me were I said that everyone with flawed genetics should be kept from having children? Or else quit wasting my time and referencing me to genetic eugenics and using it as a rebuttal. Though relevant to the subject, it's completely irrelevant to what kind of child restrictions I'm talking about .

Originally Posted by erosennin

not to mention that there isn't actually any reason for any of the above, aside from possibly the rapist, to be kept from having a child.

And so you would let a person who kills people (murderer) have a child? A person who obviously has disregard for human life? If you would let a person who has a disregard for human life be in charge of an innocent child you too have an obvious disregard for human life.

Originally Posted by erosennin

nor did you mention what 'incapable' was. Kind of makes your reply unfounded, doesn't it?

Oh, you mean this? -

Originally Posted by Exoparadapsyphobia

I was saying that we should keep people who are incapable of taking care of children from having them, key word "incapable". This means people with mental disabilities that make them imobile, severely mentaly challenged or subject to violent outbursts.

As I said before, try reading the posts a little more thoroughly, it really pays off .

Originally Posted by erosennin

There is no aspect of the homosexual that makes them incapable of raising a child.

My saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to have children is purely opinion based. I am well aware that there is no scientific or statistical data showing that they can't take care of a child, I just don't think they should be allowed to have children since they might try to influence their sexual preference instead of letting nature take it's course.

Originally Posted by erosennin

The only possible reason you can have is for the child, in which you would deny them the potential to even exist, or that you are afraid of what the child would become. So, I stand by what I said.

Should you let a child exist when you know that their life is going to be horrible, ridden with drugs, violence and neglect? I know a 16 year old girl who lives just down the street from me who is pregnant, she smokes marijuana daily and drinks vast amounts of alcohol while being pregnant and she's also told me she does cocaine. If she doesn't have a miscarriage the baby will most likely be born with brain damage, so if it was up to me I would force her to have an abortion. Becuase if that baby is born it's going to lead a horrible life, I say all of that out of compasion for the child. Usually people who are imobilized or severely mentally challenged because of a brain disease usually do not have children anyway if they've had it since a young age, so I don't worry much about that. But would you really let someone who is prone to violent outbursts becuase of a mental disability have a child when you know that there is a serious risk of that child being physically and mentally abused? You obviously don't get were I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by Exoparadapsyphobia

Are you even attempting comprehend what I'm trying to tell you? I never said people with bad genetics should be kept from having children. I think you're becoming frustrated at your own selective reading, please show me were I said that everyone with flawed genetics should be kept from having children? Or else quit wasting my time and referencing me to genetic eugenics and using it as a rebuttal. Though relevant to the subject, it's completely irrelevant to what kind of child restrictions I'm talking about .


And so you would let a person who kills people (murderer) have a child? A person who obviously has disregard for human life? If you would let a person who has a disregard for human life be in charge of an innocent child you too have an obvious disregard for human life.


Oh, you mean this? -

As I said before, try reading the posts a little more thoroughly, it really pays off .



My saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to have children is purely opinion based. I am well aware that there is no scientific or statistical data showing that they can't take care of a child, I just don't think they should be allowed to have children since they might try to influence their sexual preference instead of letting nature take it's course.


Should you let a child exist when you know that their life is going to be horrible, ridden with drugs, violence and neglect? I know a 16 year old girl who lives just down the street from me who is pregnant, she smokes marijuana daily and drinks vast amounts of alcohol while being pregnant and she's also told me she does cocaine. If she doesn't have a miscarriage the baby will most likely be born with brain damage, so if it was up to me I would force her to have an abortion. Becuase if that baby is born it's going to lead a horrible life, I say all of that out of compasion for the child. Usually people who are imobilized or severely mentally challenged because of a brain disease usually do not have children anyway if they've had it since a young age, so I don't worry much about that. But would you really let someone who is prone to violent outbursts becuase of a mental disability have a child when you know that there is a serious risk of that child being physically and mentally abused? You obviously don't get were I'm coming from.

Again, I'm going to ask you to friggin look at eugenics. Eugenics started out as a movement to keep 'unsavory' people from having children. It took away people's rights to their own bodies in ways that you obviously haven't heard of, or you wouldn't even be arguing this. So, no, you may not be arguing genetics. At least you don't think you are. However, pray tell, what exactly is keeping certain kinds of people from breeding doing? Hmmm? It doesn't matter whether or not you think you're simply doing this out of compassion for the child that would be, the end result is still the same. You are taking the parents out of the picture, out of the gene pool, period. That, my friend, is selective breeding, no matter what way you spin it.

And, I'm going to state again, you didn't say what 'incapable' was until after my so called rant. You came out swinging after that one, stating "oh, I really meant this" after the fact. I did read your posts. It's you, it seems, who isn't reading mine, nor do you seem to remember when you actually posted.

And yes, I do think a murderer, a felon, a homosexual, and a drug addict should be able to have children. For one, you seem to be forgetting that having a child is a two person affair. You would deny both of them the ability, it seems. In my opinion, you are the one who has no respect for human life. Instead of letting life happen, you would stop it. Instead of letting a child be born who could have great potential inspite of his/her upbringing and parents, you would forbid it from even being born. That's not compassion, that's flat out, iron fisted control over someone else's life.

