Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is it okay for disabled people to have children? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    DoDo they have the same right, despite their physical and mental disabilities that affect their daily life?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Surely this depends on how disabled the person is? and what the disability is?

    Like I have dyspraxia which is a learning difficulty and I don't see the reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have children. :dontknow:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    DoDo they have the same right, despite their physical and mental disabilities that affect their daily life?
    Depends entirely on what the disability is.

    If it's something that has a chance of being passed on to their children and which will have a negative effect on that childs quality of life then in my opinion they should be prohibited from having children.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No:
    • People with hereditary serious mental disorders.
    • People with non-hereditary serious mental disorders.
    • People with hereditary serious physical disabilities.
    • People with non-hereditary serious physical disabilities.


    Yes:
    • People with hereditary non-serious mental disorders.
    • People with non-hereditary non-serious mental disorders.
    • People with non-hereditary non-serious physical disabilities.


    Who knows:
    • People with hereditary non-serious physical disabilities [if any even exist].
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    Depends entirely on what the disability is.

    If it's something that has a chance of being passed on to their children and which will have a negative effect on that childs quality of life then in my opinion they should be prohibited from having children.
    If it's something that has only a chance of being passed on to their children, then there are tests that can be administered very early in the pregnancy to detect the disability, and the parents can then decide whether to keep the child or abort it. Naturally, this comes with its own batch of ethical dilemmas.

    If you believe that people with heritable disabilities should be prohibited from having children, what about older women? They are at a higher risk of giving birth to children with Down's Syndrome and some other disabilities. Should there also be a maximum age at which people are allowed to have kids?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    If it's something that has only a chance of being passed on to their children, then there are tests that can be administered very early in the pregnancy to detect the disability, and the parents can then decide whether to keep the child or abort it. Naturally, this comes with its own batch of ethical dilemmas.

    If you believe that people with heritable disabilities should be prohibited from having children, what about older women? They are at a higher risk of giving birth to children with Down's Syndrome and some other disabilities. Should there also be a maximum age at which people are allowed to have kids?
    Just because certain genetic abnormalities can be detected at an early stage of pregnancy doesn't mean that they will always choose to abort the child. It shouldn't be a choice, if anything is detected then the child will be aborted, end of story.

    As for your older women & Down's Syndrome argument. Again, it falls into the same category as above. It's something which can be detected relatively early and if detected should result in the immediate termination of the pregnancy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As someone with a disability, (Asperger's syndrome) I do find the idea of someone such as myself not being able to have children being really harsh, not a go at the original poster, it's just have had this said to me a lot recently, I mean, even a so called "normal" person can give birth quite easily to someone with a condition, this is down to the fact they are carrying genes inherited from family lines they had most likely no idea of. I do believe that as long as people with conditions have full mental capacity, they should have the right and support to have a child, I say to have mental capacity as if a person who did not ended up with a child, it could be very frightening for that person, and the child itself. People with conditions can have long, fulfilling lives, it all depends on their own circumstances.

    People with conditions can also go onto have children who no health problems at all. Yet there are so many "normal" people I know of , not to mention celebrities who make terrible mothers, through their actions and toxic viewpoints (lest we not forget Katie Hopkins) Society is so quick to attack the most vulnerable members of society, yet so many of these people are no shining examples of "parenthood".... :/ Again, not an attack on the original poster, they bring up an interesting debate, it's just a debate that's quite close to my mind at the moment due to recent "opinions" forced on me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    Just because certain genetic abnormalities can be detected at an early stage of pregnancy doesn't mean that they will always choose to abort the child. It shouldn't be a choice, if anything is detected then the child will be aborted, end of story.

    As for your older women & Down's Syndrome argument. Again, it falls into the same category as above. It's something which can be detected relatively early and if detected should result in the immediate termination of the pregnancy.
    Yet many parents would be content raising a child with Down's Syndrome, and would in fact do a good job of it. Your policy would abort many foetuses that could have had happy lives. Furthermore, many people with physical or mental disabilities nonetheless have something very important to offer to society. Your policy would have aborted Stephen Hawking, for example.

    While we obviously can't detect which foetuses will grow up to be über-geniuses, I think it's important to recognise that many parents have a better idea of whether they could raise a disabled child than the government would. While I concede that abortion may be the best thing for some disabled foetuses, I don't think that they should be aborted the instant a disability is detected.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    No:
    • People with hereditary serious mental disorders.
    • People with non-hereditary serious mental disorders.
    • People with hereditary serious physical disabilities.
    • People with non-hereditary serious physical disabilities.
    • People with hereditary non-serious physical disabilities [if any even exist].


