Ethics of the situation

RichardHarding4007 · Post by **RichardHarding4007** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:53 pm

I have noticed several ethical debates have been brought up on this site, and it seems the somewhat "anonymus" internet is the place to discuss ethical debates without the possibity of the guy at the table oposite giving you a quick right hook.

Although some of the debate have obviously been fake (the one about the cocane?)

I see there is a clear sign that ethical debates are open here, or so I hope.

Anyways, there has been something itching at the back of my mind for some time now;

There are two people in my local village, both of whome are autisistic, not terribly so, but enough so that there is a major effect on their lifestyle. About a year or so ago, the started seeing each other, and 7 months later they were engaged to be married 3 weeks from that time. they have been married for about 4 and a half months. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against this, although it seems akward, but if they were to have children, would they be intrusted to bring them up?

I don't understand how a child can grow up properly with their main idols being two mongers.

Anyone else have an opionion on this?

Personally I think that they should not be allowed to have children, as it is unethical to take the children away from there parents, or let them be responsible for the develupmnent of a child.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:55 pm

Hmmm...I wonder if people who cannot spell should be allowed to reproduce? :wah:

Look up EUGENICS...you might find that concept interesting.

RichardHarding4007 · Post by **RichardHarding4007** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:00 pm

don't take me wrong, I don't think they should not be allowed to reproduce because they are ****ing spakkers, just because they would not be able to take proper care of a child.

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:06 pm

I agree. I think no-one should be allowed to reproduce without a licence. s it is anyone can have a kid knowing that society at large ie the tax payer will look after it.

By the way, don't let Americans tell you you can't spell, colour has a U in it, axe has an E, oestrogen has an O, etc.............

the only real dave (2) · Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:07 pm

i experienced a slightly similar situation years ago... i got friendly with a girl, she told me her life story about being adopted just after birth etc etc. about 6 months later i helped her track down her older brother and was with her when she met him. next time i saw her, she was arm in arm with him and later, when we were alone she let me know that things "had got a bit out of hand"... they had ended up together in a biblical sense and had in fact got married and everything! i was so totally freaked out that i cut off contact with her, the whole scene was just too weird.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:53 pm

I have no idea what a monger or a spakker is but there are many mentally retarded people who fall in love and have children. I am not so sure you meant to say autistic or if that is your lumpword for all mental conditions? Autistic people are not necessarily mentally retarded though some may disagree with me on that. Many are conceptually brilliant but have difficulty with the social issues of the world. What is it that makes you think these two are unsuitable parents specifically?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:51 pm

Are the 2 autistic married couple supervised by anyone periodically? As in do the parents constantly check on them? I suppose reproducing can't be stopped for any challenged individual - should they have children - NO. But then I have a difficult time with "NORMAL HEALTHY" women having children just to stay on state assistance. Has anything been proven that autism is passed on ?

I feel if you can't take of yourself - than you can't take on more responsibility of taking care of children.

Patsy

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:57 pm

RichardHarding4007;485243 wrote: I have noticed several ethical debates have been brought up on this site, and it seems the somewhat "anonymus" internet is the place to discuss ethical debates without the possibity of the guy at the table oposite giving you a quick right hook.

Although some of the debate have obviously been fake (the one about the cocane?)

I see there is a clear sign that ethical debates are open here, or so I hope.

Anyways, there has been something itching at the back of my mind for some time now;

There are two people in my local village, both of whome are autisistic, not terribly so, but enough so that there is a major effect on their lifestyle. About a year or so ago, the started seeing each other, and 7 months later they were engaged to be married 3 weeks from that time. they have been married for about 4 and a half months. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against this, although it seems akward, but if they were to have children, would they be intrusted to bring them up?

I don't understand how a child can grow up properly with their main idols being two mongers.

Anyone else have an opionion on this?

Personally I think that they should not be allowed to have children, as it is unethical to take the children away from there parents, or let them be responsible for the develupmnent of a child.

This belongs in the *autistic people who live in my village* section please. Helloooo:rolleyes:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:03 pm

:wah:

Seriously though, what are you going to do to stop special needs or mentally disabled people from having children? Make a law? Forcibly sterilize them? How can we say "if you can't take care of a child you can't have one" when like Patsy says, women are having them all the time to get an extra couple hundred a month? Or my beef, when people crank out kids because the church tells them to and yet they go on assistance or the kids do without because the parents bit off more than they could chew?