Furthermore, have you even stopped to think about how something like this would be enforced? I have. You can't simply slap a fine on people that have a child when they're not supposed to. What you're talking about, in the long run, is forced sterilization and abortion. I know you're going to love that one.

See, I get how you feel about it, I just happen to believe vehemently that you're wrong, and that the idea itself is extremely evil.

Originally Posted by erosennin

Again, I'm going to ask you to friggin look at eugenics. Eugenics started out as a movement to keep 'unsavory' people from having children. It took away people's rights to their own bodies in ways that you obviously haven't heard of, or you wouldn't even be arguing this. So, no, you may not be arguing genetics. At least you don't think you are. However, pray tell, what exactly is keeping certain kinds of people from breeding doing? Hmmm? It doesn't matter whether or not you think you're simply doing this out of compassion for the child that would be, the end result is still the same. You are taking the parents out of the picture, out of the gene pool, period. That, my friend, is selective breeding, no matter what way you spin it.

You seem to be getting your definitions mixed up. "Selective breeding", is the intentional mating of two animals (beings) in an attempt to produce offspring with desirable characteristics or for the elimination of a trait. What I am trying to explain is attempting neither of these things. For one, selective breeding is as to breed for the obtaining of desirable traits or to eliminate a trait. What I have been typing away at for the last few posts is keeping people who are incapable of raising children or who are a danger to children from having them, whether they are a danger to them inside the womb or outside. Maybe I confused people or didn’t send out the right message when I said "people with 'mental problems' should not have children", what I meant by that is because of side-effects of the problem that could become a danger to the child they should not be allowed to parent. This is simply child protection, not "selective breeding" for it has none of it’s traits. I am not putting two people of the opposite sex into a cage who I think will make a good child and telling them to mate, and I’m not trying to eliminate a certain trait either. I would be protecting children from certain traits, not denying the passing of them. I find the thought that you or anyone would let a drug addict who is going to give the baby brain damage, a deformity or maybe even the drug addiction itself have a child, or someone with a mental disability that makes them violent. That is my friend is cold, uncompassionate and downright cruelty to the child.

Originally Posted by erosennin

And, I'm going to state again, you didn't say what 'incapable' was until after my so called rant. You came out swinging after that one, stating "oh, I really meant this" after the fact. I did read your posts. It's you, it seems, who isn't reading mine, nor do you seem to remember when you actually posted.

That is because I depend on peoples basic vocabulary. Even the dumbest asswit can draw up an example of "incapable". I didn’t know I would have to spell-it-out and then explain the definition to you. For example, someone with dwarfism, having that disability does not make them incapable. They can still move about, talk, and perform basic activities if not every activity than a person without the infliction. Another example is someone who was born without legs, this again, does not make them incapable. They can still use a wheelchair to move around and still have their two most important limbs for performing basic activities. However someone with no limbs would be a problem. As we both know it takes two people to have a child, so there is still another adult around to take care of the child, but what if that other were to leave or die? Then they would be alone without the ability to care for the child. However they could still hire an assistant, and maybe in the near future we will be able to fit them with full prosthetic limbs. So as you can see my ideals do not apply to everyone with a genetic or physical disability, just those that are dangerous to people around them or to themselves. But, a person with a drug addiction is incapable of taking care of a child, and furthermore are a danger to the child even before they are born because of drug, alcohol or smoke intake during the pregnancy. That alone is excuse enough to keep them from having a child. A person with a mental affliction that makes them unable to comprehend or understand their surroundings is incapable of taking care of a child, or in other words people with extreme mental retardation, how would they be able to understand how take care of a child if they can’t even write down the ABCs or do 5x5? And in that sense they are dangerous to the child. Some mental afflictions and habits simply make people unacceptable as parents. That is my definition of incapable and the definition I would expect most to draw.

Originally Posted by erosennin

And yes, I do think a murderer, a felon, a homosexual, and a drug addict should be able to have children. For one, you seem to be forgetting that having a child is a two person affair. You would deny both of them the ability, it seems. In my opinion, you are the one who has no respect for human life. Instead of letting life happen, you would stop it. Instead of letting a child be born who could have great potential inspite of his/her upbringing and parents, you would forbid it from even being born. That's not compassion, that's flat out, iron fisted control over someone else's life.

