It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will .

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Well for the second time today i find myself looking to the smart minds of those who call ATS home . So this woman and her significant other have had 5 kids .


The woman, who has autistic spectrum disorder and a ‘mild to borderline’ learning disability, has an IQ of 70.



Her partner, whom she has been with since 2008, is the father of five of her children.
He has a ‘significant’ learning disability and an IQ of 62.


This is where i ask for help .



‘Experts strongly recommend this treatment, jointly expressing themselves in these stark terms: “The risk to [the woman] of a future pregnancy ... is highly likely to lead to her death”.’


Given that this woman may not comprehend the danger of another child is this OK .
Also is there a hidden agenda here , they are not the brightest sparks on the planet . I am not sure about the genetics here but will any children be of the same mental status .Are they trying to eliminate the possibility of there being a working class dumb . Dont shoot me down it is just a question .

www.news.com.au...




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Reading the whole article I agree completely with sterilising this woman.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Oh, that is a PC question that cannot be asked!
What the Hell, let them create offspring all they want. The state is probably already paying for the other five, what is one, two or three more going to hurt, it won't bankrupt the system will it? You can afford to pay a bit more taxes to help these folks get along, right?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
It's cruel, or maybe better to say it's unfair, but i agree.
they are not capable of understand the consequences of their actions, and probably not smart enough to understand contraceptives and all that.
they already have 5 kids that they will not be able to take care of, also from a financial prospective i would guess.
give it time that number can go up to 10.
It sucks big time, but it's for the best.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Agreed - I read this the other day and must say that, imo, it is beneficial for the wellbeing of her children, herself and eliminates any additional burden on the taxpayer.

I want to give her a big hug though, sometimes it appears that one must be cruel to be kind.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

I was asking for an opinion . My views of a couple with a combined IQ of 138 having kids is well . NO . But where does the state step in , at 15 , at 17 , . This is what i should have just straight out asked .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
Well for the second time today i find myself looking to the smart minds of those who call ATS home . So this woman and her significant other have had 5 kids .


The woman, who has autistic spectrum disorder and a ‘mild to borderline’ learning disability, has an IQ of 70.



Her partner, whom she has been with since 2008, is the father of five of her children.
He has a ‘significant’ learning disability and an IQ of 62.


This is where i ask for help .



‘Experts strongly recommend this treatment, jointly expressing themselves in these stark terms: “The risk to [the woman] of a future pregnancy ... is highly likely to lead to her death”.’


Given that this woman may not comprehend the danger of another child is this OK .
Also is there a hidden agenda here , they are not the brightest sparks on the planet . I am not sure about the genetics here but will any children be of the same mental status .Are they trying to eliminate the possibility of there being a working class dumb . Dont shoot me down it is just a question .

www.news.com.au...



The Nazis did this. It is eugenics.....it is deciding who can breed
....
=evil



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
After reading this article....

I completely disagree.

The State does not have the right to tell anyone what they can do with their own bodies. How low her IQ is, is completely irrelevant. If she is capable of living on her own, she is capable of making decisions concerning her body. Simple as that.

The other issue I have with this is that it sets a dangerous precedence that would allow for the State to intervene and forcibly sterilize anyone they choose, based on whatever criteria they chose. Today it is this women, next month it could be some perfectly healthy women with no mental issues, but the State has decided she has had enough children already. There is one single indisputable fact here- anytime you give the State an inch, they take a mile. There are many cases in which a women's life is at risk during pregnancy. Even for healthy women, there is a risk to her life. many women choose to continue the pregnancy. For some it works out fine, for others not so much, but that is a choice for the individual to make. In this case, the State allowed her to make that choice 5 other times regardless of her IQ- this time should be no different.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder



The Nazis did this. It is eugenics.....it is deciding who can breed
....
=evil


I knew eugenics would come up . Just because the Nazis did this doesn't necessarily make it wrong . The difference here is they are not executing people that dont fit the agenda .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: hutch622

Oh, that is a PC question that cannot be asked!
What the Hell, let them create offspring all they want. The state is probably already paying for the other five, what is one, two or three more going to hurt, it won't bankrupt the system will it? You can afford to pay a bit more taxes to help these folks get along, right?



