If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Parents vow to sterilise son
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Clicky
Not sure what I make of his story. I mean if he has a mental age of 6 then he wouldnt be reproducing anyhow
What do you think ?
Not sure what I make of his story. I mean if he has a mental age of 6 then he wouldnt be reproducing anyhow
What do you think ?
0
Comments
It troubles me.
Just having the mental age of six won't prevent him from reproducing, some people might be a little worried that anyone would want to have sex with someone in that position. But love is a wonderful thing...
I still don't think it right for his parents to make this decision. If he does find that special person then why shouldn't they be allowed to reporduce?
Just because he might not be able to look after a child, doesn't mean that the mother wouldn't.
Im behind the parents. Also, im going to go out on a limb and say I feel that people with geneticly inherited desieses should not be allowed to reproduce. I mean the ones that are gauranteed to be passed down, I don't mind if its not and htere is a chance the child won't inherit it. I just don't think its fair to have a child that will end up having to suffer the same problems.
I mean, think what the child would suffer at school having a father who has a mental age of six. It would just be terrible, he's be bullied like nothing else. Its sad just to think of it.
oh yeah i appreciate that but a 6 yr old wouldnt be having sex (thats what I meant initially)........I dunno, just seems wierd that they have to make this choice for him.
Could you guarantee that any child of his would inherit the mental health problem which he has?
Second questions is who are we to judge the quality of life which this man has, and any offspring of his would have?
Stand up Mr Hitler, your teachings have found a home :mad:
I have eyesight problem, should I have not reproduced? How far do you go?
It's proven that there is a genetic link for many cancers, should people with bowel/breast cancer in their family not reprodice?
What about glaucoma?
I'm sorry, that has to be the lamest excuse ever.
Children will find a multitude of reasons to bully. Should ginger haired people be sterilised? What about fat people?
Given the existence of racism in this country, should ethnic minoroties be sterilised so that their children don't face bullying/harrassment?
I know, but this man isn't six. He just has the "equivalent" mental age.
There is a big difference.
A lot of people have diseases that run in the family, like breast cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc.
As for this case: no consent, no operation. This isn't life saving treatment, it's designed to make the rest of society more comfortable and he has no interest in it.
Yeah, I know its not GAURANTEED 100% foolproof. Nothing is damnit, we don't even know if we exist. I am not an arian purist or any such shite. I don't beleive such toss, I am not an extremist. I mean diseases which obviously affect you badly, and are good-as-gauranteed to affect the children. Cancer is not such an example, it is proven that yes, some people are more suceptible, but that does not mean you will get cancer at all, you just are a few percent higher risk. Please, don't try to interpret what I say as something else. That is like taking a man saying he thinks a murder should have the death penatly and saying that he thinks all criminals should.
So you would like people to born into suffering and slowdeath becasue of their parents freedom of choice? Ever heard of the greater good? A small sacrifice for a better result?
I am not saying kill people with these diseases either. I am just saying that, why, when they have them, should they be allowed to pass it on? And would you give an actual 6 year old a choice of such importance? Probably not. So why, because his physical age is higher, should he be allowed? I know it is mean. But it is also mean to make a child suffer seeing his dad like that, and getting bullied for it. Yes, I know everyone gets bullied a bit. But are you so blind you cannot see that other children will brand him differently from others because of it? He would suffer more than most if this child were to exist.
Honestly. Why do you take my comment to an extreme view I do not have as well... that is just laughable. Its like saying that a conservative is the same as a facist...
And Racism is a different issue altogether... that needs tackling by better education.
And enough of the "slow painful death" crap. That's just emotive twaddle.
Children have thier rights limited and given to thier parents until they grow up or can support themselves. This man will never grow out of his illness. If a 6 year old child wanted to reproduce s/he would need her/his parents permission (if its even possible).
Forget the mental age thing. Should a person be sterilised without consent to prevent them passing on their faulty genes?
You get the idea though... if its good as gauranteed, then yes, stop it. After all, is the idea of modern sicence not to have a disease free future society? Would it not be happier for all? The people are happy, as they are well, the parents and friends don't get unhappy seeing loved ones suffer.
We are focusing on the fact one individual loses rights, but not looking at the wider result. Society today is to focused on the individual. We think of one but not of all. Burgulars cannot be harmed by you, they can steal your stuff, but if they are not violent towards you, and you attempt to stop them, your in the shit.
