• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK judge OKs sterilisation of man with mental age of six year old

No lies here, sir. Just the fact that Margaret Sanger wanted to wipe out the black race in America. She was a huge fan of Hitler and the KKK had her as a guest speaker on black genocide.
Yeah, that would be known as lies. Thanks anyway.
 
I agree, in instances like this, but I keep stumbling on one question: where do we draw the line?

I think it is a per-case basis. I don't see this as a question of eugenics at all. Rather, just how to get that man what he really wants, when he lacked the intellect to grasp the details.

Forced sterilization of the insane or severely mentally handicapped is a more difficult question.

Declaring a platitude doesn't work unless also declaring the alternative at the same time. So pick one:

1. Mentally handicapped people are forced to NOT have sex.
2. Mentally handicapped women are FORCED to be drugged with hormones - known to have serious side effects particularly with decades of continuous use.
3. Mentally handicapped and insane women WILL have as many babies as their bodies possibly can produce - not even knowing why it is happening and then FORCED to go thru pregnancy and labor (which is always health and life threatening), all such children then turned over as wards of the state to raise.
4. Mentally handicapped and insane women are FORCED to have abortions.

Since they are mentally incapable of making decisions, any decision is FORCED upon them.

Which one do you pick? Which one do you want FORCED on them?
 
Last edited:
Well he isnt competent so what if he changes his mind and does want kids later? The whole argument is based on that he doesnt want kids. Well what if that changes? Then what? Did this guy ever agree to the vasectomy or not?

I think his stated wishes in the context of his comprehension was him exactly saying he wanted the vasectomy. So how is this different from any other man who changes his mind after a vasectomy - other than he is incapable of raising them?
 
No lies here, sir. Just the fact that Margaret Sanger wanted to wipe out the black race in America. She was a huge fan of Hitler and the KKK had her as a guest speaker on black genocide.

That's not accurate. Whether it be white or black, educating the poor in family planning and not having more children than they can handle and afford is nothing new.

She did favor eugenics, but not as racism. Many people did. Even the Supreme Court upheld laws to sterilize mentally handicapped people. This also was her sale's pitch to legalize birth control.

She opposed abortion and instead promoted birth control (which was illegal in most of the USA), so I think she'd be a pro-life hero. But I understand the Catholic Church hates her for promoting legalizing birth control and that all of pro-life slogans and values originate from the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church hates her, so then must most radical pro-lifers.

In your logic, any drug store that sells condoms is engaging in genocide.
 
Yet the guy has a job. Are you sure you know the whole story of what was said and not just what the court and news broadcasted? Have you heard this guys personal story? Or is this all assumption?

Well, if we assume the news report is an entire lie, then there is no topic at all, is there?

So I'll put this question to you then. If two severely mentally handicapped people want to have as many babies as they can - or just have no clue they are making babies by such sex - one a year every year to be turned over to the government since they can't raise them - I gather that'd be just fine with you. That mental institutions would be mass human-breeding centers of waves of parentless children by pregnant mentally incompetent women and mentally incompetent men.
 
The guy has the mind of a 6 yr old. He will always have the mind of a 6 yr old. He has already fathered a child that he has no capacity to care for, and the parents don't want him fathering more, presumably because they could be held responsible for raising the children or paying support for them. This guy wasn't castrated, for crying out loud. He had a vasectomy. Now he can diddle to his little 6 yr old mind's content without fathering a litter of kids that someone has to pay for.

I do not have a problem with this.

His partner could just have an abortion or take the morning after pill. The parents just don't want the financial obligation of raising another child.
My main problem is that it shouldn't be national news. The largest it should have gotten was the local paper/flyer, not even the county paper.
 
Beyond that condoms fail, if he is incapable of grasping that sex makes a baby and can not understand how a vasectomy works, how can he be taught to use a condom correctly? He is incapable of "dealing with it himself."

More importantly, why make him go thru that? He said what he wants. He wants sex and doesn't want babies - ever. That means a vasectomy - for any man, not just him.

No different for a woman. If she wants to have sex but absolutely does not want to become pregnant, it means a tubal.

But if he is unable to use a condom, then why can she not use the morning after pill and/or get an abortion?
 
I think his stated wishes in the context of his comprehension was him exactly saying he wanted the vasectomy. So how is this different from any other man who changes his mind after a vasectomy - other than he is incapable of raising them?

How do you know that? All we got were a few one liners from the trial.
 
