It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:25 AM
At first, I was with Mr Wendal in that give the State an inch and they'll take a mile.


She clearly does not understand the consequences of what she has done in the past nor shown any understanding of what could happen in the future.
She poses a risk to herself and a future person.
If she has another baby, she could die. Pretty simple.

And given that she nor her partner have shown interest in the previous kids, why is it that you think it's okay to bring people into this world who won't have a good outcome in life?

Do you know why the crime rates in the US dropped in the 90s? A whole bunch of reasons but one in particular stands out.
Roe V. Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health.

It was decided that a woman has the right to do with her body what she pleases and not be held accountable for murder if she aborts a fetus.
However, the law is based on sanity and an understanding of the reality of where the laws are present.
If you're not sane enough, the law doesn't apply to you.

I'd like to see them try and castrate me though.
There'd be a lot of pretty fires for the news to see.
edit on 7-2-2015 by thisguy27 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:30 AM

originally posted by: thisguy27
why is it that you think it's okay to bring people into this world who won't have a good outcome in life?

How do you know what the outcome would be in advance? There are countless people who came from less than ideal circumstances who went on to do amazing things. There is no "one size fits all" idea when it comes to a person's future..... or in this case, hypothetical future.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:31 AM
a reply to: hutch622

The way I look at it Hutch, it's not the implied sentiment or alleged concerns that really bother me...

It's much more about the precedent it sets.

I mean, why now, all of a sudden...
Are they doing this in 2015?

Because I'm more than certain there have been cases like this in the recent past...

& if it doesn't set precedent, it's only because they've chosen one woman out of Millions to make an example of to other women who don't "tow the line" with contraception!

The words "she doesn't understand what could happen to her" haven't been said...
Just that she "struggles to understand contraception"...

Well what happens one day when a woman who refuses contraception on religious grounds, or ethical grounds or whatever grounds...

Will they set precedent for those women as well...

Hypothetical I agree, but so is the whole premise for the courts decision.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:32 AM

originally posted by: MrWendal

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: MrWendal

the only time i see a reason for the courts to get involved is when/if the children die, sick due to lack of parenting, or neglected to the point of the child coming to harm. this is not an exclusive list.

at this point the court system is protecting the child(ren).

Ok, so with you current statement in mind allow me to ask....

If she is not currently pregnant, what child or children is/are being protected by forcing her to be sterilized?

she should not be sterilized.
we don't have enough information to say yes that the court is doing the right thing. the parents should be left alone unless there is circumstance that puts the already born children in danger. its bad to rule against people for actions that have yet to be taken.

i'm not the most elegant of writers but i do agree with you on this one.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:38 AM

The Nazis did this. It is is deciding who can breed

Really? how is preventing a woman from going through a potentially life threatening pregnancy resulting in a child that will be paid for by benefits from the state in any way the same as deciding who can breed?

lets look at it from a different angle. She is already a mother to quite a few children, and despite her learning difficulty has built a life and family for herself with help from the system.
By getting pregnant again she would either actually risk destroying her family and leaving her children motherless, or she would make it through the pregnancy at massive cost to the already struggling healthcare system bringing another child that will require more money from the system for at least 16 years.

I personally believe that intelligence (or lack of intelligence) is a big issue when it comes down to reproduction. It doesn't take a genius to see that the world is overpopulated (or close to the limit) already.
I ask you. What happens to a species that thrives and becomes overpopulated to the point of consuming all the resources in an area? they go through a natural period of rapid depopulation. I learned that in primary school, most people do. now the difference between us humans and animals is that we have the ability to predict the future. This fantastic ability combined with our adaptability has allowed us to thrive this far and sustain such a huge population spanning every continent. A useful skill during times when low population may have been an issue. However times are starting to change, both natural systems and the man made systems we've put in place, the very systems that this woman has built her life upon, are starting to fail under the weight of the whole population that relies upon them.

An intelligent person would at this point see that they're heading for self destruction, whereas the less intelligent seem to get caught up in false ideas of rights over what has been gifted to them. they will say things like:
"whats one more child going to do to the system?" the issue is the millions of people saying it
"nobody has the right to tell me what I can do with my body" this is true but without the safety net of the system or the ability to support yourself you would cause hardship or even kill both you and your children in the process.

don't get me wrong, I believe the benefits system is a brilliant, fantastic idea helping those who are in need, a very noble act in its self. Which is why I also believe the spongers and scroungers mooching of other peoples money and not thinking about the consequences of adding as many children into the system as they can are amongst some of the most ignorant/immoral people on the planet. I work, I pay my taxes and I believe I have the rights to have as many children as I can afford to support. I don't believe anyone has the right to have more than 2 children if they permanently cant support themselves, because after all shouldn't the welfare of those 2 children be the greatest gift they could receive? what's with the need for all the greed?

