Mother of six 'can be sterilised' - (British) court ruling

BBC ^ | 02/04/2015 | James Gallagher

[Responsibility2nd]

It’s not a `Wild West` that appeals to you, but a Nazi Germany.

[katykelly]

I’m with you , besides , after six “ wards of the state “ , isn’t it a little late for the eugenics debate ?

[OneWingedShark]

In short,
“Stupid, weak and genetically-defective humans breed”

Benjamin Franklin's proposed design for the Great Seal of the United States:

(Genesis 1:28)
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

(Genesis 9:7)
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

(Psalm 127:3)
Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him.

(Genesis 1:26-27)
Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image and likeness. And let them rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the tame animals, over all the earth, and over all the small crawling animals on the earth.”

So God created human beings in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

(Luke 20:20-26)
So they watched him and sent spies who pretended to be honest, in order to trap him by what he said, so as to hand him over to the jurisdiction and authority of the governor. So they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you are right in what you say and teach, and you show deference to no one, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?”

But he perceived their craftiness and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?”

They said, “The emperor’s.”

He said to them, “Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent.

Now, who should I believe?
One who claims that human breeding is the result of the stupid, weak and genetically-defective?
Or God, who says they are a heritage and a reward? Who thrice in two verses claims mankind in His own image?

Moreover, if bearing the image marks the owner, then what does it mean to bear the Image of God?
Do you think He will hold you blameless for desecrating that image?

[WMarshal]

Vid, I’m sure that all good Germans thought the same thing when Hitler started sterilizing and killing off people with defects and mental retardation. Evil starts small by preying on the weakest first.

[Vigilanteman]

Did you even bother reading the entire article? Everyone of the woman’s children is a ward of the state. Even more key is that her uterus is so thin that a seventh would probably kill her. Do you think that is a more humane solution than what the court decided?

[Vigilanteman]

Genesis 1:28 was a command to normal humans who will love and care for their children, not to those who lack the brains to raise a China pet, much less a child.

Neither does it apply to street thugs intent on impregnating as many baby mamas as possible and using the additional welfare income thus generated to pay their crack dealers.

Your right to reproduce is limited by your ability to take humane responsibility for the results of that reproduction.

We need to cut some slack and aid young couples who love their children and need some temporary assistance to keep their families intact. In order to do so, we cannot supply endless resources to the promiscuous, drug-addled and dullards who repeatedly demonstrate that they have no intention of taking any responsibility whatsoever as this woman has done.

[OneWingedShark]

Your right to reproduce is limited by your ability to take humane responsibility for the results of that reproduction.

Ah, and who do you think should be the arbitrator of what constitutes the ability to take humane responsibility?
Embedded in your argument, right there, is that at least some people do not need/deserve the right to reproduce; that it is not inherent in our very humanity.
Nothing good will come from that.

We need to cut some slack and aid young couples who love their children and need some temporary assistance to keep their families intact. In order to do so, we cannot supply endless resources to the promiscuous, drug-addled and dullards who repeatedly demonstrate that they have no intention of taking any responsibility whatsoever as this woman has done.

I said nothing regarding the expenditure of resources; nothing about whether or not the state should be caring for anyone.
Embedded in your expressed thought is that government ought to be involved; I do not believe that to be the case.

[logi_cal869]

The nazi remark, c/o Responsibility2nd: You write:

It’s not a `Wild West` that appeals to you, but a Nazi Germany.

Totally uncalled for. However, I'll presume your reading comprehension was afternoon-fog deficit.

I wrote 'Wild West' as it is decidedly more appealing than the persecution we undergo every day. Our system WILL fail if our so-called 'leaders' don't get it together. There is not enough capital in this country to produce the wealth needed to sustain our direction and we are on the precipice of collapse. The other aspect of the Wild West is that it somewhat resulted in a regime of 'natural selection'. Between the hard, survive-or-die life on the range, homestead, farm et al and the lawlessness that bred a certain strength to those that formed the foundation of US strength for a number of generations before government serfdom, well...I could go on. It's my personal opinion. It was an observation relating to our current deficit of humanity. It certainly doesn't rate your slur.

Insofar as OneWingedShark: If the world is so black & white to you, you've reinforced my decision to vacate religion from my adult life. That is MY choice. I do not denigrate you for embracing it; do not denigrate me.

You wrote:

One who claims that human breeding is the result of the stupid, weak and genetically-defective?

Quote one word in which I support the actions of the NHS. Or, as you chose to do, MIS-quote me out of context.

Worse, you've metaphorically put words in my mouth. I DID NOT write that. In just 2 sentences of your comment (the rest was copy/paste) you've maligned me with a deliberate(?) misstatement. If that was deliberate, it was a LEFTY thing to do. Telling, but I digress.

I wrote:

“Stupid, weak and genetically-defective humans breed”

They have multiplied and overwhelmed our social systems.