Well, if we assume the news report is an entire lie, then there is no topic at all, is there?

So I'll put this question to you then. If two severely mentally handicapped people want to have as many babies as they can - or just have no clue they are making babies by such sex - one a year every year to be turned over to the government since they can't raise them - I gather that'd be just fine with you. That mental institutions would be mass human-breeding centers of waves of parentless children by pregnant mentally incompetent women and mentally incompetent men.

Im not assuming the entire thing is a lie. I just know that stories can be wordsmithed to appear one way when its really another (seen it happen with local incidents and then the later news reporting on the incident). The article said he had a job and I believed it so I didnt discount everything. I dont see how sex could be more complicated than just about any job. According to my reading comprehension this story may be wordsmithed (or maybe it isnt) and I would like to know more. Being commited to a psycho ward is a bit different but I think even they deserve some odd way to spread their lineage (if they have never had any kids) even if committed but I realize society wouldnt be willing to accept this burden for them and setup adoption pathways specifically for these lost people. I just think its tragic.
 
I think his stated wishes in the context of his comprehension was him exactly saying he wanted the vasectomy. So how is this different from any other man who changes his mind after a vasectomy - other than he is incapable of raising them?

But he is a 6 year old. What if he changes his mind later? Hes not a man. Hes a child right? So its very different than any other man who changes his mind.
 

Yes... parents and guardians sterilize their children or wards who are mentally handicapped all the time.. it is nothing new and often the state acts as an intermediary helping the parents/guardians get the legal work done. There are a few news stories about this on the web, but usually it gets no media attention at all.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=josnr

The scary part is that there are over 14 US states that still have the forced sterilization laws on the books, laws put in place long ago by eugenics fanatics. Granted at the moment those laws are not being enforced, but still scary that they are there and can be used at any minute.

But as long as it is a case by case valuation and not a blanket order like under the American eugenics laws, then I dont see the problem at all. There is a reason that someone else is the guardian of an over 18 year old.. they are unable to care or choose for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Yeah...I can sympathize I guess with the family that they will be taking care of children that he has but.....stinks too much of government making decisions they have no right making.

Some people just need the law to take the decision for them...as in the case of hereditary diseases..

A couple here who are apparently compos mentis were told that if they had children there was an 80% chance that the children would be born with a muscle wasting/mental condition as they both carried the genes.

But they went ahead regardless, giving birth to 3 boys...all unable to walk, talk, wearing diapers, in constant pain, and are not expected to reach their 12th birthdays..

Social services are supplying motorized wheelchairs, have modified their home, nurses are in attendance to help the mother, all free of charge except to the taxpayers..

What is or was the point!!
 
His partner could just have an abortion or take the morning after pill. The parents just don't want the financial obligation of raising another child.
My main problem is that it shouldn't be national news. The largest it should have gotten was the local paper/flyer, not even the county paper.

Wow, certainly a "MAN'S VIEW." Rather than him having a 10 minute vasectomy, she can just have 29 abortions at the cost of those or take 750 at $40 each extreme hormone pills. But OMG not mess with the man's sperm (that he doesn't want)!
 
Some people just need the law to take the decision for them...as in the case of hereditary diseases..

A couple here who are apparently compos mentis were told that if they had children there was an 80% chance that the children would be born with a muscle wasting/mental condition as they both carried the genes.

But they went ahead regardless, giving birth to 3 boys...all unable to walk, talk, wearing diapers, in constant pain, and are not expected to reach their 12th birthdays..

Social services are supplying motorized wheelchairs, have modified their home, nurses are in attendance to help the mother, all free of charge except to the taxpayers..

What is or was the point!!
You would deny these people a chance to try even though it hurts? Must be easy to make that choice standing on the other side of the river. You arent the one losing your lineage to the abyss forever. The need to procreate is the whole meaning of existence and life, the apex of instinct. Yet you would deny it to less fortunate people so easily?
 
Im not assuming the entire thing is a lie. I just know that stories can be wordsmithed to appear one way when its really another (seen it happen with local incidents and then the later news reporting on the incident). The article said he had a job and I believed it so I didnt discount everything. I dont see how sex could be more complicated than just about any job. According to my reading comprehension this story may be wordsmithed (or maybe it isnt) and I would like to know more. Being commited to a psycho ward is a bit different but I think even they deserve some odd way to spread their lineage (if they have never had any kids) even if committed but I realize society wouldnt be willing to accept this burden for them and setup adoption pathways specifically for these lost people. I just think its tragic.