No, I am not forgetting that it takes two to tango, an example of my remembrance is given in the above paragraph. However, in most cases it would not be necessary to prevent both people from barring a child so of course my ideals do not apply to both. If per say my thoughts were in effect and a woman with a drug addiction were to want a child, well she isn’t allowed to have children. So if her partner wishes to parent he is simply going to have to find another spouse, if he refuses well than that’s his choice, and no one is forcing him into it. Have you ever read a book titled A Child Called "It"? If you haven’t you should, it might change your perspective a little. As you might be able to guess from the title it's about a child who was severely abused; by his mother for years, years and years of endless torture. This child’s mother would put his hands on top of a burning stove, beat him constantly and starve him at times, if he ate and she found out she would make him regurgitate it. Should we have let this woman give birth to children, this maniac of a bitch? Hell no, it’s only common sense that we should keep people like her from ever giving birth to children, sure the kid had great potential in life, but life to him was Hell, should we make children go through hell or live in danger because of their parents just because they have "potential"? That’s a very poor excuse. Just because a murderer on death row has the 'potential' to become a model citizen does not mean we just let him go to walk the streets, why? Because the risk outweighs the potential, leaving a child in the hands of dangerous parent is the same thing in different context. The risk just outweighs the potential. I am not denying the existence of the child, for first there must be an existence to be denied. If it is not alive in the first place there is no life to be taken away.

And what do you think laws are? Taxes, bills and even money itself, all systems of control. Money controls you, it controls what you can and cannot do, were you can and cannot go, what you can and cannot wear, who you can and cannot see and even if you can or cannot exist. If you have no money you will die. These things are not compassionate, so should we eliminate them? No, because they are there for a reason. Control is here for a reason and the control that I am talking about has a reason. Not that I’m saying my ideals are uncompassionate, because they most certainly aren’t, I’m just using that as a prime example.

Originally Posted by erosennin

Furthermore, have you even stopped to think about how something like this would be enforced? I have. You can't simply slap a fine on people that have a child when they're not supposed to. What you're talking about, in the long run, is forced sterilization and abortion. I know you're going to love that one.

See, I get how you feel about it, I just happen to believe vehemently that you're wrong, and that the idea itself is extremely evil.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a few ideas on how this kind of control would be exercised. First a couple who wished to have children would have to request an "approval of parenthood" permit, that would be followed up by a personal environmental and back round investigation of the couple or individual in question. No, you can’t just slap a fine on someone for giving birth when they’re not suppose to, however there are the choices of chemical or physical castration, forced pregnancy tests every three weeks or so etc. Nevertheless though it would be an odd thing to work out, but I’m sure it would be done. In a sense yes and no to forced sterilization and abortion, there would be forced abortions if a woman were to get pregnant but that’s why there would be observation techniques in place as stated above, to reduce the occurance of a forced abortion as much as possible. But there would be no forced sterilization, my ideas do not include forcing someone to get pregnant, only preventing them from doing so. Or preventing a male from having sex. It’s all about preventing conception, not encouraging it. I’m glad you see how I feel about the whole thing, and I understand how you feel. But we obviously have different ideologies and different definitions of evil.

Originally Posted by Exoparadapsyphobia

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have a few ideas on how this kind of control would be exercised. First a couple who wished to have children would have to request an “approval of parenthood” permit, that would be followed up by a personal environmental and back round investigation of the couple or individual in question.

But what about the especially good actors? That's how so many people can hide whatever they're doing to social workers now. And what about if someone who's profession is to do all that checking, but is an abuser themselves? They could easily cheat the system and do as they please.

Originally Posted by Exoparadapsyphobia

No, you can’t just slap a fine on someone for giving birth when they’re not suppose to, however there are the choices of chemical or physical castration, forced pregnancy tests every three weeks or so etc. Nevertheless though it would be an odd thing to work out, but I’m sure it would be done. In a sense yes and no to forced sterilization and abortion, there would be forced abortions if a woman were to get pregnant but that’s why there would be observation techniques in place as stated above. But there would be no forced sterilization, my ideas do not include forcing someone to get pregnant, only preventing them from doing so. Or preventing a male from having sex. It’s all about preventing conception, not encouraging it. I’m glad you see how I feel about the whole thing, and I understand how you feel. But we obviously have different ideologies and different definitions of evil.

Interesting, but I don't think that could work. Using the U.S. as an example, there is an amazing amount of Pro-Lifers, so I doubt forced abortions could be passed. And also... what if they change? What if the drug addicted person gets clean, but have already been castrated, had their tubes tied, etc? "Sucks for them?"

And 'murderer' is a broad term. If you mean "someone who has killed another person or people" anyone can be a murderer. If an old woman decides not to take the pills to save her life then that can be considered suicide, which is self-murder. And doctors, even they make mistakes and a failed surgery can result in one's death.

If you mean "someone who's killed a person or people intentionally" that still is rather broad. If a person corners you with a fully loaded gun, and its impossible to run at this point, but suddenly that person accidently drops the gun by your feet but quickly pulls out a knife, do you think the court system would think less of you if you decided to pick up that gun and use it to protect yourself? What if that person were threatening a group of children? If you kill them, it is still murder, but which is worse - a dead you and/or a group of innocent children, or a dead potential serial kiler?

Saying all that, would you still prevent 'murderers' from having children? And taking what I said before, what if a good person suddenly becomes a good actor? Good enough that they can fool the system and thwart the laws and decide one day that they just want to kill their family? 'Bad people' aren't the only ones with 'potential'.

I just think we just don't have enough technology to determine if a person is "truly" a good person and doesn't have the potential to become someone who could hurt their children.