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.

 

Judge arranges sterilization as part of Charleston woman's probation

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


I feel like this argument is disingenuous. Acceptance of a "choice" in lieu of imprisonment really isn't a choice. It is like the old monarchy's "choice" of admitting your guilt or remaining imprisoned. Would you consider that admission of guilt unforced?


Okay. But imprisonment was the result of a wrong doing.
She did the crime, but has a choice not to do the time.

She can take it or leave it. It's not disingenuous for you to be wrong. It is, however, disingenuous to say that it's wrong to offer her a choice.

She did a crime.
Pure and simple.
Don't commit a crime and quite frankly, you'll never have to worry about it.

It REALLY IS that simple. You only choose to complicate things in order to mask the simple fact that your argument is moot. It is not being forced upon her, therefore your argument of forced government population control is false and lame.

It's the same thing as saying "if you want out of jail, you'll have to be visited weekly by a parole officer and pee in this cup"

or

"If you wish to see your children, you are to meet with a family counselor 3 times a week"

you call this womans choice barbaric and unacceptable

i say it's just what the doctor ordered.




[edit on 6-6-2009 by Fremd]

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Fremd]




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 





She can take it or leave it. It's not disingenuous for you to be wrong. It is, however, disingenuous to say that it's wrong to offer her a choice.


Actually as stated before it does not appear it was presented as a term of her probation. There are still concerns regarding the court being involved in sterilization but I believe the greatest concern is that some believing that this was represented as a term of her probation and finding it acceptable.




It is not being forced upon her, therefore your argument of forced government population control is false and lame.


I am curious if you would support sterilization as a condition of probation for all criminal cases. If not which cases should have sterilization as a condition?




It's the same thing as saying "if you want out of jail, you'll have to be visited weekly by a parole officer and pee in this cup"

or

"If you wish to see your children, you are to meet with a family counselor 3 times a week"


The point you are making is a valid one. Certainly terms of probation do restrict or remove some of an individuals constitutional rights for the term of probation. An individual who commits a gun crime certainly loses his second amendment right as a term of probation. An individuals right to privacy will certainly be restricted while on probation. etc...

Although the courts have a certain amount of discretion to set terms of probation this discretion is not unlimited.

State v. Brown, 284 S.C. 407, 410, 326 S.E.2d 410, 411 (1985).



Section 24-21-430 vests judges with "a wide, but not unlimited, discretion in imposing conditions of suspension or probation."


and in Beckner v. State, 296 S.C. 365, 366, 373 S.E.2d 469, 469 (1988)



However, conditions of probation must be reasonable and judges cannot impose conditions that are illegal and void as against public policy.


So then what can a court issue as a condition of probation? As stated in State v. Allen, 370 S.C. 88, 94, 634 S.E.2d 653, 656 (2006)




Various conditions of probation generally have been upheld unless (1) the condition is so unreasonable or overly broad that compliance is virtually impossible and the burden imposed on the probationer is greatly disproportionate to any rehabilitative function the condition might serve; (2) the condition has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted; (3) the condition requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality; (4) the condition relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal unless the prohibited conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the offender was convicted or to future criminality; (5) the condition violates due process because it is overly broad or void for vagueness; or (6) the condition unnecessarily or excessively tramples upon First Amendment rights of free association.


Clearly sterilization as a term of probation would fail several of those conditions and would certainly be an abuse of discretion.

Furthermore conditions of probation in the eyes of the law cannot be considered voluntary and therefore your assertion that the defendant had a "choice" is erroneous as far as the law is concerned.

In Wolf v. Marlton Corporation, 154 A. 2d. 625 (New Jersey 1959),




the court found that consent is involuntary when any “threats” are made that prevent an individual from acting freely.


It is easy to see how a long prison sentence could be considered a threat.

In addition to the above mentioned, a violation of the eighth and/ or the fourteenth amendment is an abuse of discretion. Several courts have also made clear that punitive sterilization is unlawful and violation of the defendants eighth amendment rights.







[edit on 7-6-2009 by harvib]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 
Get back to me when you are in your sixties. I hope you are lucky and there is no alziemers in your genetic line. There are other side effects ,but I will spare you the details because you are so happy with your ligation. I wouldn't be so happy if I were you.

It is unacceptable for you or the judge or anyone else to force a woman to have tubal ligation against her will.The court might as well condone allowing that judge to rape the woman under anesthesia of course.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
What makes having babies a mistake? Babies are beautiful gifts/blessings from God. The world could use more of them. Maybe if people were not so callous, babies would not be dehumanized as "mistakes."


