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.

 

NEWS: Legal Guardian Sues to Sterilize 26 Year Old Niece Against Her Will

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Actually, that's not as black and white as it might seem; simply because she cannot give informed consent to sex (being that she cannot fully understand the ramifications therein), then there might just be the assumption that she therefore cannot speak for herself in any related matter. A 9 year old child can sometimes biologically conceive, and give birth - yet we'd fight any which way we can to avoid that situation, correct?


According to the article she does seem to capable of understanding and grasping the idea of Sex as well as the ability to have kids as well as Birth Control.

Johnson has been sexually active and agreed to use birth control. But she has also expressed a desire to become pregnant one day.
www.belleville.com...

This makes we wonder just how much of a care provider her aunt really is for her. You would think that such a helpless woman who requires such constant care and aide or even at least the same amount of babysitting as a child would also find it difficult to find the required privacy needed to be sexually active. Instead of forcing her Niece/Patient into surgery against her will you'd think she could simply tell everyone to just put their damn pants back on and to quit rubbing winkies and end up with the same degree of effectiveness.

I do recall living in the same house as my folks growing up and even without any disabilities or full time Guardianship it was still difficult for me to explore the opposite sex without them knowing what was going on. Had they ever wanted to stop the possibility of a child being spawned from my behavior it certainly didn't require forced sterilization. Simply walking in the room would have been enough to kill the whole baby making situation I believe.

In fact, I would think the best birth control ever would have to be Full Time Guardianship by your Aunt!!




posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
To figure out where I stood on this problem I broke it down into its components.

1. Mentally retarded woman has the right to conceive (no laws prohibiting it).
2. Legal guardian argues she couldnt look after a child if she conceived.
3. Any child that is neglected can be removed from the parent.

The case being argued here is apparently for the protection of any child this woman might bare. If it was about her being taken advantage of and having sex then tieing here tubes wouldnt solve that problem.

There are laws that protect children from neglect but this does not extend to preventing a birth to avoid any neglect. That is not how child protection works. This woman should have her right to conceive a child respected just like any other woman. If she then cannot look after her child then it has to be removed from her.

Until there is new legislation this is all that can happen. The law that could legally allow the forced sterilization of a humanbeing would need to contain a section that states 'mentally retarded humans shall not be permitted to conceive children because they cannot care for them'. That is Hitler-esque.

Then to be equal with the law and non-discriminatory you'd have to surmize that this law seeks to premptively safeguard a childs upbringing. This should extend to ALL parents. The only way you can ensure a childs upbringing is to interview all prospective parents and to authourize their conceiving of children.

Equal opportunity and discrimination laws will see to it that any of the above future legislation will apply to everyone, not just the mentally retarded.

[edit on 12/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
No, it doesn't require legislation like that. It requires the guardian take a stand as this one has.

I do agree that it would be best to tell them all to keep on their pants. It seems she is sexually active at a community center that she goes to. You and I as teens, were worried what our parents would think or do if we were caught. This woman is not. Takes away alot of control right there

Hitler's goal was not in protecting children, but making a race of super children. Hence the culling of subpar people(in his view). This would not be hitler-esque as it NOT for the prevention of a substandard child, but the prevention of a child that will NOT be able to be cared for by its mother. The aunt does not want that responsibility. Do you blame her?????

I have two children. I love my children, I waited until I was financially secure to have them. I really wanted my kids, badly. It is still very difficult to parent! As much as I love them, I do not want more. I empathise with the Aunt. She is caring for a disabled niece and is doing what is best for BOTH of them. It isn't the government coming after them to do this in a mandatory way. She is seeking it(the aunt)



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Since when does a legal guardian have the right to sterilize some one? Do parents have the right to sterilize their under 18 children? I think you'll find they do not.

Also Hitler imposed blanket bans on entire groups of the population from conceiving. How is legislating that no mentally retarded people are allowed to conceive not the same? Its irrespective of the reasoning, its the action.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Where are you reading they are legislating NO mentally disabled people may conceive??? This is on guardian. And quite a different from saying a minor must be sterilized because they are having sex

Please understand that we are talking about ONE case, brought about by the guardian, not the government. One individualized case that cannot and should not be generalized especially in the manner, subz, you are generalizing it.

