Posted on 02/05/2015 3:16:06 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
A mother of six with an IQ of 70 should be sterilised for her own safety, the Court of Protection has ruled.
The Court heard that a further pregnancy would be a "significantly life-threatening event" for both the mother and child.
Mr Justice Cobb said the woman had the "same human rights" as everyone else and this was not a case of "eugenics".
He has authorised health and council services to intervene and perform the sterilisation.
The name of the woman has not been released, to protect the identify of her children.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
'nuff said.
"This case is not about eugenics, this outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event."
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
If they have to tell you that it’s not about eugenics then it is.
CWII Spark Ping — While not a US story, can you imagine this being used as precedence in our courts?
(And, given that it’s a NHS ruling, can we discount the possibility that similar would be adopted by our own HHS via the ACA?)
She is evidently putting her own health into danger by risking a seventh and another ward of the state. So the court is being logical here and not just looking after the financial health of the NHS.
FWIW, my mother had seven. Not a single one of us grew up to be a ward of the state or a bed-wetting liberal even though we had less disposable income than many who are.
“a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event”
The dangerous part of this line of thinking is that EVERY pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening event. So it’s a very small leap from this point to just sterilizing all of the “mentally deficient” as a matter of course.
You done fell down that slippery slope there Vig.
The Court will now decide that YOU being a conservative now poses a threat.
Sterlizations for YOU begin on the right -——>
There has to be a better way to handle the situation though. If she is so deficient that she is a ward of the state, then the state is failing at the job of being her custodian. A woman like this, as a ward of the state, getting pregnant just once should have set off as many alarm bells as a 12 year old orphan in a foster home getting pregnant would.
Someone was supposed to be supervising her and they obviously neglected that job badly. Now the state is just taking liberties with her in order to continue to avoid doing their job in the future.
Next step will be the ovens. It’s the way that German guy eased into it.
"Born in 1918, she was mentally impaired and never truly fit in with her family." - Schriver
Nice, huh?
"CWII Spark Ping — While not a US story, can you imagine this being used as precedence in our courts?"There was already a precedent, in Buck v. Bell in 1927.
So, in principle at least, you fully support something like China's one child policy which is turning into a nightmare for the Chinese because there simply aren't enough Chinese women of child-bearing age for the men to marry.
Once society gives conditional assent to eugenics, they open the door for whatever else the deathmongers propose. What's the difference between six babies and two.
When Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. penned the repugnant phrase, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough," he set the stage for what would eventually become the Nazi Holocaust.
It was Rosemary’s sexual escapades that set Papa Joe over the top leading to her lobotomy.
Too bad he didn’t go that route for his rowdy sons.
/s
Joe was terrified that she would be impregnated out-of-wedlock by a man that he considered beneath his standards.
I am aware of the reason for the timing of her lobotomy surgery. My aunt was her LPN attendant for several years down in Florida. The family hired in house nurses to keep tabs on her and to keep her concealed from public view.
Ewww.
The more I dig into the rulings of the judiciary, the less respect I have for jurists.
My kneejerk response is ‘You don’t get it’. But I think you do. Permit me to elaborate:
Humans are the only species on Earth to bypass natural selection.
In short,
“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...
There is no ‘answer’ per se, but the ‘Wild West’ is much more appealing to me these days than what I deal with now every day...
Time to end our alliance with the UK. SICK COUNTRY
if they have to tell you its not about eugenics then it is.
____________________________________________________________
You are so right... It is on their mind.
I am watching The Fall on Netflix—NHS—one part of it is when the hospital “withdrew care” from a newborn. No discussion of whether or not the parents had any say...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.