SarahBell Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31128969 Almost too strange to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Sounds fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilf Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The 36-year-old's history was described as "extraordinary, tragic, and complex". Two of the children were born at home in conditions described as "unhygienic and overrun by pets". There is evidence that BBQ tongs were used as forceps, although this was denied. In another birth, the woman - known only as DD - contested there was no father and the pregnancy resulted from a "tablet from a health food shop" .... Doctors said the wall of her uterus was "tissue-paper thin" and likely to rupture in childbirth, leading to almost certain death of the infant. Clearly a very special case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 What has happened before will happen again. I suugest you google Eugenics in the late 19th / early 20th Century. It started off as such a quaint idea... and progressed to thinking of people as the little yellow people... or the w*gs... or whatever... and ended up with the gas chambers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 What has happened before will happen again. I suugest you google Eugenics in the late 19th / early 20th Century. It started off as such a quaint idea... and progressed to thinking of people as the little yellow people... or the w*gs... or whatever... and ended up with the gas chambers. Another "all-or-nothing" argument, biased because some people went to ludicrous extremes that didn't even line up with the original idea. That's not to say that the entire concept isn't bad and it shouldn't be "nothing", but I'd prefer a better argument than "lunatics abused the concept." Don't want to be in a "don't use electricity because one moment it'll be lights, then progress to thinking zapping people is a good idea." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31128969 Almost too strange to be true. I don't think it's that strange, but I do think there's a case against the man who gave her a pill from a health food shop and she woke up pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Headline of this topic bears no real relationship to the content of the article, as far as I can tell from a cursory glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 I don't think it's that strange, but I do think there's a case against the man who gave her a pill from a health food shop and she woke up pregnant. That's the one bit that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 What has happened before will happen again. I suugest you google Eugenics in the late 19th / early 20th Century. It started off as such a quaint idea... and progressed to thinking of people as the little yellow people... or the w*gs... or whatever... and ended up with the gas chambers. You are blowing the argument out of all proportion. The court has gone to great pains to explain the position. This woman is probably unable to make the distinction between consensual and non consensual sex, and certainly has no idea about contraception. Probably means she is taken advantage off by various low lifes hence the six pregnancies. Another pregnancy could endanger her own life and that of the unborn child. Quite a leap to Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 What has happened before will happen again. I suugest you google Eugenics in the late 19th / early 20th Century. It started off as such a quaint idea... and progressed to thinking of people as the little yellow people... or the w*gs... or whatever... and ended up with the gas chambers. there is a danger, but this case is not it. The woman is incapable of understanding the danger she is in...she has had enough kids, its time to help her stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 .....those with low IQ are a very valuable commodity....they do the work that anyone with a high IQ would certainly frown upon......then many important jobs would never get done at all......that is why there is a good reason why we are all different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 You are blowing the argument out of all proportion. The court has gone to great pains to explain the position. This woman is probably unable to make the distinction between consensual and non consensual sex, and certainly has no idea about contraception. Probably means she is taken advantage off by various low lifes hence the six pregnancies. Another pregnancy could endanger her own life and that of the unborn child. Quite a leap to Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz Probably best to over-react though, if you don't want court orders like these to become normalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I see the logic of the argument and it is indeed something of a special case. But I simply can't support the idea of The State forcing anyone to undergo an operation like this. It crosses a line which I am not convinced should ever be crossed. If someone has children and does not look after them - aren't there existing legal remedies that can be / could have been pursued anyway previously, which might have led to a different outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 If someone has children and does not look after them - aren't there existing legal remedies that can be / could have been pursued anyway previously, which might have led to a different outcome?For the existing children perhaps but maybe not when it comes to having more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I appreciate this one is genuinely a tricky one.. I'm just wondering to myself how someone can have all those children, with social services having to "take them away" one by one, over a period of time, and that no action is taken. Wider society will just "mop it up". Socialise the cost, it's only a penny or so per person in the country. Just keep pumping them out. Was there no mechanism to put a stop to this earlier in some way? Much as the Welfare State can help those in need, it also removes the "point of despair" which is normally the trigger for people to change their behaviours, and then normalises those behaviours. Accepting that her IQ is low, but still suggesting that her behaviours might have been more changeable than perhaps is thought to be the case. With respect to the fact that she might die if she gets pregnant again - tough one, but I think my attitude is that we should not intervene. Is that harsh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Surely there's also a Health & Safety aspect. If the woman is not sterilised - and she lacks capacity in terms of the Mental Health Acts and is therefore incapable of deciding on sterilisation for herself. The MH Act 2005 was, in part, enacted: To ensure patients receive the care they need to protect them and the wider public from harm To support modernised services To strengthen patient safeguards To remedy Human Rights incompatibilities Surely the court's decision is in fact designed to protect her from harm/death within this Act? Edit typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 It depends on whether she should be considered capable of making such decisions for herself. Having a low IQ in general shouldn't be a bar on that but there is a limit (and heaven help us if any fool tries to make it some arbitrary threshold). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Forgetting the details of this particular case - we have to remember just yesterday the UK authorised "3 parent" children to reduce the risk of a naturally occurring genetic connotation - resulting in someone with a life deemed to be 'less' than that of a 'normal' person. Allowing people to do this in regards to how intelligent they are is surely - in theory at least - exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ah, this is a particular individual? Sorry, I didn't read the article and concluded that someone was advocating introducing eugenics again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Worth noting that the decision is fundamentally about the risk to an adult's life, not the children's. There are many many similar cases (with and without mental capacity) of multiple children and zero remedy beyond waiting for the next birth, waiting until obvious repeat signs of neglect and abuse that impact throughout life and often lead to the same cycle...etc. Will admit I have mixed views on forced sterilisation - in some cases I think it would be warranted but still don't like the slippery slope risk of the state getting to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If she hadn't had a child (let alone six) then I could see a problem with this, and I think six is enough for anybody. If she had an IQ of 140 they could have forced her go to work and get a career, then she wouldn't have any children at all. What's worse? Leave the best of your population withering on the vine while somebody with an IQ of seventy drops six. What a f**kin' mess. Who's running this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If she hadn't had a child (let alone six) then I could see a problem with this, and I think six is enough for anybody. If she had an IQ of 140 they could have forced her go to work and get a career, then she wouldn't have any children at all. What's worse? Leave the best of your population withering on the vine while somebody with an IQ of seventy drops six. What a f**kin' mess. Who's running this country? That was largely my take on it. My instinctive opinion, as is the one about not intervening. Of course it's easier for members on here, who I'd venture have an IQ maybe at least 50% above the rest of the population (not exaggerating) to make these judgements. I'm prepared to have an instinctive opinion changed through debate, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 It depends on whether she should be considered capable of making such decisions for herself. Having a low IQ in general shouldn't be a bar on that but there is a limit (and heaven help us if any fool tries to make it some arbitrary threshold). Hmm. Does it? I'm not saying you're wrong or arguing with you. My "instinctive opinion" again. Are there *ever* any circumstances in which it is OK for The State to *force* you to undergo a medical operation? The notion makes me so uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Perhaps people with a very low IQ, or who lack mental capacity, should be prevented from having sex in the first place. Its certainly not a clear cut argument, as per this article on a related case: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/should_the_mentally_disabled_have_sex/13953#.VNL0z52sWSo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.