Yeah, let's throw hundreds of thousands more parentless children into the foster care system because a man with an IQ of 40 has to have children he doesn't want to have and a mentally incapable women goes thru pregnancy and labor she doesn't want - because you claim the moral thing to do is to force him to have babies and her to give birth to them.

Explain to me the 100% perfection of condoms for anyone, let alone someone with an IQ of 40 - and why you want to FORCE him to use condoms to avoid making children.

At least you now MUST concede that in the claim of "anyone having sex is consenting to having a baby" is false, right?
 
The need to procreate is the whole meaning of existence and life, the apex of instinct.


I guess then people who can't have children should just kill themselves for the total meaningless of their lives - and everyone else who can no longer have children due to age? :roll:
 
Yeah, let's throw hundreds of thousands more parentless children into the foster care system because a man with an IQ of 40 has to have children he doesn't want to have and a mentally incapable women goes thru pregnancy and labor she doesn't want - because you claim the moral thing to do is to force him to have babies and her to give birth to them.

Explain to me the 100% perfection of condoms for anyone, let alone someone with an IQ of 40 - and why you want to FORCE him to use condoms to avoid making children.

At least you now MUST concede that in the claim of "anyone having sex is consenting to having a baby" is false, right?

I never said that. I said I want to know more about this case in case its word smithed.
 
I never said that. I said I want to know more about this case in case its word smithed.

We aren't and can't debate "what if really it is something different that we don't know?" can we?
 
I guess then people who can't have children should just kill themselves for the total meaningless of their lives - and everyone else who can no longer have children due to age? :roll:

There is no point wasting something that can still function and be a benifit. Wisdom and benifits can still be passed onto society if you dont have kids. But to argue that procreation isnt the main point of existence is pretty damn stupid. I dont get why just because I want to fully understand the ins and outs of the context instead of just a few snippets from this article you gotta try to portray me as a heartless bastard. Stop being petty.
 
You would deny these people a chance to try even though it hurts? Must be easy to make that choice standing on the other side of the river. You arent the one losing your lineage to the abyss forever. The need to procreate is the whole meaning of existence and life, the apex of instinct. Yet you would deny it to less fortunate people so easily?

How much money are you now willing to send them? How about just $1000? Or is it MY money you want take from me and sent to them in taxes? I am to pay for their attempts at genetic immortality. Why is that my problem? It was their gamble with those lives. Let them take care of it.
 
There is no point wasting something that can still function and be a benifit. Wisdom and benifits can still be passed onto society if you dont have kids. But to argue that procreation isnt the main point of existence is pretty damn stupid. I dont get why just because I want to fully understand the ins and outs of the context instead of just a few snippets from this article you gotta try to portray me as a heartless bastard. Stop being petty.

I do not agree at all that "procreation is the main point of existence." The "point of existence" according to who?
 
You would deny these people a chance to try even though it hurts? Must be easy to make that choice standing on the other side of the river. You arent the one losing your lineage to the abyss forever. The need to procreate is the whole meaning of existence and life, the apex of instinct. Yet you would deny it to less fortunate people so easily?

Well, during pregnancy the woman was told that her fetus had inherited a full blown version of her inherent genes..

I would not deny anyone their natural instinct to procreate, but if I was told that my future child would live a pain-filled useless life and would be dead by 12...

I wouldn't do it..

That's not love, it's selfishness!
 
I'm going beyond the article as what I am reading is the court ruled for what he wanted in actual effect. The point I go beyond to is I think if someone has a child planning to just dump that child onto the government upon birth UNLESS legally obligated adopted parents are first found, that person goes to prison. For him - or anyone - to have children knowing he can't care for or pay for them is totally unacceptable to me - because it is not only totally wrong - as in EVIL - towards those children - it also is making all of us pay week after month after year for his kids and knowing that is the outcome. People having children they can't, won't and don't properly raise is devastating to our society in may ways and breaking the bank.
 
I do not agree at all that "procreation is the main point of existence." The "point of existence" according to who?

According to what we are and how we continue life. According to the rules of our existence. Let me know when humans can live forever and then perhaps procreation wont be the major point of life anymore? I mean... Personally I think the point of life is to stare at the universe in awe and admire its beauty, continually asking questions and learning forever through time for infinity. But if you dont procreate that ends.
 
Back
Top Bottom