1. There is no god/gods/spirits/spirituality/supernatural phenomena, so they are not gifts/blessings.

2. The world has nearly 7 billion people. We don't need any more of them at all. China has the right idea in trying to encourage people not to mindlessly breed just because they can.

3. Maybe if young single mothers could keep their legs together - no, scratch that, just use a freaking condom/pill/morning after pill/whatever - then we wouldn't have this vast, dumb underclass who are continually unemployed/incarcerated.

Idealism is all well and good, but sometimes you have to look facts in the face.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I am absolutely amazed, disappointed, and quite disgusted at the thinking of some people when it comes to the subject of single mothers.

Does anyone ever notice how the subject always shifts heavily on only the female? Rarely, if ever, are the men mentioned that took part in bringing these children into the world. In case anyone missed this part of sex ed class... IT TAKES TWO PEOPLE TO CREATE A PREGNANCY.

I've lost count of how many children I have met whose 'fathers' took off the moment mom became pregnant and refused to be responsible to that child in any way. And don't even get me started on how inept our court system is on mandating father financial responsibility.

Think about this for a moment...
In the span of one year, how many children can a woman create in the world as a result getting pregnant? Generally one right? (Maybe two if she's blessed with twins).
In the span of one year, how many children can a man create in the world as a result of getting a woman pregnant? Well gee, I've met numerous men boasting about how they "do" a different woman just about every weekend... some even several women a week. You do the math. Now tell me exactly who the # should be getting fixed???

If ANYONE here is gonna suggest the idea of ANY woman being required to get 'fixed', regardless if it results in welfare or anything else, you seriously better be also suggesting that the man who got her that way is tracked down like a dog, spit on by society like the woman is, and 'fixed' as well.
*ends rant*

Anyways, as far as this woman goes... maybe she can receive counseling to help her decide if she's ready for sterilization (many people are more than ready after having kids already) or if she wants to examine birth control options. Learning about "choices" from someone experienced in that field would seem most appropriate.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I would love to get an honest opinion from any of the single ATS guys out there if you would be willing to take part in the following question, (and yes this is related to the topic, bear with me). Say that as of tomorrow a new law started across the nation that was as follows:

"By law, any interaction between two people resulting in a child are hereby lawfully deemed as united. It does not matter if marriage exists on paper or not, you will be considered as married, by law, for the next 18 years. As a result, you both will NOT be allowed to marry any other person for that length of time, and you both will be held financially responsible for such child. If not willfully supplied, financial responsibilities will be automatically deducted from any income received to go towards child's needs. There will be NO exceptions."

My question is, if such a law existed, would it change your "interests" in being with a woman you weren't necessarily interested in enough to marry, but only enough to sleep with? Would you chance not being able to marry anyone else for 18 years but who you got pregnant... and having money taken with no exceptions?

Because I'm wondering if there was such a law (I know there never will be), if we wouldn't see a reduction in pregnancies, therefore, reduction in welfare cases and babies born in drug environments, etc. Would such a law have possibly prevented situations such as in the OP? Or would you guys still 'go for it' regardless?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
reply to post by Kailassa
 
Get back to me when you are in your sixties.

Lol, I'm nearly there already.
After living happily with a TL done nearly 30 years ago, I doubt that in just a few more years I'm going to experience terrible side effects from it.



I hope you are lucky and there is no alziemers in your genetic line.

If I had Alzheimer's in my genetic line and developed Alzheimer's in my old age, blaming it onto a a minor procedure done so long ago, which has no reasonable connection with the problem, would be pretty silly.



There are other side effects ,but I will spare you the details because you are so happy with your ligation. I wouldn't be so happy if I were you.

- As if I would have replied to your first post without first researching the claims people make about this syndrome.


Any operation carries some risk.
It appears some ligations have not been done well and have caused genuine problems afterwards.
This does not mean that the bulk of people having this type of procedure will have any side effects. I know plenty of women who have had this done but I've never met any who have had a problem afterwards.

I do get the feeling you'd prefer I was suffering so I could back up your fears, which appear to be out of all proportion to the dangers.



It is unacceptable for you or the judge or anyone else to force a woman to have tubal ligation against her will.

And precisely where did I suggest/support forcing anyone to do anything?

I would support improving reversible, chemical-free sterilisation procedures, and offering these procedures free, with no coercion, to everyone.

You will find some people who shouldn't be having children would be glad to have this done if it was free.



The court might as well condone allowing that judge to rape the woman under anesthesia of course.

Hyperbole . . .



[edit on 7/6/09 by Kailassa]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by eradown


You will find some people who shouldn't be having children would be glad to have this done if it was free.