    Yes:
    • People with hereditary non-serious mental disorders.
    • People with non-hereditary non-serious mental disorders.
    • People with non-hereditary non-serious physical disabilities.
    :fuhrer: ser gut, unt how will we implement this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "Is it okay for disabled people to have children?"

    Yes!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    if the illness/disease is genetic then it would be abit unfair on the child(ren) but if its not then they can make as many babies as their heart yearns for
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by CJKay)
    No:[*]People with hereditary non-serious physical disabilities [if any even exist].[/LIST]
    Some hearing and sight impairments can be hereditary, but may not always be serious. Two of the visual impairments I have can be passed on. But this isn't my situation.

    This is a difficult question. In part, I do think that you shouldn't have a child if there's a chance of you passing on your genetic disease. And then there's also the issue of whether you can look after your child. But with both situation, it's difficult. There isn't always tests in pregnancy for a lot of conditions. (I'm only aware of one for Downs)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Some hearing and sight impairments can be hereditary, but may not always be serious. Two of the visual impairments I have can be passed on. But this isn't my situation.

    This is a difficult question. In part, I do think that you shouldn't have a child if there's a chance of you passing on your genetic disease. And then there's also the issue of whether you can look after your child. But with both situation, it's difficult. There isn't always tests in pregnancy for a lot of conditions. (I'm only aware of one for Downs)
    Obviously, it all depends on how serious it is. Slightly impaired eyesight is probably easily rectified, so isn't really a problem. Like I said, I couldn't even think of any non-serious but hereditary disabilities at the time I wrote the post.

    (Original post by rustyappletree)
    :fuhrer: ser gut, unt how will we implement this?
    You don't "implement" anything. It's a should/should not list, not a list of imprisonable offences.
    Should you go out in the snow wearing no clothes? No, but people do it anyway.
    It's mostly only useful for preventing abusive parents in the case of mental disorders and parents relying entirely on their children in the case of physical disabilities.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No if they value the future of our society then they won't (now where is the Hitler smiley?)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    As long as there is another capable person around to help the disabled person raise the child, why not?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rustyappletree)
    :fuhrer: ser gut, unt how will we implement this?
    Forced sterilisations.

    Either that or take a load of unemployed people and get them to watch the disabled people 24/7 to make sure they never have sex without a condom.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If I had a gentic I wouldn't feel the need to pass them on
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    Obviously, it all depends on how serious it is. Slightly impaired eyesight is probably easily rectified, so isn't really a problem. Like I said, I couldn't even think of any non-serious but hereditary disabilities at the time I wrote the post.



    You don't "implement" anything. It's a should/should not list, not a list of imprisonable offences.
    Should you go out in the snow wearing no clothes? No, but people do it anyway.
    It's mostly only useful for preventing abusive parents in the case of mental disorders and parents relying entirely on their children in the case of physical disabilities.
    Can you expand and explain on what you consider a 'mental disorder' is, do you mean a mental health condition? and how they will be automatically abusive to a child?
    Also can you expand on the idea that physically disabled should not have a child? and why they would rely on them entirely?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rustyappletree)
    Can you expand and explain on what you consider a 'mental disorder' is, do you mean a mental health condition? and how they will be automatically abusive to a child?
    Also can you expand on the idea that physically disabled should not have a child? and why they would rely on them entirely?
    "Mental disorder" and "mental health condition" are, for the most part, synonymous but for clarity I will name the top three I can think of: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression. Parents with these disorders who do not regularly seek medical guidance are a strong risk to any children they might have, for obvious reasons. If you frequently have depressive episodes or negative impulses, there is no way you can possibly do the best for your kids.

    "Physically disabled" is too broad a term - losing a finger or even an arm is obviously not really going to significantly disadvantage your children's potential, but let's take examples like: cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy. Disabilities like these need round the clock care - how are children supposed to make the most of their childhoods if they constantly need to be within a bell ring of their parents 24/7? Unless they can afford to have constant care, that is no life to live.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    "Mental disorder" and "mental health condition" are, for the most part, synonymous but for clarity I will name the top three I can think of: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression. Parents with these disorders who do not regularly seek medical guidance are a strong risk to any children they might have, for obvious reasons. If you frequently have depressive episodes or negative impulses, there is no way you can possibly do the best for your kids.
    well i have frequent depressive episodes, suppose i shouldn't consider the possibility of having a family.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.