In my opinion if this woman was a little more intelligent she would probably choose to be sterilized, knowing what would be at steak maybe she'd try to appreciate what she already has. A life that is far beyond what she'd ever have had had she been born of a different time period or even area of the world. Instead the focus is nothing but pure greed, how much she can take and keep taking, and do we even have a right to step in when someones ignorant greed is about to destroy themselves and their family as well as straining systems that people who really need them are also relying on.

so yea, as much as I can sympathize with the poor woman I believe the decision should be taken away from her, mostly for her and her children's sake, the fact that the support systems will benefit is a positive bonus, but people seem to be getting hung up on that for some reason.

oops didn't mean to rant

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:39 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's much more about the precedent it sets.

Yes it sets a precedent and where does it finish . IQ tests before you get a licence to have kids . Forced operations for people with known genetic defects .

I am biased as stated but can still see the big picture . My uncle terrified me . Not because of his mental status but because of his sex drive .

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:41 AM
a reply to: thisguy27

What you say about abortion could play an important role in this ideology...

Here's a hypothetical;

A woman who is "insane" gets pregnant, & she is also in danger of death...

Exactly the same scenario as the OP but before the system could sterilise her for whatever reason...

Can they then say they'll force an abortion on her because she doesn't know better?

Who's next to be deemed insane enough for a state sanction sterilisation?

Bi Polars?
Women with Depression?
Down's Symdrome?
Multiple Personality Disorder?

Does it end with a Low IQ?

I doubt it, & Hitler would be proud of the proceedings of the future I guarantee it.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:41 AM
i was leaning towards the govt shouldn't be involved in the decision, she should be allowed. i've lived near people with a very low iq and people with learning and mental disorders that cause them to have a low iq. some have had children and do just fine. thery love and take very good care of their children, a couple of them are what i would call over protective , but that is understandable.

but these two if this part is true,

Neither the woman nor her partner have shown interest in their existing children.

it's not about the children for them, it's just about the sex. they shouldn't be allowed to bring children into the world if they don't want them, or show any interest in them.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:59 AM

originally posted by: hutch622

Yes it sets a precedent and where does it finish . IQ tests before you get a licence to have kids . Forced operations for people with known genetic defects .

I am biased as stated but can still see the big picture . My uncle terrified me . Not because of his mental status but because of his sex drive .

I can tell you where it finishes.

Keep in mind, at issue here is the fact that this women is not pregnant, thus she is in no risk. This action is being taken based on what the Court THINKS she might do in the future....

Have you ever heard of pre-crime? If not, the short version is that it is the idea that one can predict the future of an individual and decide if that person will commit a crime at some point in the future.

Seem insane? Well it's not to DHS. Ever heard of " Future Attribute Screening Technology "?

If not, do not feel bad, most people have not. It is an actual program, or better yet a screening process, being tested by the Department of Homeland Security starting around 2011 that uses factors such as ethnicity, gender, heart rate, breathing and other "biological and behavioral information" to predict if YOU will one day commit a crime. Not that you did commit a crime, but one day you MIGHT. Just like this women one day MIGHT get pregnant again.

You can read more about the program HERE which also gives you an additional source. Fact is, this is real and not some made up possibility.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 06:59 AM
Well this is one of the toughest moral dilemmas I've ever ran across. It's forcing us to ask the question "how smart must you be to make your own life choices" or "how dumb must you be before others can make important decisions for you". We do the same thing with children because we think they aren't smart enough to make important decisions so there doesn't seem to be any great reason why we shouldn't do the same thing with low IQ people.

The question is, how low must their IQ be before their rights are stripped from them? I agree with those people saying if she can look after herself without a carer then she should have the ability to make her own life choices. So in this case I don't particularly think it would be right to deprive this women of her right to have children. If she's aware of the risk involved and dies because she chooses to go forward with it then I'm sorry to say it's her own fault.
edit on 7/2/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:03 AM
And as for "precedent?" even precedent needs to meet certain criteria.

I just wonder what y'all will say if this is overturned and she gets pregnant again and she and the child die.

And as for letting her "choose" I suppose all you good people would let your friends "choose" to drive sh**faced.

There is probably NO ONE who cares about her. So it's fallen to the state. I suppose it would be better that she just be allowed to fester and rot. At least she'd be free.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

She doesn't HAVE her kids. They're in care homes.

edit on 2/7/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:08 AM
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes I'm aware she doesn't have her kids.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:13 AM

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And as for "precedent?" even precedent needs to meet certain criteria.

The only criteria is that a Judge says the facts of the case are "similar".

I just wonder what y'all will say if this is overturned and she gets pregnant again and she and the child die.

