Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will .

originally posted by: MrWendal




My only implication is that this women has a RIGHT to make this choice for herself, in her own way.

Would you extend that same privilege to a woman 'of intelligence'

with a degenerating disease who wants to be helped to end her own

life (to her a living death) and the 'court' wont allow it

Doesn't she too have a RIGHT?

This is a tough topic A good argument could be made either way, but in the end I think there comes a point where a person is no longer capable for making their own decisions. In that case they need a court appointed person to make decisions and be responsible for them.

IQ's at 70 or 62 are low enough we are talking people who are not now and never will be at an adult level.

I grew up with a cousin who was mentally challenged and never matured past the level of about a 13 year old. He married a girl who was the same.

They had three children, each 9 months apart and two were born deformed and caring for them was completely beyond their ability. Family members had to go to a judge and get control to save the kids. They were both made sterile and lived happy lives, while other family members had to take care of the children, all of whom were also mentally challenged and two as I mentioned had deformities that needed special attention.

In that case I think it was the right decision. When a person is not mentally an adult, they need to be viewed as a child would be viewed and they need someone appointed to legally be their guardians IMO.

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 .

Already happening ... The British parliament only last week

passed a law allowing for *Three parent children* to be born. So as

to eliminate genetic life threatening conditions and defects which

are heredity.

However they will be by choice and not forced.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas


id be interested getting a feminist opinion on this as last time i checked the mantra was HER body HER choice on what happens to it? i guess that only applies to "normals" this could set a very dangerous precedent. probaly pushing boundries for how this will actualy be implemented in reality but still makes me nervious that it could start with those deemed to be in too much of a danger to carry the baby to term.

The mantra still is *HER body Her choice*. However in this instance

to make a 'choice' she would need the mentality to understand and assess

'actions and consequences' which she doesn't appear to have. Courts do

not make decisions without medical and mental assessments having been

made.

any woman 50+ is at higher risks of infant death or complications during pregnancy will they too not be allowed to have a baby? should we restrict women over a certain age from breeding?

LOL!! I don't think you'll find many women of 50+ eager to

procreate she'd be nigh on 60yrs when her child would be starting

nursery school, I think most would be looking forward to retirement

by then!

I'd put the minimum at 150 and hope for a brighter future. I'm being largely facetious but aren't we over populated anyway? I should mention I wouldn't force anyone TO breed... So that'd probably achieve zero population growth.

I don't care for eugenics but a world of geniuses achieved ethically would be pretty cool. (Providing of course that IQ were a proper measure of that)

When is enough, enough? She should have had the insight to see the five she had was too many. If her IQ is really that low, maybe someone needed to step in. It sounds cold but each one of those children are going to produce offspring. I know everyone is going to say where is the cut-off on who can and cannot breed. I think a three child policy should be in effect world wide. One more than China had. This carries on the human race a little better. I can't see anyone having 5+ kids.

Its kind of unfair, but they don't understand the consequences of what they are doing.

IMO everybody should be sterilised at birth, with the procedure reversed once it's established they can successfully raise a child which will contribute to society.

The Spartans understood only the healthiest/smartest must breed, and would throw deformed babies from the cliffs.

I know it sounds evil, but mentally challenged people are a drain of resources, many of them either never work or do only the simplest of jobs.

Survival of the fittest and all that good stuff

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: infinityorder

sob's.

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

Was for me LOL

originally posted by: infinityorder

It is simple logic ....

Yes, you're using simple logic, which does not work so well with things surrounding complex human beings.

If you were to think more fluid, terms like "a tendency towards" and "more so" or "less so" might come to mind in regards to this matter.

This is definitely for the best. I'm reminded of one of three kinds of stupidity often seen on this site. I reference this bit here:

These people are dangerous in science for they will if needed corrupt their data to avoid any outcome that would either violate the ruling paradigm, or appear "inhumane". For instance, if a person like this studies handedness and finds that left-handers are ten times more violent than right-handers, the person will corrupt or discard those results to hide this fact, thinking "It would be inhumane to stigmatize the group of left-handers by making this known". These people are so afraid to be "against the grain" or to "hurt" others that they will rather lie. Typical pronouncements for them are "Some truths can better not be told", "The effect of what one says is more important than whether or not is it true", and "Truth does not exist".

Penius

a reply to: infinityorder

I agree with you that it is not right to forcefully sterilize anyone. Basically they would be making the statement that ANY unfit parent (if it's consider a permanent state) should be sterilized. This is a slippery slope. I am pretty sure we already have a department that makes sure parents are capable of creating a suitable home for their children; if not, they lose the right to their children.

From what I saw in the article, the argument here is to do it simply based on the physical danger another pregnancy would create for the mother... That even less substantial.

So either way, I vote no.

a reply to: Infinitis

its not only the physical danger to the mother but also future children..

her partner used tongs as forceps for crying out loud.. they've been lucky so far that none have died..

originally posted by: eletheia
Considering she has had five children in a little over 5 yrs. What would

you say the chances are of her never again conceiving till she hits

the menopause

When you say she should be given *the choice* you are assuming she

understands the consequences to herself of another pregnancy.

*One needs to understand consequences to have choice?*


Through having an autistic grandson I have a deal of experience

of autistic adults, and they don't always connect one action to

the results that happen months later.

All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.

So what you are saying is basic Math is not really your strong suit?

originally posted by: eletheia
Would you extend that same privilege to a woman 'of intelligence'

with a degenerating disease who wants to be helped to end her own

life (to her a living death) and the 'court' wont allow it

Doesn't she too have a RIGHT?

Well for starters, this has nothing to do with a debate about ending your own life, but since you asked.... YES!!

I happen to believe anyone has the right to end their life, especially if they are already sick, already dying, and want to do so on their own terms rather than suffer.

originally posted by: MrWendal


All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.

So what you are saying is basic Math is not really your strong suit?

IF you have read the link in the OP it clearly states ...

QUOTE >>>>

"Her partner whom she has been with since 2008 is the father of

FIVE of her children

No nothing wrong with my math. How is your reading and comprehension

In *this particular case* I think it might be for the best. But I have to ask: If we choose to allow this, where will the line be drawn? For the liberal agenda it's a short jump from sterilizing the mentally disabled to sterilizing the public for the good of the planet.