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.

 

Woman who killed daughter to be sterilized!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
A Judge in Georgia orders women who killed her 5 week old baby to be sterilized!

ATLANTA - A Georgia judge ordered a mother of seven who pleaded guilty to killing her 5-week-old daughter to have a medical procedure to prevent her from having more children.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Thank God there is a Judge out there who has the guts to do what should be done. I hope this sets a precedence and that it is used more often in our courtrooms. There are some people who just should not have children and this woman is certainly one of them!



JAK

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
This does indeed set a precedent. I fear I am rather more tentative about it than you though.

The extreme end of this topic is the suggestion that all people are sterilised at birth and have to apply for a 'birthing licence'. This could be the first step on this road, and when the governments hold that much power over our lives could that society truly be considered 'free'?

Jack



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I think the judge made a good decision.

The mother obviously needs psychiatric help, and she is apparently not one to form stable relationships OR get in relationships where birth control is used. She has seven kids that are still living.

I don't think she needs to bring any more into the world.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Jak, I don't think they would ever take it that far. I think sterilization should be used only in extreme cases, this is one of them!



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I agree that the woman needs help.

I do not agree that the state has any right to sterilize her. This heralds our return to Eugenics legislation. FYI - the US had Eugenics legislation for a long time. Hitler used a 1926 Supreme Court ruling supporting Eugenics legislation almost verbatim to create the Nazi Eugenics programs (concentration camps, death camps etc).

We're on a slippery slope here...


.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Yup, a birth license would just be the thing for the NWO, I think the chinese would start it first as they already have had some birth control programs and a policestate to enforce it. After that Monsanto pushes the american government (wich might have by that time also turned into a policestate working for the large corporations) to have their sterilised seed technology applied to human sperm, so that you have to buy your offspring from them. Blue eyes and immunity against HIV can be done, but it will cost you extra....



[edit on 11-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I wish more judges will do the same, its a lot of women that are not fit to be mothers but hey they pop babies like rats.

Way to go judge. No to many people cares about the abuse of our young by unfit parents or parent.

Every body cares more about abortion and "fetus killing" That the thousands of born babies been abuse to death in this country.

What a shame.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It makes a lot of sense. Just as castration is a fitting sentence to sex offenders.


JAK

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The area in which I live has, apparently, the largest amount of young, unmarried mothers in England.

Along with such a statistic comes the fact that many of these children are not wanted. This is something I see every day. People who have had children because all of their friends have, and you get a house off of the council. I know that is how certain people think.

The area where I live in this town has the reputation of being the worst. Whenever I leave the house I see the results. The vast majority of children growing up around here are just treated as a mere inconveniance by there parents. The language they use when addressing them is obscene beyond belief.

My daughter has even admitted to her mother and I that she has been made to feel an outcast because her parents are still together, as opposed to the situation of the vast majority of her friends.

Seeing this I am all too aware there are those that nature judges to be of child bearing age who are in no way responsible enough to be a parent. The point is though, not that in this case such actions might be percieved wisdom but rather that this is the first pebble of an, albeit slow to realise, avalanche who's outcome either inevitable or planned poses a daunting prospect.

Jack



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Good Deal, glad to know there is a judge who views the rights of the victim as being more important than the victimizer. Usually this isn't the case.This woman and many others like her shouldn't have children in the first place.

Maybe the government should step in.....



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ms_Bhavn
This woman and many others like her shouldn't have children in the first place.

Maybe the government should step in.....



This is called Eugenics, for those who don't know. It is definitely where this administration is leading us.


For more information:


www.bioethicsanddisability.org...
www.eugenics.net...

Quote from Galton, the "father of Eugenics" - "(Eugenics) must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claim to become an orthodox religious tenet for the future, for Eugenics co-operates with the workings of Nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What Nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man must do providently, quickly and kindly."
Essays in Eugenics (1985) p.42

GALTON



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Soficrow

Thanks for the link... I will be the first to support a persons civil rights.... But ..I will also be the first to defend a victims rights... the difference ...the violater's rights stop, once they choose to kill or rape.