I agree on the fundamentals.. But this sets a precident... Where " they" get to decide who procreates.

In 20 years this will be looked back on as the case that decided only the rich and powerful deserve to breed.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Aliensun

I was asking for an opinion . My views of a couple with a combined IQ of 138 having kids is well . NO . But where does the state step in , at 15 , at 17 , . This is what i should have just straight out asked .


Just because a couple with a low IQ have a child, does not mean that child will have a low IQ.

Ever see how perfectly "normal" people with good IQ's have a stupid kid?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: infinityorder



The Nazis did this. It is eugenics.....it is deciding who can breed
....
=evil


I knew eugenics would come up . Just because the Nazis did this doesn't necessarily make it wrong . The difference here is they are not executing people that dont fit the agenda .


Of course it would, this is the opening salvo.

This is the case that precedes all other cases making it alright.

This time it is retards, next it is crack mothers, then the poor, and the uneducated, unt only the elite deserve to breed.

Wanna make a 20 year bet?

In US or euros...$1,000?
edit on 7-2-2015 by infinityorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal



Just because a couple with a low IQ have a child, does not mean that child will have a low IQ.


That is the sort of answer i crave before making a real informed opinion .
If you can back that up it would be great .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
I knew eugenics would come up . Just because the Nazis did this doesn't necessarily make it wrong . The difference here is they are not executing people that dont fit the agenda .


The Nazi's didn't execute everyone they experimented on, although I agree that just because the Nazi's did it does not make it wrong. Forcing someone against their will is what makes it wrong.
edit on 7-2-2015 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder




Wanna make a 20 year bet?

In US or euros...$1,000?


I am Australian and our dollar aint worth crap at the moment . SO NO .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I was with InfinityOrder until I read the article...



During one secret birth, her partner is believed to have used barbecue tongs as forceps, causing cuts to the baby’s head.

She had experienced complications during previous pregnancies including fits, a stroke, infections, a prolapsed bladder, severe haemorrhaging, her baby being in the breech position and premature birth.

Doctors said her uterus is ‘tissue-paper thin’ and could rupture if she becomes pregnant again.





IQ aside...

Seeing as IQ means absolutely nothing in the real world...

& against my better judgement that this sounds like not only eugenics...

But a precedent being set for future decisions that may not be so easily acceptable...



It's probably for the best that she is sterilised...

You could say give the husband a vasectomy, but if the woman finds another partner in future, her life is still in danger.



I do wonder what sort of Law we have in the UK that allows this though, & it is a dangerous precedent too.



50/50.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Sorry to say that tying her tubes is a good decision and probably in her best interest, health-wise, as she appears to have neither the mental capacity to see the threat to her well being nor someone who does to stand in for her.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: MrWendal



Just because a couple with a low IQ have a child, does not mean that child will have a low IQ.


That is the sort of answer i crave before making a real informed opinion .
If you can back that up it would be great .


It is simple logic, great intelligence does not procede great intelligence, otherwise increased intelligence would be impossible.

The latter can never exceed the former if this is true.

If dumb can only make dumb, there can be no smart.

This is evolution 101.

The future can exceed the past or we would still be single celled organisms.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
So she has six other kids and they're all being raised by carers - and to top it off her and the baby could die if she has another?



The Court of Protection, which rules in cases when people are unable to make decisions for themselves, heard the woman has no contact with any of her six children. All are being raised by carers.

The 36-year-old's history was described as "extraordinary, tragic, and complex".


I am not pro eugenics at all and think even this could set a dangerous precedent, but all the facts seem to point to tragedy and the fact that two people could die if she goes through another pregnancy.
All I can say is that I'm really glad I don't have to make these decisions.







edit on 7-2-2015 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
That is the sort of answer i crave before making a real informed opinion .
If you can back that up it would be great .


Ask and ye shall receive....

This is an issue of genetics which is frankly not a perfect science and an area that is constantly explored and has been for a long time. That being said, here is an article on several experiments with some conclusions you may find interesting and a good place to start if you choose to do your own research into the subject.

The role of genetics in IQ and Intelligence







 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join