It isn't all or nothing. It isn't black or white. It is a unique situation. I can tell you if I were in this same situation, it would be something I also would consider.

Sometimes I think that people want to see conspiracy where there isn't



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
No, but parents do have the right to intervene with contraceptive choices....and one of the big issues here is whether she will be able to make that choice herself in the future. With a child, that's generally assumed - yes, the child will eventually become an adult and have the ability to make an informed choice.

If that capacity is under question, then the parent or guardian does retain the right to decide medical intervention.

Just as a parent can demand her 15 year old goes through with cancer treatment - even if the child doesn't want it herself. The same applies to a Vulnerable Adult.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Thats right, My friend has an implant. She got some small metalic tube like thing inserted in to her arm. It lasts for three years.

It stops her getting pregnant and stops her having periods. For as long as it's in for 3 years.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Thats right, My friend has an implant. She got some small metalic tube like thing inserted in to her arm. It lasts for three years.

It stops her getting pregnant and stops her having periods. For as long as it's in for 3 years.


Norplant right???

It's inserted into the arm and releases hormones that work as birth control. It can last for up to 5 years actually according to the official reports I've read. Best of all, from what I've read, it also has no known major side effects. Also it costs about $400.00 and takes about 15-30 min. for the implant and it's removal. It can also be taken out at any time before the 5 years are up and continued with another implant when the 5 years limit is done.

Sounds like the problem is solved to me. She did agree to take birth control after all and that's what Norplant is. It's also not permanent either.

Now since this is nothing new or anything and I'm sure it was mentioned by someone much sooner than now, it makes me think....

How many people here think that all this media coverage and so forth is actually geared toward "Exactly" what we've been told not to compare it with. Legalized and Enforced Sterilization of the Populous. Eugenics and Population Control are nothing new in the history of mankind. There have always been one or more people who are dedicated to the removal of other portions of the populous.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Almost all the comments I've read on this thread concern the "right" of this woman to have a child -vs- the government sterilizing her. It's been established the girl/woman cannot look after herself, much less a child and that the state would have to take custody of any children and then put them in foster homes or put them out for adoption. What I haven't yet heard is any mention of what taking the children (if any) away from her would do to her. She certainly would not understand the necessity of the move and probably wouldn't agree with it. I have no idea how she would cope mentally, but I can't believe it would be very well. All things considered, I think her guardian is right to ask for forced sterilization and I think she should get her way on this. This is not a precedent setting case as far as I can see, so a flurry of similar cases is not likely to pop up if the court rules for the guardian.

I can see why the judge is ruling on this part of the case independently of the rest of it. Heck, he probably has the same misgivings as we do at the thought of government forced sterilization. On the other hand, he can't just duck the question--he has to rule one way or the other eventually. I really would not want to be in his shoes.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   


Almost all the comments I've read on this thread concern the "right" of this woman to have a child -vs- the government sterilizing her.


That's because some people still care about the inalienable rights God granted us.

My right to live and breed was NOT bestowed by the state, and as such, it shall not, under any circumstances, be taken away by the state.



It's been established the girl/woman cannot look after herself, much less a child and that the state would have to take custody of any children and then put them in foster homes or put them out for adoption.


Adoption or family custody would be the best solutions.



What I haven't yet heard is any mention of what taking the children (if any) away from her would do to her.


That old nonsense should be dispelled with a single proverb. "It's better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all."

You're willing to deny this woman the right to immortality through children because you think you know best. Well, get this straight, I would take huge offense to you denying me the right to breed, and since this woman doesn't think straight, other people have to get offended for her.

You won't take this woman's right to create life while I sit by quietly.



She certainly would not understand the necessity of the move and probably wouldn't agree with it.


You have no idea what you're talking about. This case is individual and unique in every way, this woman is individual and unique in every way. You read a blurb about her in an internet news article and you think you know her psychological state in and out? I don't think so...

The particulars of her faculties are known only to her and her doctors.



I have no idea how she would cope mentally, but I can't believe it would be very well.


Believe what you want, but sterilizing her to insulate her against emotional distress is THE WORST idea I've ever heard.

Just think about it for a second...



This is not a precedent setting case as far as I can see, so a flurry of similar cases is not likely to pop up if the court rules for the guardian.


If you know anything about the law, EVERY case is precedent setting. Each new case that gets resolved adds to the body of evidence used to judge precedent in future cases.