If she was actually pregnant- this would be a completely different discussion. But she is not pregnant. There is no risk to her life or to this imaginary child. With your logic why stop here? She MIGHT one day run with scissors and hurt herself, so let's put her in a home under constant watch.

And as for letting her "choose" I suppose all you good people would let your friends "choose" to drive sh**faced.

This is not in any way a realistic comparison. "Choosing" to drive drunk actually effects other people. If this women chose to get pregnant again, she would not be a danger to some guy coming home from work minding his own business.

There is probably NO ONE who cares about her. So it's fallen to the state.

A total assumption on your part. You do not know this. There is no way you can possibly know this.

She doesn't HAVE her kids. They're in care homes.

Under circumstances you know nothing about. When were they taken? Were they taken at birth? Were they taken because the Mother was neglecting them? Were they taken by Court Order based on this current case? All these questions shed light on this women's mental capacity, just the fact that she currently does not have her kids is proof of nothing without these facts.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:23 AM

Rebecca Schiller, the co-chairwoman of the human rights in childbirth charity Birthrights, said: "Taking away a person's ability to have a child is truly draconian.

"It may be justified in extreme circumstances, but immense care must be taken to safeguard the rights of people with mental health conditions."

Sums it up i guess .

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:38 AM
a reply to: MrWendal

Even someone with an IQ of 70 could figure this out. Their mental capacity dictates that they have minimum wage jobs. If they even have jobs at all. The fact that they cannot be adults who can properly raise children by the standards of the society in which they live, and the fact that they are getting financial assistance by a government agency because of their own financial shortcomings should be a foregone conclusion by any rational and unbiased individual.

That being the case, the government has every right to sterilize that woman and the government is using the power they have to do that by one very important fact: THEY are the one's who are paying to support the children that woman already had. Financially speaking, the government is that womans parents. You can cry all you want about how it shouldn't come down to money, but it does. Everything does. Including this.

You can feel sorry for the woman all you want, but what about those kids? How would you feel is you grew up and then found out that your parents were mentally retarded? Chew on that bone for awhile.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:44 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I wotk with people with ld.
Many have dols put in place (deprivation of liberty) which are to help them.
If a person does not have the capacity tounderstand tge consequences of their actions we put in steps to either help that person learn or help them not to get into situations they can't understand.
I know one lady who had to be sterized due to her being abused and a pregnancy happening.
Dols goes through the courts and are put there to protect the person.
I happen to agree with the court her best interest to be sterized.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:49 AM
a reply to: boymonkey74

Also if sge gets pregnant again it can harm her.
If she has not got tge capacity to understand this it is the right thing to do.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:13 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
IF the article is truth. It really is in her best interests, and she isn't capable of understanding that. Like I said, IF.

Lest we forget...

North Carolina is trying to make amends for an ugly chapter in its history during which more than 7,000 people were sterilized — many against their will. At least half of the states had eugenics laws, but only a handful kept their forced sterilization programs active after World War II. Within North Carolina, one county sterilized three times more people than any other — Mecklenburg, where Charlotte is the county seat. There, 485 people lost their ability to reproduce by order of the North Carolina Eugenics Board.


Like anything else they want to legitimize. They always start with the appearance of legitimacy, and branch out from there. Is this one of those cases? We shall see.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:21 AM

originally posted by: MrWendal
I'm sorry but I am absolutely dumbfounded by some of the responses here. It absolutely amazes me that the overall consensus here seems to be in favor of sterilizing a human being based on an imaginary scenario under the guise of protecting the life of a women who is not actually in any danger. This is not even intervention... it is PRE intervention.


That ridiculous question I asked above is pretty much the same thing here. Sterilize a women because she MIGHT get pregnant one day in the future to protect her life, which is currently NOT in danger and to protect the life a child that currently does not exist?

Holy Twilight Zone Batman!!!

She is not pregnant now but why has everyone overlooked the 6 pregnancies and human beings she already created? This is not just about the woman's right to have children it's about those children's rights and lives also. Whether they loved the kids or not they could not take care of them and have created this situation 6 times already!

Being taken away from their parents and put into care has probably resulted in trauma and upset for each of those kids. That kind of situation can cause serious mental health problems later that then affect the next generation of kids.

At some point the state has a duty of care to the innocent children or future children that the couple seem intent on having.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:27 AM
a reply to: hutch622

The article says the reason for sterilizing is to protect the woman's health - but focuses on her mental deficits - and "Mr Justice Cobb insisted the ‘exceptional case’ was ‘not about eugenics’." Right. Neither is Canada's recent Supreme Court decision to legalize doctor-assisted suicide.

Forced sterilization in Britain. Doctor-assisted suicide just legalized in Canada, terminal illness not required.

From a global perspective this slippery slope is getting dangerously steep.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in