Should mentally challenged couples be allowed to have and raise children?

I'm aware that this is going to be somewhat controversial, but like I said, should a couple that are mentally challenged, mentally retarded, whatever you want to call it, be allowed to have children and more importantly, raise children?

The reason I bring this is up, is that about 10 months ago i found out that my brother in laws brother and his girlfriend were pregnant. Now His brother (called Danny) isn't all there, to cut it short, he's retarded. Likewise, his girlfriend isn't the full ticket either. When I found out the news I quietly told myself "how the Hell are they going to raise a child". They can't look after themselves", and they actually cant and usually get outside help on the grounds of special needs.

Well 5 weeks ago, they had a little boy. Amazingly, there is nothing wrong with the baby, a perfectly healthy, normal boy. Five weeks on and there is problems. My sister has been round and apparantly they aren't washing the baby, my sister says the poor thing stinks or crap and pee. It seems to constantly be crying. However this girl will not let my sister or Danny's mother anywhere near the baby. It really saddens, and infuriates me at the same time. If they aren't washing him, are they even feeding him properly? Giving him attention? Often my sister says they ring up at all hours, asking "what to do". The whole thing is just a mess.

I've been trying to call my sister. I'm going to suggest she calls Social Services. I personally feel that Danny getting his girlfriend pregnant was just the most irresponsible thing they could do. I don't think it's fair to the child at all and again, it makes me really sad and angry at the same time. All I keep thinking is reading in the paper, one of those stories where you find out a kid has starved to death or something's happened to him out of pure neglect. I know it's not intentional, but it's pure irresponsibility.

Thoughts?

i think it depends. There are different levels of mentally handicapped. Some people are high functioning just a little slow. I think it would have to be on a case to case basis. In the situation you described it seems someone should step in.

In my eyes it should boil down to if thay can look after a child or not and in your case i think not. I dont think it should be case if thay are mentaly handcaped because some people who are not shouldent look after children.

In theory, I believe that people having children should be able to financially and lovingly support those children. I get really hot when this is not the case.

But here's the problem i have with trying to make changes. WHO decides who is an "unfit" parent? The government? The church?

Now let's look at China with their one baby policy.
In theory, it sounds like a great idea, considering that if left unchecked, the Chinese population could easily balloon to billions.
In practice, and the unintended consequence, is that if the first born aint a boy, then often times they kill the baby.

The world is full of great intentions. But it is the unintended consequences we should be wary of.

For now, until someone comes up with a rational and reasonable way of deciding who can have babies, i'm voting against.

I agree there are different levels of mental disability, but these two aren't capable of looking after themselves. Them looking after a child is like asking someone here to build a rocket to the moon. I don't even have kids but this has really bothered me.

I kinda agree with what Roman says. People should be in a position where they are sound of mind and financially competent. But how do you regulate that. Take China. They've had that one baby policy since the late 70's. Without it, their population would be nearer the 2 billion mark, rather than the 1.3 billion mark it is now.

It makes you wonder if 50 years time, Chinese type law will be applied everywhere. There is only so much to go around. And some people really shouldnt have children.

no, i dont think they should be allowed....
but as TR said, who deciedes...

its sad..

If the child is at risk of being neglected because of their condition then they shouldn't be allowed. Child protective services should have case workers to determine if they are acceptable parents.

TR & DSM hit it on the head. Sad thing is that there are TONS of willing/competenent/financially stable ppl out there who want kids and would take them in a minute whether thier single/infertal/GLBT or whatever, but they wont, except in extreme cases take children away from incompetence.