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:51 am

RedGlitter;485589 wrote: :wah:

Seriously though, what are you going to do to stop special needs or mentally disabled people from having children? Make a law? Forcibly sterilize them? How can we say "if you can't take care of a child you can't have one" when like Patsy says, women are having them all the time to get an extra couple hundred a month? Or my beef, when people crank out kids because the church tells them to and yet they go on assistance or the kids do without because the parents bit off more than they could chew?

Make it law that certain people can not have any children and that no-one can have more than 2 (Earth's over populated). If anyone disobeys the law they will be imprisoned, they can't have kids in there.:sneaky:

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:36 am

RichardHarding4007;485243 wrote: I have noticed several ethical debates have been brought up on this site, and it seems the somewhat "anonymus" internet is the place to discuss ethical debates without the possibity of the guy at the table oposite giving you a quick right hook.

Although some of the debate have obviously been fake (the one about the cocane?)

I see there is a clear sign that ethical debates are open here, or so I hope.

Anyways, there has been something itching at the back of my mind for some time now;

There are two people in my local village, both of whome are autisistic, not terribly so, but enough so that there is a major effect on their lifestyle. About a year or so ago, the started seeing each other, and 7 months later they were engaged to be married 3 weeks from that time. they have been married for about 4 and a half months. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against this, although it seems akward, but if they were to have children, would they be intrusted to bring them up?

I don't understand how a child can grow up properly with their main idols being two mongers.

Anyone else have an opionion on this?

Personally I think that they should not be allowed to have children, as it is unethical to take the children away from there parents, or let them be responsible for the develupmnent of a child.

Whilst being interested in people's responses here, I am disgusted and saddened by the clumsy way this subject has been handled, and the discriminative responses that have ensued.

The autistic/ Aspergers spectrum is wide, and each case varies greatly.

It is more likely that people who can function in a relationship, have Aspergers syndrome rather than Autism, and there is no 'real' reason why they could not care for a child.

I have a friend who is in a relationship with someone with Aspergers syndrome, who functions well enough in the home and in a full time job. (as an accountant) I also feel that my own father may well be on the Aspergers spectrum, but it wasn't readily diagnosed when he was a child.

I can't even bring myself to write the words that some ignorant people have posted, but let it be said that you should be ashamed of yourselves for using such cruel terms about some thing you clearly know nothing about.

A quote from the National Autism Socety Website

It used to be thought that people with an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) do not marry because of their social difficulties. This is not true; there are many undiagnosed, as well as diagnosed, individuals with an ASD who have partners and children.

this post has upset me a lot!

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:01 am

I think this is just another idiot who has decided to wind people up here, I don't think this is a genuine poster. What makes me think this?

Well, firstly people with autism are not 'mongers' (a nasty term for Downs) nor 'spakkers' (an equally nasty term for spasticity now called Cerebral Palsy). Secondly the OP starts of with flattery - praising the ability to have ethical discussions on the board then deteriorates into the inflamatory rubbish about those with special needs not having children.

This is not written from the perspective of a person who cares about this genuinely - if I am wrong then I challenge you to prove it.

There seems to be a spate of 'let's stir things up' type posting at the moment - as it we need that!

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:13 am

Imladris;486017 wrote: I think this is just another idiot who has decided to wind people up here, I don't think this is a genuine poster. What makes me think this?

Well, firstly people with autism are not 'mongers' (a nasty term for Downs) nor 'spakkers' (an equally nasty term for spasticity now called Cerebral Palsy). Secondly the OP starts of with flattery - praising the ability to have ethical discussions on the board then deteriorates into the inflamatory rubbish about those with special needs not having children.

This is not written from the perspective of a person who cares about this genuinely - if I am wrong then I challenge you to prove it.

There seems to be a spate of 'let's stir things up' type posting at the moment - as it we need that!

Exactly my thoughts on this...very well said...We were over-run by trolls yesterday and this certainly is one of them...

Is there a way to take all the threads started by them and throw them away in a trash can...and put them on ignore??

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:15 am

1 out of 166 people are diagnosed with autism.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:20 am

DesignerGal;486025 wrote: 1 out of 166 people are diagnosed with autism.

