Birth control for mentally handicapped?

[kage_ar]

Nuns working in war zones where they may be raped are allowed to take oral contraceptives so I guess this would be something similar.

This is known to be an “old wives tale”. Unless you can back it up with a document from the Vatican, please, retract.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

This is known to be an “old wives tale”. Unless you can back it up with a document from the Vatican, please, retract.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/contraception_e.html

christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html

 

[RobnBobA1]

They are asking the wrong question. Why do they believe this that those who have mental handicaps should be “prevented from procreating”?

Have these future lawyers learned NOTHING from the past efforts at eugenics? Or do they even know about them?

The US had compulsory sterilization laws in many places for those who were deemed “unfit,” or “idiots,” etc. The US was the first country to do this. Where do you think the Nazi’s got their idea for it?

Compulsory sterilization is a crime against humanity.

So, the question must be asked: So what?

Protecting those so severely handicapped as to require 24/7 care is the solution for them. They should be protected from predators and those who would do them harm.

For those who will go on to live independent lives, they should be taught the same thing as everyone else: abstinence outside marriage, the purpose of marriage, and natural family planning within marriage.

I disagree that this has anything to do with eugenics. That erm is mainly to say that mentally handicapped or disabled (genetically) people should be killed. In these cases, which I would agree it would be better that they were not “created” in the first place if it could be helped. Do not jump on me yet… That doesn’t mean necessarily to abort if genetic flaw found, or even in IVF to pick the best embryo, but rather just responsible behavior to decrease the chances of such a child having this condition. For example, two close friends of mine have genetic conditions, cystic fibrosis and Alpha 1 disease. The former was and still is considered a terminal disease although her generation is the first generation to live in their 30s (when she was born the average was 8-10) with medical advancements. Both have made it known that they desire not to have children with this condition, so for them it means screening a potential husband to see if they have the genetic marker for that disease. Since both are recessive genes, both parents must have it to be active in a child (rather than a carrier).
If people were more aware of these genetic markers they could through their precautions, stop the appearance of genetic diseases by either choosing not to marry one with that marker, choosing to be celebate, choosing to use birth control, choosing IVF, choosing to adopt rather than give birth to their own child etc. While you may disagree with some of their choices (Bc and IVF) it doesn’t mean that preventing those children from being created in the first place is the same as killing or advocating the death of the child that is already created that has these conditions.

 

[kage_ar]

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/contraception_e.html

christusrex.org/www2/news-old/es4-28-96.html

Neither of these are an official document.

 

[kage_ar]

I disagree that this has anything to do with eugenics. That erm is mainly to say that mentally handicapped or disabled (genetically) people should be killed. In these cases, which I would agree it would be better that they were not “created” in the first place if it could be helped. Do not jump on me yet… That doesn’t mean necessarily to abort if genetic flaw found, or even in IVF to pick the best embryo, but rather just responsible behavior to decrease the chances of such a child having this condition. For example, two close friends of mine have genetic conditions, cystic fibrosis and Alpha 1 disease. The former was and still is considered a terminal disease although her generation is the first generation to live in their 30s (when she was born the average was 8-10) with medical advancements. Both have made it known that they desire not to have children with this condition, so for them it means screening a potential husband to see if they have the genetic marker for that disease. Since both are recessive genes, both parents must have it to be active in a child (rather than a carrier).
If people were more aware of these genetic markers they could through their precautions, stop the appearance of genetic diseases by either choosing not to marry one with that marker, choosing to be celebate, choosing to use birth control, choosing IVF, choosing to adopt rather than give birth to their own child etc. While you may disagree with some of their choices (Bc and IVF) it doesn’t mean that preventing those children from being created in the first place is the same as killing or advocating the death of the child that is already created that has these conditions.

Well, as someone with a serious genetic defect, I am very happy YOU were not in charge of things when I was born, nor when I married and happily got pregnant with my beautiful son.

Read the works of Sanger and the rest of the eugenics crowd, you sound so much like them!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Neither of these are an official document.

There isn’t an official teaching for everything; sometimes you have to connect the dots using the information available. But you knew that already so why ask me to give you a document you already know doesn’t exist? I never claimed that the Vatican made an official teaching on the matter; I simply stated that they permitted the use of contraception in the case of rape. The Vatican may address the matter later and make an official teaching but until then you have to use a properly formed conscience and the information available to make a decision. As long as you can use contraception in good conscience it seems you should make the decision that is most advantageous in your situation.

 

[StillWondering]

I am in a mental health law class, and a question was just posed–what can be done to prevent a mentally handicapped person from procreating? Assume for the question that without some kind of birth control, there is a significant chance the person will get pregnant (apparently that is true in at least one case we are discussing).

The response among the group (and the court) was that artificial birth control was an appropriate measure. For those of us who object to ABC, what can be done? Thoughts?

