Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

"Let me start off this round by stating that in the previous round, Pro is mistaken, the act of the parent was not self gratification but a natural primal need to defend one's young." First of all, the resolution concerns if the act is "right", and as a culture we have long past the point where we would adopt primal instincts to defend what is right. As a trivial example, could I justify the kidnap and rape of a woman because a claim of a primal need to procreate - obviously not a valid reason. Simply because we have base needs, desires and reactions left over from when we were such creatures, is no excuse to act on such impulses and then argue "well it is just my DNA boss - I used to be a monkey". But even more than that, as noted in the opening round, engaging in direct conflict is not an act of protection it is an act of irresponsible endangerment. Who exactly is protecting the kid while the parent gets in a fist fight with the mentally handicapped individual and what exactly is the protection if the parent could lose the confrontation or the confrontation escalates and the friends of the handicapped individual are drawn in or people in the adjacent area? It is really argued to be the act of a rational parent to not protect the child first, but to last out to dispense their idea of justice - and by what means do they have to claim said right? Further, extend all arguments as noted in the above round which were not addressed which contend any such action in all cases is : -illegal -irresponsible -unjust and in the case of severe mental retardation where the individual is not capable of understanding they have caused harm or that they have received punishment, this is simply an act of sadism. "... they are unable to do anything because it is unlawful to fire a mentally handicapped man." What exact law is it which prohibits firing someone who is mentally handicapped? This law certainly does not exist in Canada because under the OH&S act and regulations, there is zero tolerance for harassment at the workplace, and the behavior does not need to go nearly as far as required in order to result in termination.[1,2] "Yes. Which brings me to my main point, just because a person is mentally handicapped, it shouldn't mean that that person gets special privlages ..." Note this resolution, while interesting is not the actual resolution made in the opening post which stated that the act of punching the man in the face was right. Now if Con wishes to argue that particular resolution then I would readily engage it as well because they are proposing a significant change to our legal system which does recognize both capability to understand and intent as relevant aspects which influence what is just in any offense. Thus in order for a mental handicap to have no influence on the law it would require appealing these fundamental principles of law which would have significant effect on other areas as well. For example a person with a severe mental handicap gets "special treatment" in the eyes of the law in regards to rape as they can be found not to be able to give consent and thus they can be treated as a minor even if they are typically past the age of consent. Thus if Con really wishes to remove mental handicaps from consideration of justice then this is just one of the problems that would be induced as such individuals would have far less rights than they should have when it is considered the extent to which they can protect themselves. [1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... [2] http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca...