Sexuality of the Downed?

[Sparky Kronkite]

Call me a Nazi but I'm against it.

Only genetically stable individuals should have sex for procreation.

And even though I respect Sean Penn as a fine actor.......

Anybody can play a Tard.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Oh my! One fucking hot potatoe here huh?

I guess if the topic is anywhere near scary - most folks on this board won't touch it for fear they "may just loose a friend or two if they speak their minds."

A friend or two? We have no friends here. We have no real identity here. We can say anything. We can say what we think.

If we aren't too afraid that is.

And to think otherwise is simply.......

retarded.

 

[Guest]

Sorry Sparky, I can't type out long, thoughtout responses with one hand!






Porn rules!

 

[Ezzie]

Oh Sparky?

Did ya miss me? lol

Wanna make a genetically stable child with me? Hope mental instability doesn't bother you, though.

*Goes to take her Prozac/Lithium cocktail.*

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

If I we're God..... or, er, simply King of the World......

I'd say that as long as any human wasn't under continual supervision, medication or quardianship of some sort - if they could hold down a job - contribute to society - not extract from it, then..........

Two such like minded individuals could - have children.

But nothing less would do. Nothing that might cost taxpayers money. Nothing that might endanger society.

You know, the "Jason" syndrome!!!!!?????

But nope - if'n a couple of snaggle toothed droolers were to start messing around in the linen closet of "the compound" they were being medicated in - and they got pregnant?????

I say abort. I say it should be law. The world doesn't need any more high-foreheads gimpin' up and down the lane.

Right?

 

[Guest]

Ok, in all seriousness...

I may be setting myself up for psychological harm here, but, what the hell!
Sparky,
I'm of a certain belief system that incorporates "everything happens for some reason". Yes, not exactly scientific and not for those strict fatalist.
I know there's a huge argument against mentally disabled adults having children; the state ends up paying for it, they aren't able to take care of themselves- how can they care for a child, etc.
Let me point out, I've seen several genetically stable, educated, healthy adults that had NO business raising children. They lacked the nuturing instinct. The children ended up as my clients. What if the mentally disabled has such instincts? Are they not capable?

~bracing myself to be blasted...I'm ready!~

 

[Mischka]

Only genetically stable individuals should have sex for procreation.

What about indivuals with recessive genes that, if paired with another recessive gene, would result in a dramatically underdeveloped/physically or mentally challenged child? Do people have an ethical obligation to map their gene codes and protect against such instances? If they do not protect against passing on their damaged genes, do we substitute our judgment for them and mandate abortions in those cases as well?

It may seem like a long shot for two people with like recessive genes to pair up, but it's about as common as your original scenario.

The difference between the two scenarios is that in mine, you are guaranteed to produce a challenged child. In yours, the outcome may or may not produce a child without genetic defects (I haven't seen the movie, but it looks like the little girl is normal).

The problem with your scenario, in my eyes, is that it leads down a slippery slope. When do you know if the offspring of the couple is in someway severely genetically defective? Do we stop at the mentally challenged, or do we start testing all expecting couples/mothers? What qualifies as an unacceptable expense for the state to help shoulder? Only the severely mentally retarded? What about the autistic, the blind, or those born without limbs? Every birth is a gamble, and even those that start out with the odds stacked against them may contribute enormously to society, while those with every genetic blessing may become one of the sharpest disappointments.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

So called "slippery slopes" I will always take, if.......

a valid high percentage outcome is toward life embetterment.

So called "morals" (which are nothing more than irrational guilt anchors to which most emotionally charged humans must hold) are mere hurdles to me.

Life perfection would be my goal. No disease, no defects, extended life length.

Morals are merely current - in the current mindset of today's humans. In the grand picture - they are nothing. Someday they will be as meaninful as past pagan God's of the Inca's. A historical foot note. Like all irrationalities of the past.

 

[alexandraaah]

Re: So called "slippery slopes" I will always take, if.......

a valid high percentage outcome is toward life embetterment.

So called "morals" (which are nothing more than irrational guilt anchors to which most emotionally charged humans must hold) are mere hurdles to me.

Life perfection would be my goal. No disease, no defects, extended life length.

Morals are merely current - in the current mindset of today's humans. In the grand picture - they are nothing. Someday they will be as meaninful as past pagan God's of the Inca's. A historical foot note. Like all irrationalities of the past.

sounds like you may be an ayn rand fan...i'm on the fence about this. I've done a lot of work with mentally ill, retarded, mildly retarded, etc...lemme ponder this one.