Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"individual" here means the family members or their guardians or care giver.
If they don't have care giver, then their children will become taxpayer's burden. It is just the reality. Either way, we have to pay for their children. (even an abortion, we have to pay for it because you cannot stop them from having sex.) This is the reality you don't want to face.
No matter how many times I said I understand the point you are making, you refuse to see the point I am making here. It (Compulsory sterilization) is not realistic in the country like the United States of America.
Looks like i am going to repeat myself for the fifth times, I am not disagreeing with you, I am only saying what you suggested is not realistic. why bother arguing about it?
I never suggested forced sterilization. I purposely tried to avoid talking about the methods to reduce low IQ from having children, because I wanted the discussion to be about whether or not it was moral for mentally retarded persons to have children.
I personally think that we should offer monetary incentives to both low IQ persons and to the parents of low IQ children for sterilization. The problem with that idea is that there is a huge amount of resistance to the very idea that mentally retarded people shouldn't be having kids. Many people in this thread have shown that they think it's just fine for people who have the mental capacity of a child to have children of their own. I think that's insane, yet many of them think I'm the one suggesting something crazy.
Throughout most of the United States, an IQ of below 70 is the threshold at which a person is considered mentally incompetent. Persons with an IQ under 70 are held to different legal standards and are not punished at the same level as a person with a higher IQ. In cases of the death penalty, for example, a person with a proven IQ of 70 or lower is usually considered exempt from execution.
This leads to an obvious question: if we have already set the legal standard that people with an IQ of 70 or below are mentally incompetent, should we allow them to have children? If we allow them to have children, aren't we condemning their children to a life of poor parental care, which inevitably leads to multiple issues, not only for the child but also for society? After all, who will raise their children if the parent can't?
If you don't agree with the idea that low IQ people should be prohibited from having children, then explain how allowing them to have children is workable for society.
And for perspective, 2 percent of the US population, 6.5 million people, have an IQ of 70 or below.
I may despise them, but I will surely defend the right-wing's right to procreate.
.
That's a discussion unto itself. There are numerous ways to prevent low IQ people from having children, but first, we have to come to an agreement in society about whether that's what we want.
The alternative is to just let low IQ people have as many children as they want and all their children will become automatic wards of the state.
I don't like this way of thinking at all. Deciding who can and cannot have children??? Just NO! Absolutely no! This is against human rights of the highest order. This is just as bad as that rehab doctor in NYC would pretend to be friends with recovering crackheads, when she brought upon herself to sterilize them without their consent. It's barbaric, cruel and inhumane to the max.
That's a discussion unto itself. There are numerous ways to prevent low IQ people from having children, but first, we have to come to an agreement in society about whether that's what we want.
The alternative is to just let low IQ people have as many children as they want and all their children will become automatic wards of the state.
Yeah, well I'll just live with the alternative because that's a hell of a lot less dangerous than what you're proposing.
Choose to encourage their childbearing, but then YOU and all the other like-minded folks should have to pay for their public assistance benefits.
To oppose forced sterilization isn't the same as encouraging childbearing. I also don't believe in paying for anyone either. Public assistance should stop and charities should be back in the business of relief as has been their historical role. That way anyone is free donate if they desire.
Yeah, well I'll just live with the alternative because that's a hell of a lot less dangerous than what you're proposing.
Ditto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