I can see why the judge is ruling on this part of the case independently of the rest of it. Heck, he probably has the same misgivings as we do at the thought of government forced sterilization. On the other hand, he can't just duck the question--he has to rule one way or the other eventually. I really would not want to be in his shoes.


He's trying not to elicit massive public outcry by exploring all the options.

Probably because he wants to save his own skin/reputation, rather than some altruistic concern for the life of this poor woman.

I don't agree with you on that last part either, I would LOVE to be in his shoes. Competent judicial decision making keeps the creeping doom of governmental intrusion into our lives at bay.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
That's because some people still care about the inalienable rights God granted us.
My right to live and breed was NOT bestowed by the state, and as such, it shall not, under any circumstances, be taken away by the state.



I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree here. God is not a lawyer, and God did not write the laws of this land. If the entire argument is based on a religious belief (which not everyone shares), then it's flawed to begin with, you know?

Your right to breed is not bestowed by anyone or anything, realistically. It's a biological action, and one that's granted to you by nothing other than your being part of a particular species, and being lucky enough not to have any physical reason for being infertile. Perhaps it could be argued that an adult who is emotionally capable of fully consenting to sex, and understands the consequences therein, has an inherent right to breed - if this holds true (which I think is what you're saying?) then this is countered by the apparent fact (at least as stated by her legal guardian) that the woman does not have the ability to understand those ramifications, and in the same way it would render a child incapable of making those decisions herself based upon similar criteria.



You're willing to deny this woman the right to immortality through children because you think you know best.


I'm not convinced every person does have an inherent right to bear children just because they're physically able to do so. We've seen an example of a 10 year old who is obviously not emotionally capable of having a child; having the physical ability is not a good enough reason by itself to warrent the idea of an inherent right to do something.




The particulars of her faculties are known only to her and her doctors.



That's exactly right. You don't know that she's capable of comprehending the real consequences of sex, childbirth and raising a child, any more than we don't know for sure if she's unable to do so. That's the problem





If you know anything about the law, EVERY case is precedent setting. Each new case that gets resolved adds to the body of evidence used to judge precedent in future cases.


Though semantically you might be correct, in real terms that's a fallacy; there are a few requirements which need to be fulfilled before we can accurately say that a precedent is set. Whilst every case is inherently unique by simple presence of unique factors, this does not mean, in the legal terms, that every case is setting a precedent.




He's trying not to elicit massive public outcry by exploring all the options.

Probably because he wants to save his own skin/reputation, rather than some altruistic concern for the life of this poor woman.


I have to agree with you in a way, on this one. I'm sure part of his decision is absolutely based upon his recognition that if he makes the "wrong" choice, his career is in grave jeopardy.

Though I don't envy his position, either. And to be honest, I think there's probably at least some altruistic intent present, too. He's human, after all, and this is a very, very human situation.

Thankyou, Wyrde, for giving me a lot to think about here



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I just dont think its right doing something like this without the person wanting to or as a capital punishment even though it would be considered strange/crude

the whole thing reeks of someone wanting to hurt someone else



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lamagraa
I just dont think its right doing something like this without the person wanting to or as a capital punishment even though it would be considered strange/crude

the whole thing reeks of someone wanting to hurt someone else


It's important to remember though that this is not being done as a punishment. That's a huge difference.

In terms of someone wanting to hurt someone else - it can be argued for both sides.

One side arguing that it would be hurting the child irrepairably, and the mother, if the mother is pregnant without fully understanding the ramifications.

The other side arguing that such a procedure inherently harms the woman, not least because it's taking away the physical ability to reproduce.

I'd love to see further gynecology reports relating to this; if she's a candidate for hormonal birth control, that would by far be preferential...then again, if she's forced to have an implant or injection, isn't that also in the same arena?



[edit on 14-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
ya but its not for her entire life she could quit if she wanted to



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lamagraa
ya but its not for her entire life she could quit if she wanted to


I'm not sure what you mean?

That's actually part of the problem - she's apparently not able to understand those consequences....the decision wouldn't be hers either way.

The guardian would decide whether or not the implant/injection was appropriate.

Not the woman herself.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I think norplant is very similar to depo provera which has been shown to have very adverse physical consequences for her. So, temporary birth control has been tried.