I agree with DSM and try. It's just not fair or safe for the child in question. Most couples or people who are not mentally challengedhave problems raising there regular children.

sad news flagg and i hate to be the to say that the baby is most likely (90%) not normal in its mental or emotional developemnt (defiancies will show up as the baby ages and will seriously be seen once hitting the 3rd or 4th grade) speech will prob be your 1st clue in the delays/ compounded with parents that are delayed and unable to meet the babies special needs/extra attention needed/ and as you said even the basic needs are not being met (extreamly common!). Sounds like a few of the clients I had worked with.. i was paid by the state to go to their homes and teach how people to be parents. (btw, never works~ clients are too stupid or raised wrong or to defiant and set in their ways sadly)

Im a firm believer that tests should be passed in order to have a life depend on us/MOLDED BY US...if you fail the test, you enroll in parenting school that encompases the dolls to bring home and maintain for 6 months as it records everything seen & heard... than the vidio is reviewed by child psycs and you pass or have to the whole process again if not....but than I would be out of a work sooooo maybe not lol

and h3ll if the tests an classes are too much trouble than they are def NOT ready for a whiney smelly needy money pit time leaching baby lol

to take advantage of welfare? hell no!! IF they have a decent job.. I wouldnt have problem with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misery13

I agree with DSM and try. It's just not fair or safe for the child in question. Most couples or people who are not mentally challengedhave problems raising there regular children.

---

So you think a branch of the government called "child protective services" is qualified and equipped to determine which parents should be not allowed to have children? Really? I agree in theory it sounds great, but the devil is always in the details.

So how would you go about devising a procedure and a plan that wouuld stop unqualified people from having babies? I don't think you can legislate it. The only way to really make this work is to norplant both the male and the female every 5 years, or forced sterilization.

You think the ACLU would actually let this go down with out a huge fight?

You think the general public would let this go down, allowing the government to play god?

Again, the devil is in the details.

Come up with a feasible plan we can all agree on, and then let's discuss.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flagg

I'm aware that this is going to be somewhat controversial, but like I said, should a couple that are mentally challenged, mentally retarded, whatever you want to call it, be allowed to have children and more importantly, raise children?

The reason I bring this is up, is that about 10 months ago i found out that my brother in laws brother and his girlfriend were pregnant. Now His brother (called Danny) isn't all there, to cut it short, he's retarded. Likewise, his girlfriend isn't the full ticket either. When I found out the news I quietly told myself "how the Hell are they going to raise a child". They can't look after themselves", and they actually cant and usually get outside help on the grounds of special needs.

Well 5 weeks ago, they had a little boy. Amazingly, there is nothing wrong with the baby, a perfectly healthy, normal boy. Five weeks on and there is problems. My sister has been round and apparantly they aren't washing the baby, my sister says the poor thing stinks or crap and pee. It seems to constantly be crying. However this girl will not let my sister or Danny's mother anywhere near the baby. It really saddens, and infuriates me at the same time. If they aren't washing him, are they even feeding him properly? Giving him attention? Often my sister says they ring up at all hours, asking "what to do". The whole thing is just a mess.

I've been trying to call my sister. I'm going to suggest she calls Social Services. I personally feel that Danny getting his girlfriend pregnant was just the most irresponsible thing they could do. I don't think it's fair to the child at all and again, it makes me really sad and angry at the same time. All I keep thinking is reading in the paper, one of those stories where you find out a kid has starved to death or something's happened to him out of pure neglect. I know it's not intentional, but it's pure irresponsibility.

Thoughts?

---

I have a friend who has a mental disability. He has 9 kids. SO why not? WHo are we to say they cant. If there reproductive system is functioning properly, let them. Out of his 9 kids none have a mental illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sexy4mySweetheart

sad news flagg and i hate to be the to say that the baby is most likely (90%) not normal in its mental or emotional developemnt (defiancies will show up as the baby ages and will seriously be seen once hitting the 3rd or 4th grade) speech will prob be your 1st clue in the delays/ compounded with parents that are delayed and unable to meet the babies special needs/extra attention needed/ and as you said even the basic needs are not being met (extreamly common!). Sounds like a few of the clients I had worked with.. i was paid by the state to go to their homes and teach how people to be parents. (btw, never works~ clients are too stupid or raised wrong or to defiant and set in their ways sadly)

Im a firm believer that tests should be passed in order to have a life depend on us/MOLDED BY US...if you fail the test, you enroll in parenting school that encompases the dolls to bring home and maintain for 6 months as it records everything seen & heard... than the vidio is reviewed by child psycs and you pass or have to the whole process again if not....but than I would be out of a work sooooo maybe not lol

and h3ll if the tests an classes are too much trouble than they are def NOT ready for a whiney smelly needy money pit time leaching baby lol

---

I'm glad you said that before I did, exactly what I was thinking. Down syndrome does not show up right away as many things dont.