I strongly do not agree with the the groups response. It’s essentially saying because a person is sick and society does not want more of sick person of this type, we will castrate that person like their dogs needing to be neutered. Think of the “disease” of being black back in American history. So many people were abused because they were considered less than human.

What is worst is that we would be treating that mentally handicapped person as if they are a disease. They are a human being. If anyone comes by and want to put in a permanent birth control on my sister who is mentally handicap, I’ll *cap *that person in defense of my family!

The group decision is a heartless one.

 

[StillWondering]

You basically have the same dilemma with people who are addicts and child abusers. In the interest of society at large it would be better for these folks not to have children. Yet they are people who really lack the ability, judgment, and self-control to abstain from sexual intercourse and take responsibility for their actions.

Mentally retarded adults do have urges like the rest of the human race. To deny them sexual expression by watching them 24/7 could also be construed as violating their human rights. There is no easy answer for this question. I personally think that artificial birth control would be an appropriate medical solution for this problem. It would be ethically no different than forcing a psychotic person to take anti-psychotic medication.

It’s medically unethical to force a psychotic person to take an anti-psychotic. It is ethical if they have a proper legal guardian and the guardian signs off the procedure – this is because the guardian is acting in place of the person who is psychotic. Either way, you are using an analogy of something that is morally neutral, medicine to treat an illness and contraception, which is morally reprehensible, to treat a non-illness (pregnancy and life bearing). False analogy. Just to be clear, what you said is horrible!

 

[tweetymom]

You basically have the same dilemma with people who are addicts and child abusers. In the interest of society at large it would be better for these folks not to have children. Yet they are people who really lack the ability, judgment, and self-control to abstain from sexual intercourse and take responsibility for their actions.

Mentally retarded adults do have urges like the rest of the human race. To deny them sexual expression by watching them 24/7 could also be construed as violating their human rights. There is no easy answer for this question. I personally think that artificial birth control would be an appropriate medical solution for this problem. It would be ethically no different than forcing a psychotic person to take anti-psychotic medication.

You are so right in feeling this way. A person cannot be watched 24/7. People try and do the best they can but you cannot be in control all the time.

 

[Rence]

Thanks for all the good thoughts. The context was about a person who had the IQ of a three year old. Apparently, this person had the ability to have sex, and would, given the chance.

I suppose the answer is that it would be better to risk children from such a situation than to cause a person to use birth control. I wish I had all these good responses during class so that I could have raised this point of view, but I didn’t have a chance to think through it much before class ended. It is interesting how everyone else in the room simply assumed some form of ABC should be used.

But if the person in question had the IQ of a three year old, they wouldn’t be capable of properly taking ABC anyway. They would have to have someone administer it to them correctly if they did, and if someone has to do that, then there is no reason why their caregiver can’t just keep them out of danger.

 

[AdriannaJean]

Just a thought, birth control isn’t a sin in the case of rape (if I were to offer a condom to someone about to rape me, I would not be sinning) and if the only way said person would get pregnant would be due to sexual abuse then birth control might be allowed…

 

[puzzleannie]

Why does the question assume only mentally handicapped females should be prevented from procreating? How about mentally handicapped males?

At what point is someone so mentally handicapped that they should be forced to either take birth control or be sterilized?

Why limit it to the mentally handicapped?

Peace

Tim

this is precisely the thinking that enabled officials to sterilize both men and women deemed incompetent for whatever reason in many institutions. another motive was to prevent their disorders from being passed on to another generation (eugenics). It was wrong then, people were rightly shocked when it became public, but being what they are have since forgotten that shock and the reason for it, so we debate it again.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Why does the question assume only mentally handicapped females should be prevented from procreating? How about mentally handicapped males?

At what point is someone so mentally handicapped that they should be forced to either take birth control or be sterilized?

Why limit it to the mentally handicapped?

Peace

Tim

I agree it doesn’t go far enough. People should have to take a test or go before an approval board before they’re allowed to procreate. Just think of all the money we can save.

 

[StillWondering]

Camerong, I didn’t see your post. I must have been typing mine when you posted it.

However, this is precisely what I thinking: someone with the IQ of a child. I stand by my original post. If this is a woman, she does not have the mental capacity to consent to sex and thus she should be protected by her care-givers to make sure no one takes advantage of her “apparent” willingness to have sex.

Read again what you are suggesting. Sterilizing someone does not prevent rape. That will not stop people from taking advantage of the victim. In fact, if someone is fiendish enough to rape someone who cannot mentally protect themselves, they would be even more incline to rape that person knowing now that they don’t have to worry about a baby and health hazards from it.