You will find there are not that many people who want to sterilize themselves ,so the eugenicists are turning to the court system to carry out their wishes. The court system is not set up to do sterilize people the creepy eugenicists do not want as neighbors. If the eugenicists can make a case for sterilizing some woman for selling weed, they will sterilize a poor bar keep who mistakenly sold some spoiled brats armed with fake I.D.'s achohol.



The court might as well condone allowing that judge to rape the woman under anesthesia of course.

Hyperbole . . .

Hardly, whatever idiot doctor does the deed will be touching a woman in the private parts without her consent. That is rape. The result will be infertility. Forced sterility is as bad if not worse as forcing a woman through rape to bear children. The act is brutal and non consensual: the definition of rape.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
It's the same thing as saying "if you want out of jail, you'll have to be visited weekly by a parole officer and pee in this cup"


The difference would be:

After the certain amount of time of parole, I would still be able to pee.

After this woman is off parole, can she have kids then? Will they undo the tying?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
You will find there are not that many people who want to sterilize themselves ,so the eugenicists are turning to the court system to carry out their wishes. The court system is not set up to do sterilize people the creepy eugenicists do not want as neighbors. If the eugenicists can make a case for sterilizing some woman for selling weed, they will sterilize a poor bar keep who mistakenly sold some spoiled brats armed with fake I.D.'s achohol.

On the contrary, there are millions of people who have freely chosen to sterilise themselves. It's a wonderful option for people who have problems with contraception, are against abortion, and want to continue a fulfilling sex-life.



In pursuit of love
By Vincent J. Genovesi

According to the 1995 report published by the National Center for Health Statistics, sterilization is now the most common recourse of Americans who wish either to limit the size of their families or to avoid procreation altogether. Using data from 1990, the last year for which figures were available, the report shows that of the Americans wishing to avoid parenthood or an increase in family size, about 42% get sterilized(29.5% of the women and 12.6% of the men; it is also estimated that 2/3rds of all married couples practicing contraception opt for sterilization within 15 years after marrying) . . .




Hardly, whatever idiot doctor does the deed will be touching a woman in the private parts without her consent. That is rape. The result will be infertility. Forced sterility is as bad if not worse as forcing a woman through rape to bear children. The act is brutal and non consensual: the definition of rape.


For all you know the woman concerned may be delighted to get sterilised free of charge.

I doubt many women who have been brutally raped and forced to bear children would agree that being given the option of a tubal ligation is in anyway comparable.
I certainly don't.

By the way, performing a tubal ligation does not involve "touching a woman in the private parts". These days it is done through a small tube inserted through the abdominal wall. Theoretically you could have it done without undoing your hipsters.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 
You have got to be kidding! Read what some of the women who were forcibly sterilized by self righteous eugenecists have to say before you make such a presumption.



[edit on 7-6-2009 by eradown]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
 
You have got to be kidding! Read what some of the women who were forcibly sterilized by self righteous eugenecists have to say before you make such a presumption.


What presumption have I made?
I am totally against forced sterilisation. However the woman discussed was not forced unless the alternate sentence was unjustly severe.

Do you dislike me pointing out where your arguments are illogical or incorrect?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I don't know you well enough to judge you one way or the other ,but you are wrong that forced sterilization is not as terrible as a rape which results in an unwanted child. Try telling this to the well to do black woman who was sterilized because as a child she was poor ; she never had any children. Go to the grave of Carrie Buck who was raped by her foster father who not only had Carrie sterilized and institionalized the child was given to him. The judge looks like a misogynist bully abusing poor women. If a big male rapist/wife beater showed up in his court the judge would not have the guts to bully the man into a vasectomy. The judge is dishing out unequal justice and should be removed.



[edit on 7-6-2009 by eradown]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I don't know you well enough to judge you one way or the other ,but you are wrong that forced sterilization is not as terrible as a rape which results in an unwanted child. . . .


Well, as I never said that, we don't have a problem, do we?

Apology please?

My words, in case it's too much trouble to find them for yourself, were:

I doubt many women who have been brutally raped and forced to bear children would agree that being given the option of a tubal ligation is in anyway comparable.
I certainly don't.



Btw, feel free to judge me all you like.
I only care about the judgement of people I respect.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Don't we have a "war on poverty"?

Considering that poor people tend to have more children than they can support;

Forced sterilization could surely help to win the war.