I have posted it before and have a theory that would work in a perfect world being where the problem lies with who would be in charge, Government? No way, Church? Just as bad.

ALL babies are to be temporarily sterilized at birth. You can not get un sterilized until you have reached a certain age, education level, financial level and passed a course on child raising. At that point you will be made fertile so you and your spouse/significant other who you have a long term binding agreement with to raise the child with and you can pro create.

All this would be dependent and adjustable per country and state due to different cost of living, education and religious beliefs.

Yes I know all the problems that could arise with something like this. I have a good active imagination and think it would make a good movie full of corruption, manipulation and human trafficking. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmaousley

I have a friend who has a mental disability. He has 9 kids. SO why not? WHo are we to say they cant. If there reproductive system is functioning properly, let them. Out of his 9 kids none have a mental illness.

---

There is an exception to ever rule and in this (Flag's) case there is already signs of neglect that is putting the babys health and well being at risk at the basic levels, not just the long term but immediate.


Flag, I think in this situation if the couple are not willing to let family members who want to step in and physically help then the well being of the child needs to be considered 1st and foremost and you need to call CPS.

My thought about CPS is they will probably not do anything until after something serious happens to the child or they see a way to make a profit on it. I really dont care for CPS and see them as a necessary evil but feel they do more harm than good most of the time and wont take action unless it's a middle class family they can financially burden in some way. Seen it far to many times.

IF you do call CPS DONT tell anyone and dont admit it. Even though everyone else is thinking of doing the same thing you will be deemed the bad guy. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lstbred

TR & DSM hit it on the head. Sad thing is that there are TONS of willing/competenent/financially stable ppl out there who want kids and would take them in a minute whether thier single/infertal/GLBT or whatever, but they wont, except in extreme cases take children away from incompetence.

---

It is sad.

Me and my wife planned our child and since we were young parents when she was showing she constantly got awful looks like she was an unfit mother even though we own our house and both are college educated me with my BSN and her with a blossoming small business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mn_fighter

It is sad.

Me and my wife planned our child and since we were young parents when she was showing she constantly got awful looks like she was an unfit mother even though we own our house and both are college educated me with my BSN and her with a blossoming small business.

---

Why does she look 12 yr old or something?

I can imagine anyone looking/staring at a pregnant woman in a bad way who was over 18. Hell most girls use to start kicking out kids around 13 or younger less than 100 years ago. It was considered normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lovbyts

Why does she look 12 yr old or something?

I can imagine anyone looking/staring at a pregnant woman in a bad way who was over 18. Hell most girls use to start kicking out kids around 13 or younger less than 100 years ago. It was considered normal.

---

One is we live in a conservative area and there was no ring secondly yes we both look young, I still dont look over 21 and I am 25 and she is about the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mn_fighter

One is we live in a conservative area and there was no ring secondly yes we both look young, I still dont look over 21 and I am 25 and she is about the same.

---

Most of them are hypocrites I'm sure, they probably had kids young also. Conservatives are like church goers. They are the biggest sinners/offenders except on Sunday or when someone is watching.

well it's better to have a wife who is 21 and looks 12 than one that is 12 and looks 21. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lovbyts

Most of them are hypocrites I'm sure, they probably had kids young also. Conservatives are like church goers. They are the biggest sinners/offenders except on Sunday or when someone is watching.

well it's better to have a wife who is 21 and looks 12 than one that is 12 and looks 21. lol

---

Its healthy living that keeps us looking young(I really mean that). It mostly happened when she would go into the city to pick up groceries we live about 30-35 minutes outside of any big city(50,000 lol). In our small town everyone knows everyones business and everyone was super supportive mind you the towns population is 309.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mn_fighter

Its healthy living that keeps us looking young(I really mean that). It mostly happened when she would go into the city to pick up groceries we live about 30-35 minutes outside of any big city(50,000 lol). In our small town everyone knows everyones business and everyone was super supportive mind you the towns population is 309.