 

[StillWondering]

Just a thought, birth control isn’t a sin in the case of rape (if I were to offer a condom to someone about to rape me, I would not be sinning) and if the only way said person would get pregnant would be due to sexual abuse then birth control might be allowed…

If you are being rape, will you even have a choice of making someone use a condom. That involves you having a choice in the matter. Sounds like it’s not fully rape. Rape is the forcing of sex on someone who cannot prevent it within that context.

Just to be clear, I have never heard it is alright to use birth control during rape; I think you are mistaken. What you maybe confused with is that if a woman has *already *been rape, and there is no indication of fertilization, you can use a hormone pill that will prevent ovulation within the next few days. Sperm can survive for three days (give or take two days depending on the chemical environment). So you are preventing the fertilization, not the killing the embryo and not using condoms during a rape.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

First, mentally handicapped is a euphemism for mentally retarded and does not refer to the mentally ill.

I think a woman who is severely mentally handicapped/retarded (i. e. the mental state of an infant or toddler) is a person who does not have the capacity to consent to sex. Such a person should be protected from sexual abuse, which of course would make contraception superfluous.

I assume this discussion is about a moderately mentally handicapped woman–one who doesn’t need 24/7 supervision but who lacks the intelligence to use NFP or even comprehend the consequences of sex. I honestly think that if a person has the mental state of a child, then they do not have the capacity to consent to sex. The only reason I don’t immediately say ‘yes she should have contraception’ is that contraception is not enough protection. She really needs to be protected from those who would take advantage of her handicapp. She may say yes to sex, but a nine year old can say yes to sex. The man who has sex with the nine year old is still a child molester and the man who would have sex with the adult woman with the mind of a nine year old is a type of child molester too.

I am inclined to agree with this. It’s wrong to have sex with someone with the mind of a child. It’s just as bad as if someone had sex with an actual child. They need to be protected.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

If you are being rape, will you even have a choice of making someone use a condom. That involves you having a choice in the matter. Sounds like it’s not fully rape. Rape is the forcing of sex on someone who cannot prevent it within that context.

Just to be clear, I have never heard it is alright to use birth control during rape; I think you are mistaken. What you maybe confused with is that if a woman has *already *been rape, and there is no indication of fertilization, you can use a hormone pill that will prevent ovulation within the next few days. Sperm can survive for three days (give or take two days depending on the chemical environment). So you are preventing the fertilization, not the killing the embryo and not using condoms during a rape.

Date rape, coercive sex, things of that nature. Also, what is “Fully rape?” So, you can “half rape” someone? I know there is attempted rape, but what exactly is being “Fully Raped?” Sorry if this sounds a bit angry, but I’ve been raped, and know many rape victims. It doesn’t matter the context. Rape is rape, whether it be by force or coercion.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

You are so right in feeling this way. A person cannot be watched 24/7. People try and do the best they can but you cannot be in control all the time.

Why not? I have a 3 year old, and she is indeed watched 24/7, by me, her father, teachers, or some other responsible adult. Why can’t an adult with the mental capacity of a 3 year old have the same supervision? That’s the solution. Not putting them on birth control so the perverts will know they can take advantage of their diminished mental capacity with no consequences!

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[angelerulastiel]

I saw a Law & Order episode on something like this. Yeah, I know it’s fiction, but it brings up an interesting point. It was a mentally handicapped lady who was able to work. Her boss took advantage of her. He had her coming in one a week for “exercises.” Eventually the woman got pregnant. I think that this is the idea behind the original question. How do you protect someone who is capable of working and doesn’t need constant supervision, but can’t understand consequences and make appropriate decisions. I don’t think it was meant in the sense of preventing adults from deciding to have children.

 

[raggetyann]

To what degree do you mean by mentally hanicapped? I know plenty of people who have a severe mental illness (thank God for medicine) but have a healthy marriage and children I guess this falls more under emotionally handicapped but both can intertwine in some cases; and having a severe mental illness, left untreated, can lead to mental delusions and very poor choices…

And I agree with the post about eugenics…these kinds of questions I believe allude to eugenics.

I think the problem stems in severe mental illness, Brain damage for instance, or not being able to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and not being able to eat on their own or function, (completely out of it.) I have seen handicapped people have children and they were perfectly ok. There is mental illness, and mental retardation. The mental illness come from different abuses and life horrors, these people cannot fit to well into society, and their are mental retardations, and those range allot, from blindness and deaf and dumb etc. there are so many different birth defects, but it does not mean these people cannot be useful in society, and gain valuable employment. This decision would have to be evaluated by a good physician and psychologist, even then they can make mistakes in evaluations. People are never useless unless they are born with all their faculties, and are holding a good job, and just screw up, because they can think and feel ,they can pull the wool over your eyes. Watch those who can watch you back.Be careful who you judge, and be very sure what you say about any of Gods creatures.They are all valuable to him! raggetyann