Yeah, odd reference, but I suppose it shows where I am coming from...
As this opic was about genetics perhaps you can explain the link with AIDS to me. otherwise how is this relevant to this thread?
I'm not suggesting you are. Perhaps you should look beyone Hitler's aryan approach and look into his views of disability.
We are all suffering a slow death
Again though I have to ask, who are you to decide the quality of life for someone who isn't even concieved yet, let alone born?
Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as you or I? What guarantee do you have that your children will not have similar complaints?
We're not talking about a six year old. We're talking about a grown man, so the comparison isn't relevant.
I know. My point was about how impractical your view was.
It's the same issue. It's about comfort. You don't feel comfortable with disability, apparently. You just seem to want to use irrelevant and offensive excuses to justify your stance.
And they run a high chance of losing. Can we avoid the issue of consent though, because otherwise we get into a whole abortion debate and Rich Kid is going to make a prat of himself on this thread with the topics covered already, we don't need to offer more ammunition for him
How will the "all" be negatively affected but this man reproducing?
Who are you to pass judgement on what disabilities are acceptable in society?
No.
But, what i am trying to get at is a child's rights are temporarily diminished because they are too immature to act in thier own interests.
This person has been compared to a 6 year old. 6 year olds are completely dependent on thier parents. This grants thier parents certain powers over them. "You cant play with fire with the girl next door" or " no fucking your girl/boyfriend until you are 16" etc, bascially because they are deemed not mature enough. However, rights are not removed permanently from children because they grow up. They become mature enough to make these decisions themselves. This person will never reach the maturity of the age of 16 so will be fully dependent on his parents for his entire life. This persons welfare is completely in the hands of his parents just like a child's is so like with a child should they not be able to make the decision of whether he is able to reproduce for him, but instead of having a temporary measure like grounding him for getting a girl pregnant instead undertake a permanent measure to make sure thier decision is final? Afterall, it is perfectly acceptable (in most people's eyes, not neccessarily my own) for a parent to make a decision to circumsise a child so is sterilising someone who is effectivly a child any worse?
To an extent I suppose, in the sense that the man isn't being asked his opinion. I didn't get the feeling that his parents suggested that he couldn't consent, just that they didn't give him the option.
It is passed on, I beleive...
So if two people think that a thing is bad but have different views on how to tackle it they are the same?
So if someone was going to be born, and then suffer in terrible pain for a far shorter than normal life span, and be unable to live a normal life, its ok because the parents have a right to have a child regardless of its quality of life?
So they have a right to bring suffering to a child? Ok. Yes, I know a person can be conceived with a mental disability right off with no prior link in the family, but where it can be avoided, I beleive it should.
He has a mental age of six. Just because his body is adult, doesn't mean his brain processes are. This is an important distinction...
Um, huh? Im sorry, I really don't get that... to carry on from my previous example, so you could prove conservatism impractical by using facism? Please, im not slagging you off here, I really don't get that.
I am actually of the view of reducing suffering. I don't feel uncomfortable about it. I don't see why people should suffer when it can be prevented. Its not like it is killing anyone. Nothing is to be killed. This seems to be a view some folks hold. Irrelevant and Offensive? So no one suffers at all? I am not saying kill anyone with such a condition. I am only saying prevent those who have a serious condition or terminal illness that is passed on from reproducing. A serious condition, not something minor. I hope you can make the distinction here.
Bugger, so much for not getting into consent.
Technically a 5-y-o is legally allowed to give consent, if they are considered sapient enough to understand the risks attached.
And for information, a parent cannot give a child consent to having sex under the legal age limit.
He may be dependent on another adult, but that doesn't mean it has to be his parents.
Could you really ask someone with a mental age of 6 about sex?
Not genetically.
I thought Hitler liked the idea of sterilisation too?
Define pain, define "shorter than normal life span", define "normal" life... define the acceptable level which would qualify for "quality of life" ...
Did I say that?
I said they have a right to have children. You seem to suggest that this mean that the child would suffer? on what basis do you make that suggestion?
Why?
Correct. Legally he is an adult, for a start.
You are arguing that someone with a genetic disorder shouldn't reproduce. I am pointing out that there are umpteen genetic disorder which may bring about an element of suffering. I am pointing out that your argument therefore falls fould of the "measurement" issue. How do you measure what suffering is "acceptable"?
Define "serious". Define "terminal".
Heart disease and cancer are pretty serious and largely terminal... for example.