I don't see this being a gene issue.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Isnt there a law against cruel and unusual punishment? I think this would fall into that. What this women did was a horrible horrible thing, but could this be illegal?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
you have to be kidding me!? maybe you don't realize, but this women has 6 other children. what if she goes on to kill them? don't you think sterilization is a little light? dont you think the women should go to jail? the way i see it, this woman is a slut. she likes to sleep around. what better thing thing is there then give her the ability to have all the sex she wants without having to worry about protection and pregnancy. this isn't a punishment, it's a pass to keep on destroying her life and the lives of her other kids.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
you have to be kidding me!? maybe you don't realize, but this women has 6 other children. what if she goes on to kill them? don't you think sterilization is a little light? dont you think the women should go to jail? the way i see it, this woman is a slut. she likes to sleep around. what better thing thing is there then give her the ability to have all the sex she wants without having to worry about protection and pregnancy. this isn't a punishment, it's a pass to keep on destroying her life and the lives of her other kids.


Youre absolutely right this women should be locked up for life. I assumed she got more but if this is all she got then the American justice system is evan weaker then I thought.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Well,good for her.(two thumbs up)

Anyways,the judge did what it is to be done that is preventing her from having anymore babies.Though being 34,it's sad to see her not being able to have anymore babies at her prime age of reproduction.However,if doing so decreases the chance of another baby getting killed by her own maniac mother,then I support it!

Good work judge!


[edit on 14/2/05 by Heartagram]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Hmmm, maybe do this to that Andrea Yates who drowned ALL of her children.

Hmmm, I just started hearing voices, I am freaking serious, I clicked on this topic and poof, voices in my head. Maybe I should leave this now.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAK
This does indeed set a precedent. I fear I am rather more tentative about it than you though.

The extreme end of this topic is the suggestion that all people are sterilised at birth and have to apply for a 'birthing licence'.

Yes, but equally, being able to imprison anyone is the first step on putting people in prison automatically and making them apply for a 'freedom' license.


soficrow
I do not agree that the state has any right to sterilize her

I have to agree that it seems disconcerting that the government can remove and alter a person's organs by court order. On the other hand, someone as loony as that probably shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant and give birth to more kids.

This is called Eugenics, for those who don't know

This is not eugenics. Eugenics is altering the breeding patterns of the population in an effort to improve the stock. Sterilization is used in eugenics programs, not to protect children from violent and dangerous mothers, so much as to protect the race from carrying along genetic defectives.


croat56
Isnt there a law against cruel and unusual punishment?

Is it cruel tho? Unusual because its unique, granted, but I don't think they were talking about creative sentencing there.


astroblade
the way i see it, this woman is a slut. she likes to sleep around.

Irrelevant. The decision has nothing to do with 'moral fibre'.


duh squared
Just as castration is a fitting sentence to sex offenders.

Indeed, its the converse of it no?


jak
The area in which I live has, apparently, the largest amount of young, unmarried mothers in England

I thought abortion was even more readily available in the UK than the US?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
It's her choice. She does not have to get her tubes tied, if she'd rather obtain a long prison term. Good call Judge.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan



soficrow

This is called Eugenics, for those who don't know



This is not eugenics. Eugenics is altering the breeding patterns of the population in an effort to improve the stock. Sterilization is used in eugenics programs, not to protect children from violent and dangerous mothers, so much as to protect the race from carrying along genetic defectives.




The reason for sterilizing the woman is because she's not fit to have more children - that's a Eugenics argument.

FYI - there are several definitions of Eugenics, but if you want the real poop, go back to Galton and some of the meeting minutes from the early 1900's.

The woman could be imprisoned for murder, without being sterilized. How could she have more children in prison? ...And why sterilize bad mothers but not rapists? Why sterilize rapists but not child abusers? Or not murderers or the malformed, or disabled?

This ruling is the edge of the wedge. Once we get the ball rolling, how will we stop it? And where?


Not long ago, US Eugenics laws targeted the "unfit" for sterilization, incarceration and "mercy killing."

As Mr. Justice Holmes ruled in the 1926 Supreme Court:





"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... " Mr Justice Holmes's closing remark contained no consolatory words for Carrie Buck, the 20-year-old unmarried mother sitting abjectly in the US Supreme Court.

...Carrie perfectly fitted the law's description of a "probable parent of socially inadequate offspring". ...the highest court in the land shared the opinion of the Virginia Colony, Carrie Buck would be forcibly sterilised.

Thumbs up for the bright, white folks





Hitler copied this ruling almost verbatim to create legislation for concentration camps.

There is a strong political movement in the USA arguing that the nation should re-instate Eugenics laws. Many people do not understand they're supporting Eugenics when they agree to sterilize "bad" people. Nor do they know that there are hundreds of other "flaws" on the target list, and other plans in the wings.



.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join