Why is this?

Post Reply New Topic

Why when there is a married couple and they live in a group home or both have a disability do you not see them having kids?

It seems wrong and unfair that this is so, and what is with sterilizing a girl who has a disability?

It happened to a girl who had Downs Syndrome and was profiled on Dateline. She got married to another guy who had Downs Syndrome too and it was mentioned that she was given a treatment to prevent her from having children.

I felt like I was watching the mating of barnyard animals instead of two people who got married.

Plus, they got married, why is this news?

Piece of advice: don't ask LePetitPrince about this.

Simple. Disabled people are more likely to have disabled babies. They should have the right to have children, but I don't think society should have to support the child any more than a normal person if they do.

My view on the situation will change depending if it was forced sterilization or if they chose it for themselves.

If it's forced, that's eugenics. Ick, ick, ick. Besides, even if the state or private institutions sterilized all mentally or physically ill people, there'd still be disabled children born, as anyone here with two NT parents will know. That's just wrong, especially when it's framed that they're just "burdens."

On the other hand, if the parents themselves make this decision out of their own choice, because they know that they can't or don't want to deal with the complications of raising and providing for a child, let alone one that will need extra care, or if they simply can't handle kids, it's probably a responsible decision. Too many people have a baby for the sake of having a baby, and then once they have it, ESPECIALLY if there's any issues, they don't know what to do with it. It's better that no kid exists at all than a kid exists and has parents who are resentful or incompetent.

I can't comment as I did not view that story on Dateline. But, forced sterilisation is not legal or constitutional.

Also, it isn't true that disabled parents are 'more likely' to have children of the same or even different disabilities. After all, their own parents were likely not disabled at all. Their genetics were the confluence of dominant or recessive traits of their own parents' DNA, just like anyone else's.

If both people are too disabled to take care of themselves, then they're too disabled to take care of a child. They should not have children.

But that is a personal opinion. Forced sterilisation is another matter.

Can anybody link to a news source on this? Because I really doubt that the state has stepped in and spayed a woman to spare themselves the burden of a hypothetical child who may or may not probabaly be disabled itself.
I mean, I'm thinking that the decision was taken by whoever has that power in order to spare her the trauma of childbirth, which would be amplified untold amounts by an incomplete understanding of the process. It just seems more likely!

Because if they can't take care of themselves, they shouldn't have kids.

most cases of down syndrome are not inherited because DS is a genetic malfunction that occurs during conception

I think it happens more than people realize. I briefly worked in a place that cared for disabled people. All of the women were automatically placed on birth control pills whether they were even in a relationship or capable of sex. I read somewhere it is because rape in group homes in commonplace. So instead of protecting disabled females from being raped by their minimumwage, untrained caregivers they chose to force the women on birth control pills to protect them from getting pregnant from their rapists. There is something morally wrong about that. Not even getting into the fact that birth control pills are said to cause cancer.

Also I saw that women in wheelchairs were forced to take Depro shots so that they did not menstruate so as not to inconvenience their caregivers.

And no I don't work in that place anymore.