[Savagelight]

	Originally Posted by BobG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In a world of purely rational people, your idea might work. I see some problems applying free market principles to: 1) mentally ill people who might not be rational at all. 2) an irrational emotion such as love. 3) teenagers. Unless the incentives are sex. Sex always works as an incentive.

Money can buy sex.

[Anhedonic Lake]

The more I consider the probability that some of the words greatest minds were probably bi-polar and A.S. the more I'm inclined to vote yes, they should be allowed to reproduce.

[Mikey69]

As long as they can bear their share of taxation. Anyone who must be supported by the state must also forfeit liberties to the state.

I am somewhat of a libertarian, BTW, I believe liberty bears responsibility.

[Ipsissimus]

Yes they should. I'm not convinced to say yes simply because it is moral, I say it not in accord with any 'liberty principle' - but simply they are more useful breeding than not breeding. At least we can care for them. Without care - the world would be a little less stable... than... it already is...

Second, social care is lucrative.

Third - by sterilising - just what kind of telos, what kind of 'god', or 'ethic', or machinepolitics do we follow? Why would we bother ourselves so much over a small number of people who are disabled?

If you don't want to be caring - at least let them be your court jesters, playthings, lab experiment 'subjects' and so on.

[idlesiren]

Yes! Who am I to say who should and should not reproduce, when I get incredibly angry at people who tell me I -should- be having children at my age.

It's no different. I just hope the child turns out all right and they aren't in pain.

[ATCGs]

It depends. Consent is required in most societies for sexual activity to not be rape, so if an individual can't consent, they can't have sex without being raped.

If two people both consent to sex... then they can reproduce.

[Coralaisly]

It depends.

Depends on a bunch of stuff.

- Is the illness hereditary?
- Is the individual of sound enough mind to raise this offspring?
- Can they be trusted with the life of another person?
- Are they of mental competency to understand the repercussions of their actions?
- For the women, are they able to understand what their body will go through, and the intense, excrutiating pain they'll most likely feel?
- For the men, are they able to understand that sex creates children?
- Do they have (abnormally) angry outbursts where they could injure or kill the child?

and so on and so forth. I don't think that people who aren't competent to be parents should be allowed to breed, period, regardless of if they have a diagnonsense.

My mother was mentally ill (and violent at times) and she almost killed me, multiple times. I can honestly say it's a wonder I made it to adulthood. She shouldn't have been allowed to reproduce. I thought so then, and I think so now. No one deserves to go through what I did when their only offense was existing. (of course that's not me saying I wish I'd never been bored and all the other melodramatic, woe is me stuff. I think you know what I mean.)

[Haumea]

	Yes they should. I'm not convinced to say yes simply because it is moral, I say it not in accord with any 'liberty principle' - but simply they are more useful breeding than not breeding. At least we can care for them. Without care - the world would be a little less stable... than... it already is.

That makes no sense. If mentally ill were not allowed to breed, there'd be no-one left to care for in this world? Not children, not physically ill, not accident victims?

	Second, social care is lucrative.

Ah, now we get to the truth. We should tax everyone more to create jobs for "social carers." Thanks, but no thanks. This nonsense is bankrupting the civilized world as is.

[Vermillion]

Most people should not be allowed to reproduce.

[TheStranger]

I read so many damn articles it's hard to keep them all straight in my head. But, there was a study done that the same "suite" of genes responsible for making others suspectible to psychosis allowed the prospect of intelligence to emerge. I think the result is that--say take a family--some of the family members will have above average intelligence, some will be average but have mental illnesses, and some will have above average intellect and a mental illness.

Also, there was a theory postulated that the "schizotypal" genetic framework persists because it was evolutionary advantageous, basically creative solutions to problems allowed them to be useful to society and hence increase their mate attraction abilities. I'm aware none of this really answers the OP's question, but still.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by Anhedonic Lake To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know this is a potentially controversial topic, but it's something that has been on the back of my mind for along time.

If they're not incarcerated, they are free to.

[Zsych]

Which implies should they be left free, or castrated.

However, considering the kinds of creatures that infest this world anyway. Who cares.

[Daes]

The mentally ill can be far more advantageous to society as a whole than the regulars in many cases in my opinion. Besides that, people should be allowed to live without interference from other people, so they should be let to do what they want.

[BuShinJu]

Everyone should be allowed to reproduce as it will only strengthen the gene pool.

What if some mentally ill person has the cure for some currently incurable disease locked in their DNA, and then 99.9% of the population is wiped out in an apocalyse by said incurable disease and this mentally ill person is the only one who is left to breed with.

Then the question would become "would you have sex with a mentally ill person?".

Clearly lots of people do.