---

309 people? Nice. Only problem is finding a date/girlfriend you are not related to in some way. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lovbyts

309 people? Nice. Only problem is finding a date/girlfriend you are not related to in some way. lol

---

I love living in the sticks.

My little brother recently got a girl pregnant, now both live with our mother. He isn't retarded but he has drug issue and can't take care of himself as well as anger issues. I personally am extremely worried about the baby. The only time I think we should interfere is when that child is being damaged. I personally think my brother and his gf should give the baby up for adoption, he just turned 20 and it really is a horrible decision. I have a 33 yr old sister who hasn't been able to have kids, and 3 more of us brothers who are married that love children. I hope he can grow up, but personally if they child is in any real danger I hope we can step in and save the poor kid, I already know what kind of principles the kid will end up learning, unless the parents make major changes, call me judgmental but it will be another welfare case, and add to the population of people expecting others to provide for them.

Besides a bit unrelated, but my point is as long as the kids basic needs are met, and it isn't being abused then I'm fine with it. But I'm also against tax dollars to support all the results of things, in a way survival of the fittest comes into play, and imo if the kid is being hurt they should face harsh charges. Another topic a while back about a guy with 15 kids, if he won't pay child support, lock him up in a work camp where everything he makes takes care of them, if people can't exercise personal responsibility, then they don't deserve the freedoms that go along with it, imo. Just trying to make a point. In this case they may not be able to realize they are doing something wrong, and hopefully there is enough family help so that they can raise the child properly, but these things about a child being dirty or smelling like pee sometimes get blown out of proportion. I know we tend to bend the rules or consequences for people that don't know better, but ultimately the child needs to be protected.

Sorry for blabbering getting off subject and not proofreading, I guess I don't care enough to fix it all so hopefully you don't take something out of context.

They must be allowed to have and raise children otherwise who would be left to run the country... and the fox news network unfair and unbalanced....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flagg

I'm aware that this is going to be somewhat controversial, but like I said, should a couple that are mentally challenged, mentally retarded, whatever you want to call it, be allowed to have children and more importantly, raise children?

The reason I bring this is up, is that about 10 months ago i found out that my brother in laws brother and his girlfriend were pregnant. Now His brother (called Danny) isn't all there, to cut it short, he's retarded. Likewise, his girlfriend isn't the full ticket either. When I found out the news I quietly told myself "how the Hell are they going to raise a child". They can't look after themselves", and they actually cant and usually get outside help on the grounds of special needs.

Well 5 weeks ago, they had a little boy. Amazingly, there is nothing wrong with the baby, a perfectly healthy, normal boy. Five weeks on and there is problems. My sister has been round and apparantly they aren't washing the baby, my sister says the poor thing stinks or crap and pee. It seems to constantly be crying. However this girl will not let my sister or Danny's mother anywhere near the baby. It really saddens, and infuriates me at the same time. If they aren't washing him, are they even feeding him properly? Giving him attention? Often my sister says they ring up at all hours, asking "what to do". The whole thing is just a mess.

I've been trying to call my sister. I'm going to suggest she calls Social Services. I personally feel that Danny getting his girlfriend pregnant was just the most irresponsible thing they could do. I don't think it's fair to the child at all and again, it makes me really sad and angry at the same time. All I keep thinking is reading in the paper, one of those stories where you find out a kid has starved to death or something's happened to him out of pure neglect. I know it's not intentional, but it's pure irresponsibility.

Thoughts?

---

this upsets me as a parent, in this case calling authorities for help would be the right call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeadlyD

this upsets me as a parent, in this case calling authorities for help would be the right call.

---

Absolutely, the child's safety comes first..