It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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?
The Nazis did this. It is eugenics.....it is deciding who can breed
It's much more about the precedent it sets.
Neither the woman nor her partner have shown interest in their existing children.
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 .
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
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.
She doesn't HAVE her kids. They're in care homes.
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."
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.
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!!!