Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Ashley — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:14:27 GMT

I believe parenting is a privledge, but where do we draw the line? Obviously, anyone, regardless of IQ, who is abusing a child, should be subject to state intervention. What about someone who is mildly retarded, though? Or mildy mentally ill? What do we do to these parents?

I have a high IQ, but battle mental illness. I have two very young daughters. When I have problems with my medications (or don't take them for a bit), I'm blessed to have the incredible love and support of my husband and my family, so I'm convinced my children would never come to any harm. Not everyone has such a good situation, though.

Administer an IQ test and I qualify for MENSA, but ask a psychiatrist, and s/he'd tell you there have been times when I've been so manic I was dangerous or so depressed I was equally devestating. Would some consensus between these two parties be able to adequetely determine whether or not I'm allowed to have custody of my girls? Would another factor go into the decision? What other factor(s)?

As you can see, this is quite a slippery slope.

It's likely a case of never being able to make everyone happy all of the time, and having to settle with some sort of loosely-defined "greater good"

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

giveuspaws — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:48:18 GMT

Age has little to do with capability. Functioning as an adult means being able to make judgments and be responsible for one's actions. Taking responsibility for the welfare of a minor child when a mother is not even capable of deciding what is right for herself would not only be illogical but dangerous for the child. Society has an obligation to protect not only the minor child but also the mother who isn't capable of taking care of herself, if there is no guardian available.

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Alice — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:07:11 GMT

Doctors routinely encourage parents of severely retarded children to have them sterilized for many reasons. The biggest is the girls wont have to deal with periods, which is very hard when you have the mental capacity of a 4 year old and to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The reason we have an age of consent law in the states is because it coincides with the parents' ability to actually parent the child. So if you are under 14 you really are not able to parent. You cannot legally work and most of the time cannot care for yourself. Having sex hormones and organs does not mean you have the "right" to parent. Parenting is actually a privilege, not a right, and if you do not do a decent job of it you lose that privilege. The same way you would revoke the privilge to parent from an abusive or neglectful parent the law can revoke the privilege from those unable to care for their child.

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

BBBGMOM — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:41:00 GMT

What kind of men (or boys?) are preying upon women whose mental capacity is that of 12-year-olds? What if one's mental capacity held legal weight in all respects? Then these women would theoretically be rape victims, right? (12 is way below the age of consent everywhere, I would imagine.)

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

jenn — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:56:38 GMT

This term, "right to parent," intrigues me. There are plenty of people and politicians out there who want to take away a woman's right NOT to parent. What about them?

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Treespeed — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:44:30 GMT

So the state takes care of everything for her, except presumably birth control.

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

paanta — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:12:28 GMT

About 2.5% of the population has an IQ below 70. You really want to deny more than 1 in 50 women the right to parent?

re: Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

mommashay — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:42:51 GMT

I agree. When a child's welfare is at stake, that should trump everything else. It is a slippery slope to be sure, but when it is this obvious that a child is in harm's way, the child's protection is all that matters.