Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SarahBell

Sterilise The Low Iq

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headline of this topic bears no real relationship to the content of the article, as far as I can tell from a cursory glance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.