I was honored to meet (substitute teach) a child with autism, I was amazed by him, that was about 5 years ago, and I still cherish the memory of meeting this beatuiful child.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:29 am

caesar777;485266 wrote:

By the way, don't let Americans tell you you can't spell, colour has a U in it, axe has an E, oestrogen has an O, etc.............

Don't be rude.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:01 am

Rather than bget all upset about how the post was worded and stuff, why couldn't we take this issue and make it into a good discussion anyway? It smacks of eugenics in my opinion.

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:16 am

RedGlitter;486057 wrote: Rather than bget all upset about how the post was worded and stuff, why couldn't we take this issue and make it into a good discussion anyway? It smacks of eugenics in my opinion.

I thought that an informative post rather than a degrative one might be a good discussion point. I hadn't entered into the eugenics side of things at all, but had simply tried to communicate that everyone, regardless of disability deserves respect.

I don't agree with Eugenics

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:46 pm

sunny104;486032 wrote: Don't be rude.

I promise not to be rude if you promise not to tell Englishmen how to spell English words, deal?

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:50 pm

Hamster;486008 wrote: How can you limit the right to procreate? Surely that takes us back to communism?

If we don't limit the right to procreate the world will soon be starving and its resources, which are already over stretched will soon run out.

As for "going back" to communism, I would call that going forward.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:23 pm

caesar777;486430 wrote: I promise not to be rude if you promise not to tell Englishmen how to spell English words, deal?

I never did.

The misspellings Lulu was pointing out were words that are spelled the same in both countries.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:27 pm

Diuretic;486491 wrote: It's not just spelling sunny - there are entire words and phrases which differ markedly. You say "chesterfield", I say "sofa or couch", it's almost like two different languages

I know, I'm married to a guy from Ireland.

:-6

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:29 pm

what's a chesterfield? :-3

caesar777 · Post by **caesar777** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:31 pm

Diuretic;486489 wrote: .

On communism. Communalism of course preceded everything else in terms of distribution of wealth. Communism as an economic system is a proven failure and is very much a thing of the past in terms of viable economic systems. So any movement to communism would be a reversion.

In your opinion.

Communism has never been successful as it is always taken over by fascists and so, IT is not a proven failure, PEOPLE are.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:45 pm

sunny104;486498 wrote: what's a chesterfield? :-3

It's a davenport.

UpThereWhereIBelong · Post by **UpThereWhereIBelong** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:45 pm

Seriously though, i don't think that Spak's should be allowed to breed. there are enough window lickers out there in society that we don't need any more.

We gotta cut down on idiots reproducing,

Just my opinion, shoot me down if you wish

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:14 pm

This topic is a serious concern - and a law could never be enforced to stop reproduction, not in my time anyway. So does anyone know if Autism is passed on or what causes autism? Several have shown to have a high IQ

Patsy

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:24 am

UpThereWhereIBelong;486583 wrote: Seriously though, i don't think that Spak's should be allowed to breed. there are enough window lickers out there in society that we don't need any more.

We gotta cut down on idiots reproducing,

Just my opinion, shoot me down if you wish

Don't use guns, don't like them, can I shoot you with an arrow instead?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:27 am

Hamster;486008 wrote: How can you limit the right to procreate? Surely that takes us back to communism?
Pay attention Hammie. The government is the first and best authority for any decision. Ordinary people just aren't smart enough to make decisions on their own. :rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:29 am

caesar777;486438 wrote: If we don't limit the right to procreate the world will soon be starving and its resources, which are already over stretched will soon run out.
Untrue. We have surplus food rotting as we speak, thanks to government control freaks.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:31 am

caesar777;486500 wrote: In your opinion.

Communism has never been successful as it is always taken over by fascists and so, IT is not a proven failure, PEOPLE are.
Yeah! :yh_clap Get rid of the people and we'll be just fine!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:34 am

UpThereWhereIBelong;486583 wrote: Seriously though, i don't think that Spak's like me should be allowed to breed. there are enough window lickers out there in society that we don't need any more.

We gotta cut down on us idiots reproducing,

Just my opinion, shoot me down if you wish
Waste of a good bullet.

911 · Post by **911** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:26 pm

Accountable;487142 wrote: Pay attention Hammie. The government is the first and best authority for any decision. Ordinary people just aren't smart enough to make decisions on their own. :rolleyes:

"People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990

Schwarzy, is that you? :wah: