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: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
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.


And I have to wonder how you can come to this conclusion?

Have you met with this women to decide what her mental capacity actually is?

Are you familiar with her life in any way to know if she has someone who could "stand in for her"?

How do you suppose her children have managed to not die as infants if she is so stupid that she can not make a basic health decision?




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Having had 5 minutes to think about it while on the John...


100% against this...



Based on a couple of comments in the thread.




It's all about the God damned tax money with some people...

& I have a strong feeling that's all it's about in this case...




As InfinityOrder said, now it's health, then it's the junkies, then the poor...


Well I'm starting to wonder if this is really a health thing or a poor thing...


How many other women have been forced sterilised due to health reasons...


Z.E.R.O.




This is exactly the totalitarianism I was talking about the other day.
edit on 7-2-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
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 .


" oh come on then" in your version of English......I would not even if correct accept payment from another ATSer...although you would owe me a beer and a good time if I visited.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Not to mention the precedent it sets...

This subtly done but wholey-overboard-at-a-second-glance emphasis on the dangers present is nothing but a ploy to sway public opinion.





posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

In the past there was natural selection i suppose .
I



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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.


I also agree, her breeding in the future is not in humanity or the child's or her best interest....but setting the goal posts here is very dangerous IMHO.

Everything else you said is absolutely correct from my view....just....should we let these pis honestly decide who can breed when and where?


Eta...the fact we rarely agree on much should serve as a warning to most, this is obviously an important topic not taken lightly.

Neither of us from my view just say things in haste, both of our views are always very well thought out.

We just differ on perspective and life experience IMHO.
edit on 7-2-2015 by infinityorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Check the last post on page one. Check out the studies. It is not a long read I promise, but very interesting and answers your initial questions regarding proof.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

Sure a beer it is then , well lots of beers . Aussie dollar at the moment is worth about 6 cents US .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I'd rather they just pass into Law a 1-2 child policy...

At least then it's across the board & equal.




This, however, gives the State the right to decide who is worthy, & you can bet at the end of that particular tunnel...
It'll be the chosen ones & select few who thought this up in the first place who are untouched.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   


All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.
Neither the woman nor her partner have shown interest in their existing children.


Just throwing this in there for debate for all those that didnt read the whole link . If this was the case everywhere i would never have used a condom .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

Not at all infinity, I've already seen the light that you were quick to spot...


That 50/50 mindset I had has reversed to a resounding no.
edit on 7-2-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

If the facts presented in the article are accurate, and if the situation is dire enough that a court/judge is ruling on this, there must be no one else to make the decision for her or help her make the decision.

If it appeared at all that she has the mental capability to decide to take the risk and die, fine. But again from the article it doesn't seem that she does.

And so your alternative opinion is to just let her just be totally unrepresented and keep having more children, as six is not apparently not enough, and die? Fine.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Having had 5 minutes to think about it while on the John...


100% against this...



Based on a couple of comments in the thread.




It's all about the God damned tax money with some people...

& I have a strong feeling that's all it's about in this case...




As InfinityOrder said, now it's health, then it's the junkies, then the poor...


Well I'm starting to wonder if this is really a health thing or a poor thing...


How many other women have been forced sterilised due to health reasons...


Z.E.R.O.




This is exactly the totalitarianism I was talking about the other day.


Sry bro..I know you are religious...but you are GD right here. No disregard to your god intended...there is just no other expression in English to emulate the amount of distaste dripping from my vocabulary without face to face discourse.

No other way to say it.

I am not religious, but if god is real... He has a special place for folks that want and or would do this kind of thing.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal



All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.
Neither the woman nor her partner have shown interest in their existing children.


I checked it out and there is no doubt in my mind that your surroundings and upbringing play a big part in your '' perceived intelligence '' . But my question was more about the genetics . Maybe 2 people of low IQ may produce a new version of man if the DNA mix was right .



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Not to mention the precedent it sets...

This subtly done but wholey-overboard-at-a-second-glance emphasis on the dangers present is nothing but a ploy to sway public opinion.




This is my absute fear....the road to hell is laid by the path of best intentions.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
If the facts presented in the article are accurate,


Keyword "IF"


and if the situation is dire enough that a court/judge is ruling on this, there must be no one else to make the decision for her or help her make the decision.


Logical fallacy and a total assumption on your part. For one, she is not currently pregnant. For two, the article says nothing about her intentions concerning further offspring. So what makes the situation "dire"? Furthermore, just because a judge is ruling on this does not automatically mean the women has no one who can help her make a decision. A Court can easily choose to NOT hear from anyone but only take testimony from what it considers to be "experts". So in the absence of such information, I simply do not see how anyone on this thread is qualified to make the judgement calls about this women's mental capacity or situation that they can definitively say that forcible sterilization is a good idea.


If it appeared at all that she has the mental capability to decide to take the risk and die, fine. But again from the article it doesn't seem that she does.


The only thing from the article that indicates she does not have the mental capacity is the opinion of the judge and the "experts". How many times have they been wrong? How many cases have we seen that have proven a Judge is not always right?


And so your alternative opinion is to just let her just be totally unrepresented and keep having more children, as six is not apparently not enough, and die? Fine.


No. My alternative opinion is just to allow her to make that decision for herself and the fact is, she is not currently pregnant and no one can say for sure what her decision would be. She is not being given the chance to make the choice.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

You do realize that the scant information out there also says she is neither living with nor caring for any of her six children, right? And that her medical condition is such that a seventh would pose a threat to not only her life but the life of the child?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: infinityorder

Sure a beer it is then , well lots of beers . Aussie dollar at the moment is worth about 6 cents US .


Lol wait a year US will be $0.06 Aussie...

Thank our federal reserve, you can't print $60,000,000,000,000 behind everyone's backs without a......" Down side".

I love you Aussies...if any one on this planet understands us for who we are it is you crazy arsed sob's.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

Duh. Of course the key word is if. Privacy standards still seem to apply to her. But the other if here are that if the courts are making the decision and whatever facts that the courts have and we will never know they had and her representation failed to make her case there might be cause here.

But, again, if you'd just rather just rely on your own ifs and let her go on and die based on those, and look at this as something it is most likely not, as if this is some scary government plot or scientific experiment or whatever other ifs you've come up with on your own, you are entitled to that opinion as well.
edit on 2/7/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder




sob's.


My mom was married when i was conceived . A ten month pregnancy is normal . Right .



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join