There are 3 ways to deal with this problem:
1. As NHS is doing
2. Await civil unrest resulting from collapse of the ‘system’, which will cull many
3. “Thin the herd”

Anyone that doesn’t believe there’s actually been a discussion about #3 at high levels in many governments are fooling themselves and, frankly, there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Insofar as your specific point, we have a couple years to see if the US backtracks the current trend, as I see it going that way in less than a generation if things don’t change right quick...

To wit, I cite the government as being the source of the evil. The Wild West? An escape. A utopia compared to what's coming.

You both let your own biases guide your judgment rather than reading what I wrote, let alone seeking clarification. You BOTH owe me an apology.

(Footnote: I 'could' have added one word ("...3 ways for GOVERNMENT to deal with this problem:") but it does not change what I wrote...it's only mincing words, as I don't believe 50 words, let alone 1000 words, would make it clear enough for either of you)

[OneWingedShark]

You wrote:

One who claims that human breeding is the result of the stupid, weak and genetically-defective?

Quote one word in which I support the actions of the NHS. Or, as you chose to do, MIS-quote me out of context.

Ok: to deal with this problem.
This phrase indicates an active doing, quite different from (e.g.) this will resolve in one of three ways.

Now, I will grant that this could be the result of training against use of a passive-voice, but it is very, very common that passive voice be used in describing processes (where the actor, if any, is irrelevant).

[OneWingedShark]

(Footnote: I 'could' have added one word ("...3 ways for GOVERNMENT to deal with this problem:") but it does not change what I wrote...it's only mincing words, as I don't believe 50 words, let alone 1000 words, would make it clear enough for either of you)

Actually, it does.
It separates them (government) from you; instead of letting the deal with it associate with an implicit noun (I, we, us, you).

[logi_cal869]

Lol. Akin to ‘non-denial denial’. A “Non-apology apology”.

Ok. Fine. I’ll take that.

[logi_cal869]

No. As I did not cite the need, but the effect & conclusion, which could only be brought about by government, just as they are effecting it in England.

You misread the comment as a whole and cast judgment. I view it as inevitable: We’ve crossed the Rubicon.

And the rest of us infighting idiots that can’t get our crap together against the tyranny will be swept up in it as ‘collateral damage’... (or, as I interpret their motivations, “targeted”).

[Vigilanteman]

You speak of conservative utopian choices versus liberal utopian choices which are only available in a theoretical world where unicorns also poop out Skittles.

I speak of choices in a real world which has limited resources and which liberals have at least some political power.

[Vigilanteman]

Embedded in your expressed thought is that government ought to be involved; I do not believe that to be the case.

In a theoretical world where:

1. There are unlimited resources to care for an imbecile of this type and her spawn by just taxing the rich a little more (the liberal utopian view), then no.
   
2. Or, there is enough of a spontaneous charitable society where this imbecile's first spawn are cared for and further are prevented by counseling her not to spread her legs again (the conservative utopian view), then no as well.

Absent either of the above cases, the real choices are to either (a)do as the court ruled or (b)allow her to kill herself with a 7th irresponsible decision.

Since neither utopian view is realistically available and you are clearly opposed to (a), that leaves your default position as (b). Understood.

[OneWingedShark]

You speak of conservative utopian choices versus liberal utopian choices which are only available in a theoretical world where unicorns also poop out Skittles.

What utopia?
I've been speaking of morally right and morally wrong.

I speak of choices in a real world which has limited resources and which liberals have at least some political power.

I've never said [or indicated] that the real world isn't doing morally wrong things.

[FR_addict]

I think this is the first step to their mandatory Eugenics program. The elites are ready to start the programs up again for the “undesirables” (non-elites). An IQ of 70 is low, but she has the ability to think and make decisions. If the state would offer her money to go through some type of birth control, she would probably accept the offer. There’s all types of inducements that could be given this woman without requiring the court to mandate her sterilization. There is more and more talk about mandatory eugenics as the solution.

[citizen352]

This case Buck v. Bell in 1927 is interesting because the majority decision written by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and upheld by a US Supreme Court that presided over by President Taft who was US President in 1909 to 1913 and Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court 1921 to 1930, Louis Brendeis was another important Supreme Court Associate Justice in 1927. This case was not repealed but it is the basis for Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton both cases were decided in 1973.
Justice Holmes written decision was very interesting. There is an long article that is available on this Free Republic website that tells us what people were thinking at the time and that they may sill think. Eugenics proponents think they are doing a service to humanity by not letting some “feeble-minded people” breed. The “feeble-minded” will either starve, become a burden to society, or members of the criminal class.
The film, “Judgment at Nuremburg” is the first time I heard about this case. I have seen the movie many times but I never gave it any thought until now. The Nuremburg trials put Nazi war criminals on trial.

[citizen352]

It seems to be a part of the crazy philosophy of some males rich or poor that fathering many children without any regard for these children or the mother of any of these children is a sign of masculinity. Professional athletes have been known to father many children with many different women.

[citizen352]

The doctor made the decision that the woman cannot bear the child to term. She will not live if she tries to have this baby. I am not a doctor. I think the doctor is trying to save the life of the mother.

[Vigilanteman]

Exactly right. They need to be tracked down and compelled to take responsibility.