It is an idea whose time has come.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 
Kailissa, I don't care if you respect me and you did not win me over to the pro/forced tubal crowd, so I owe you no apology; I still disagree with you. I always will disagree with you on the merits of tubal ligation. Your glowing endorsment of tubal ligation did not move me at all. I just thought you were trying to con me . I also thought the pro tubal ligation rant did not have much to do with an obvious civil rights violation.You need to reexamine how you treat people you consider less important than yourself. My conscience is clear.




[edit on 7-6-2009 by eradown]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Granted, I didn't read more than the first page of responses but I've got to ask the question... Did anyone even READ the article?

It was not forced nor coerced. This seriously looks like the judge was trying to help AND the system.


"As the procedure was something that my client had expressed interest in in both the past and present, as well as the fact that Judge Egnor was not ordering her to get the procedure done as a condition of probation, I did not feel that my client's rights were being violated," Payne said.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


If anyone other than the judge over seeing the punishment of the woman were paying for this abomination I might not see this as a control issue ,but the story reeks of eugenecs propaganda ,so I think the judge at best is unethical at worst he is corrupt and dangerous. It is sad there are still people clinging to the corpse of eugenics in this country. They will be held accountable by a much higher court than ATS.




[edit on 7-6-2009 by eradown]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 





Granted, I didn't read more than the first page of responses but I've got to ask the question... Did anyone even READ the article?


Yes. It has been pointed out several times that this was not a condition of probation. However their are still some that seem to miss that point, therefore the debate has turned into should a court be able to issue sterilization as a condition of probation and is sterilization as a condition "forced".




It was not forced nor coerced. This seriously looks like the judge was trying to help AND the system.


From the same article:


"Discussing sterilization with a defendant is coercive," he said. "It interferes with a fundamental right, the right to procreate, the right to bodily integrity."



"There's no way that the defendant won't be worried about the consequences if she changes her mind. There's no way that her response to the judge is an independent decision," he said. "There are many, many cases that say that judges cannot coerce, suggest, or enforce sterilization on criminal defendants. It's simply beyond the reach of the criminal law."



Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who heads the Center for Ethical Advocacy and teaches law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said Egnor's suggestion was "inherently coercive."

"It's very hard for her to say no to somebody in black robes who holds the key to her prison cell," she said. "This would be one thing if this was her pastor or her counselor, but this is someone who has the power to send her to prison."



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
reply to post by Kailassa
 
Kailissa, I don't care if you respect me and you did not win me over to the pro/forced tubal crowd, so I owe you no apology; I still disagree with you. I always will disagree with you on the merits of tubal ligation. Your glowing endorsment of tubal ligation did not move me at all. I just thought you were trying to con me . I also thought the pro tubal ligation rant did not have much to do with an obvious civil rights violation.You need to reexamine how you treat people you consider less important than yourself. My conscience is clear.


You're welcome to disagree, but when say things that are incorrect, don't be surprised if someone here sets you straight.

You made out that tubal ligation was a frightfully dangerous operation with horrendous after effects.
The fact is there are rarely any after effects apart from sterility.

You said tubal ligation causes Alzheimer's disease.
The fact is there is no relationship between tubal ligation and Alzheimer's.

You said few women would want sterilisation.
I showed it's a common choice made by millions.

You said the judge forced the woman to get a tubal ligation.
The fact is she was not even pressured.

"[Butterworth] recognizes the need to make changes in her life in order to provide for herself and her family," Egnor's order reads. "After inquiring of the defendant, the Court further recognizes [her] desire to have a tubal ligation and has located a provider who will do it free of costs, with arrangements to be made in the next 30 days."

Defense attorney Michael Payne said his client, who has three children and is not married, was enthusiastic about the idea when the judge brought it up.

"As the procedure was something that my client had expressed interest in in both the past and present, as well as the fact that Judge Egnor was not ordering her to get the procedure done as a condition of probation, I did not feel that my client's rights were being violated," Payne said.
wvgazette.com...


You said regarding having a TL, "whatever idiot doctor does the deed will be touching a woman in the private parts",
I pointed out the procedure is done through the abdomen, and does not involve touching the "private parts."

You said what was being done to this woman was worse than rape and got upset when I called that hyperbole.


I gave no "pro tubal ligation rant", as you insultingly put it, I merely cast some light on the situation.

And you are still trying to make out that offering this woman a choice was an abuse of her civil rights.



- And now you come out with a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type statement, suggesting I treat people badly and look down on them.

Well honey, I've been a single mother with three kids, and I know what it's like. I don't look down on this women. I give her the respect to believe she can make her own decision in this matter.

It's you who is looking down on her by believing she would not be able to say no to something the judge suggests, and which she had brought up herself earlier in her trial.




If you have a clear conscience after making these posts full of so much nonsense you must have very different standards to most people posting here.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join