Why does one feel reproduction is a right that everyone should have?? If you cannot care for a child EVER, if someone is in a situation as this woman is, why should she have a child?? And no, it would NOT be better for her to have loved and lost! That is just, well, silly!

This woman will never be able to care for herself. You are putting her right to reproduce over top of a child's right to be cared for. Her Aunt doesn't want to have to raise another child. She is the one who lives with this woman and has the right, yes, the right to decide these things.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   


I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree here. God is not a lawyer, and God did not write the laws of this land. If the entire argument is based on a religious belief (which not everyone shares), then it's flawed to begin with, you know?


God is not the property of religion, it's the word I use to reference the unknown creation engine that has give us the ability to reason, and the consciousness we hold so dear.

If you want to call it Nature, that's fine too. I'm not a religious person in the least, I despise organized religion in fact. But, Faith is a totally different matter.

In any case, it's not a religious freedoms issue, it's an issue of inalienable rights, of which every human being has several. The right to breed, to right to move freely, the right to die with dignity, etc., etc..



Your right to breed is not bestowed by anyone or anything, realistically. It's a biological action, and one that's granted to you by nothing other than your being part of a particular species, and being lucky enough not to have any physical reason for being infertile.


I was born with the ability to breed, the seeds of life inside, so to speak. This is what I'm talking about, nothing having to do with religion.



Perhaps it could be argued that an adult who is emotionally capable of fully consenting to sex, and understands the consequences therein, has an inherent right to breed - if this holds true (which I think is what you're saying?) then this is countered by the apparent fact (at least as stated by her legal guardian) that the woman does not have the ability to understand those ramifications, and in the same way it would render a child incapable of making those decisions herself based upon similar criteria.


I don't think understanding is relevant to the issue. Do slugs understand anything about their lives? Probably not. Do they have the natural ability and inclination to reproduce? Absolutely.

Consciousness is a much newer invention than procreation. The former has no bearing on the latter.



That's exactly right. You don't know that she's capable of comprehending the real consequences of sex, childbirth and raising a child, any more than we don't know for sure if she's unable to do so. That's the problem


This is fallacious. I'd wager 80% of parents having kids don't comprehend the real consequences of sex, childbirth, and raising a child, but society gives them the green light, and they fill up every city and town with their ill-mannered spawn, year after year.

Bad parents are a dime a dozen, but just because you can round them up and sterilize them, is no excuse to do so. The fact is, even the #tiest parents sometimes produce miracle children. That's the beauty of genetics.

Why deny the world the chance for another Einstein or Franklin?

Thanks for engaging in civil conversation on the subject, and this goes for everyone. Tempers have stayed cool despite the sensitive nature of the subject, and that pleases me greatly.

It's impossible to come to any meaningful conclusions when people insist on hollering at each other all the time, yaknow? So, thanks again everyone.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Johnson, whose brain was damaged in a childhood accident, has agreed to use birth control. But she isn't capable of taking pills properly, Howse contends, and had a bad reaction to a long-term form of birth control, Depo-Provera injections.

So, according to this article she has health issues from Depo-Provera but when it comes to pills the problem is that she isn't capable of taking them properly. Which means what exactly is what I'm wondering.

I find that a little strange when combined with these other two sections from the article.

Johnson would probably have to go off her psychiatric medications during pregnancy and could become ill as a result, Barclay argued...

Johnson "is unable to do most of the home chores," Riley wrote in a 12-page opinion. "She does not do any cooking. She cannot be left alone to operate a stove or microwave. She has a personal caregiver who comes into her home every day...


So even though she has a care giver there "Every Day" and is already taking other "Psychiatric Medications", just why exactly is it that she isn't capable of taking Birth Control Pills "properly"???

I mean she is capable of eating food properly so I know she can swallow. Plus the fact that we're talking about Birth Control Pills here, which are about the size of a Tic-Tac. You can swallow one of those without even realizing it.

I still say this is just another sly way to promote the hidden agenda of "Population Control" and "Sterilization of certain members of the Populous". Why do you think they specifically mentioned that it should not be confused with the Eugenics movement a few decades back??? Because they know that it's exactly the same mentality and so they're already defending their actions. Come on, think about it!!

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the article I was using...Here it is...
www.chicagotribune.com...

[edit on 14-8-2005 by mOjOm]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join