Maybe the question should be "Should 'sane' people be allowed to have sex with mentally ill people?", then "why are 'sane' people having sex with mentally ill people, are other sane people boring in bed?"

[TheStranger]

Isn't it true that in general mentally ill people are attracted to same? Not %100 sure on that though.

[zibber]

Counter-question: should the chronically mentally arrogant be allowed to prevent others from reproducing?

[iamthey]

If the social safety net was done away with and social liabilities represented no material cost to society then maybe I would vote yes on this. However, in so far as every person incapable of supporting themselves becomes a physical cost to the system, I think it only stands to reason that future costs be limited and people incapable of supporting themselves, raising a child, or producing a productive and capable kid should be prevented from doing so. It has nothing to do with eugenics or artificial selection, just social and economic efficiency.

	Originally Posted by BellaBianca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. Because it is one of the most basic rights to ensure that we are a free and equal people. I do not say that the equality of our worth, freedom and rights are guaranteed as long as we do have the right to reproduce, but it's guaranteed to be lacking if we don't. The lack of this basic right to some, will affect the whole of us in a larger picture.

We are not equal people. Despite all the egalitarian nonsense we tell ourselves, it is patently absurd to say someone of say William James Sidis's intelligence is equal in worth to say a family of white trash, or even the average person for that matter.

[sircockburn]

To me, it's fair to allow anyone to have kids, but to require licensing in order to keep and raise the child. If we require licensing to operate cars, why is it that just anyone can "operate" kids, when in the long run, each messed-up kid can cause a lot more damage to society than a badly-driven Range Rover.

Just as abusive parents (theoretically) get their children-raising privileges revoked, so too should anyone who objectively proves unable to hold down a legal, stable job, pay their bills, not have a recent criminal history, etc.

I don't think that mental illness should be the criteria, but in all likelihood, those with severe disorders will be screened out by the criteria.

[ThinksTooMuch]

If a person is unable to care for themselves and living on disability it should be disapproved of and discouraged as irresponsible but banning it is going too far. We would have to ban a lot of things if we banned everything that was stupid and irresponsible.

[Sethis]

@OP:

Don't you think "mentally ill" is a bit too vague? Most people I see are..."mentally ill" to a degree.
If you're going to propose something stupid at least be more specific.

[topquark]

I would like to see no pregnancy being allowed to continue unless it can be verified that the parents are financially, practically, and emotionally capable of looking after the child. However, there is no good way of implementing that policy; if you tried, people would just not report pregnancies to their doctors and end up putting themselves in danger as a result. I also don't like the idea of forcing people to do anything they are strongly opposed to.

I do think that doctors should present abortion as the default treatment for all unplanned pregnancies, and encourage patients to attend counselling sessions before they decide to go ahead with carrying to term. I also think that sterilisation should be freely available on demand for anyone who has reached sexual maturity (currently where I live, you're likely to be advised against it if you're female and <25, and made to jump through various hoops before being allowed onto the operating table), and that the seriously mentally ill (or their guardians, if the impairment is severe enough to require one) should be asked to consider sterilisation.

[Straynger]

I vote nay on the criminally mentally ill. There the sorting mechanism is already set up, conviction. & why is mating/reproduction a "right"? I'm not quite contended with the whole "self-evident" thing.

[Selene]

Can we define mentally ill? It's an awfully vague term.

[zibber]

There's a ton of people on here that I wouldn't want to reproduce..

.. but I don't think I have to worry about that
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[DevAnima]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes!

	Originally Posted by Selene To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can we define mentally ill? It's an awfully vague term.

Well, according to this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
every one in some point of his life can be
diagnosed as mentally ill: "...over a third of people in most countries
report problems at some time in their life which meet criteria for diagnosis of
one or more of the common types of mental disorder."

Hitler thought that his race is superior than others when he was the most
'mentally ill' person in that same race! So are you people sure that you
are not mentally ill or you don't have the genes for being so?

The first principle of every physician (doctors, psychiatrists,...) AFAIK is
"Primum non nocere" aka "First, do no harm" ! I think this must be the first
and the most important principle of any human being dealing with any kind
of situation/question, especially with nature! So are you sure that you are
doing not more 'harm' not allowing 'chronically mentally ill' PEOPLE
to reproduce? And what is 'good' or 'bad'? It's 'good' for what?, your understanding
of the interests of your current society?, the future society?, you?, your race?
human race? any particular group of people? the evolution of life in this planet?
the evolution of life in the Universe? for your feelings of safety?...for what?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


...and what makes you people think that you have power to allow or not allow
some other person, animal to do what is natural for him if it's not trying to
kill/eat you or any other human/animal that is important to you?