Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will .

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MrWendal

You do realize that the scant information out there also says she is neither living with nor caring for any of her six children, right? ?

Yes, and the article says nothing at all concerning the circumstances in which her previous children were taken. It says one thing and one thing only...

All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.

So when were they taken? Were they taken right away? Were they taken recently due to this issue? Were the taken due to negligence on her part?

We don't know. None of us do. So with that in mind, how does this fact influence your opinion one way or the other?

And that her medical condition is such that a seventh would pose a threat to not only her life but the life of the child

Yes, her life may very well be at risk due to another pregnancy. However, until she becomes pregnant and this becomes a realistic possibility, are you willing to allow the State to set a precedence to sterilize people based on a hypothetical scenario?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MrWendal

Duh. Of course the key word is if. Privacy standards still seem to apply to her. But the other if is that if the courts are making the decision and whatever facts that the courts have and we will never know they had and her representation failed to make her case there might be cause here.

So the courts are never wrong? How many cases do I need to link to show that courts are not infallible? And again I ask you.... are you willing to set a legal precedence based on a hypothetical scenario? The one fact no one seems to be catching on to is that this women is NOT currently pregnant!

But, again, if you'd just rather let her go on and die, and look at this as something it is most likely not, as a scary government plot, you are entitled to that opinion as well.

Please show me in all my postings where I have said, "Let her die". I'll wait.

a reply to: hutch622

The deficiency with the thread is that it did not tell us the vital point of whether that family was taking care of itself financially or if the state has the job entirely or a part of the job. That is a critical point which allows the question of whether it is their (the parents) decision or ours (the supporters of the state).

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: infinityorder

Sure a beer it is then , well lots of beers . Aussie dollar at the moment is worth about 6 cents US .

Lol wait a year US will be $0.06 Aussie...

Thank our federal reserve, you can't print $60,000,000,000,000 behind everyone's backs without a......" Down side".

I love you Aussies...if any one on this planet understands us for who we are it is you crazy arsed sob's.

Just to further add... A continent of "criminals" making a world class civilization... That can and will at a moments notice stop making TVs and refrigerators and start making bombs and bullets......you guys got my respect before I was even thought of in the 40s.


Love you guys cousins..... Be well!!;;;

a reply to: infinityorder

No apology necessary buddy...

In fact I'd go as far to say that people making these decisions will be damned by the almighty as recompense for these transgressions.


That article was genius...

I don't know many people who read an article more than once...

Usually it's afterthought & debate that sway an opinion or make it concrete so most won't give this article a second look...

& the way it's worded, and each individual danger & mental incapacity of not only one but both parents, is emphasised, it's clearly intended to brainwash, for want of a better word as it does sound extreme.

Rather than putting their foot in the door & forcing their way in, they've persuaded the reader to let them in for a cup of tea.


Very subtle, but again, at second glance, blatantly obvious.

Sorry for the rant.

originally posted by: MrWendal

Please show me in all my postings where I have said, "Let her die". I'll wait.

It's implied, isn't it? And aside from that, it's another if that I posed to you and can't remember if you answered.

What is the alternative here? Death. So if you don't want her to be "steralised" then you don't care if she dies?

If I was faced with this same decision, I'd get my tubes tied in a heartbeat rather than die. Not about me though. In this case i just don't want her to die and believe, or am of the opinion, that she probably doesn't want to die either. If she does, fine.

OK i will take this chance to give some background on myself . Yes i know it should have been in the OP but i thought it not relevant . My uncle was placed in a Minda home , yes that was the name back in the day . I do not know what his IQ was but it certainly was not very high . Now uncle Ian (real name ) knew all of us kids by name , well a few hints here and there , but the one thing i remember is his sex drive was . well he had to be watched . I dont even know why i threw this out there . IQ might diminish but in my experience sex drive does not .

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Not at all implied.

My only implication is that this women has a RIGHT to make this choice for herself, in her own way.

Again I say- the biggest issue here is that she is NOT pregnant. Really think about that for a second. Would you allow a court- any court- to force YOU to have an irreversible, invasive medical procedure based on what the Court THINKS you might do in the future?

I find it amusing that I have answered directly every single question you have asked of me. yet I have asked one simple question- and you have ignored it. So again I ask- are you comfortable setting a precedence that allows the State to forcibly sterilize another person based on a hypothetical scenario?

What is the alternative here? Death. So if you don't want her to be "steralised" then you don't care if she dies?

Well no.... the article does not say she WILL die. It says there is a risk. Granted it is a high risk, but do you know for certain she will get pregnant again? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you she will? I don't. So in absence of an actual pregnancy, this is nothing more than speculation and I do not feel forcing a human being to be sterilized based on speculation is morally right.

a reply to: MrWendal

the only time i see a reason for the courts to get involved is when/if the children die, sick due to lack of parenting, or neglected to the point of the child coming to harm. this is not an exclusive list.

at this point the court system is protecting the child(ren).

a reply to: MrWendal

It certainly is implied that the alternative is death for her.

And my comments thus far should have answered this question of yours you now choose to focus on.

And I don't happen to believe this is either a scary plot against a woman or an intent to set any kind of scary precedent.

There is nothing here that shows us one way or another that either of these are the case. What we do have is just a lack of public facts and knowledge due to this scary allegedly system's requirements to guard a person's privacy.

Assuming that these facts and medical and mental capacity reviews exist, I view it as people trying to save the life of a person who doesn't understand and can't make a decision.

a reply to: MrWendal

OK i have thought about this some more . What if they Forced her to have contraceptives under supervision .

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: MrWendal

the only time i see a reason for the courts to get involved is when/if the children die, sick due to lack of parenting, or neglected to the point of the child coming to harm. this is not an exclusive list.

at this point the court system is protecting the child(ren).

Ok, so with you current statement in mind allow me to ask....

If she is not currently pregnant, what child or children is/are being protected by forcing her to be sterilized?

a reply to: MrWendal

I'm sorry but if she's not capable of supporting emotionally, physically and financially, the children she is about to bear, she is an unfit mother and no she shouldn't be able to have more kids

Whether they are just taken from her custody to be given to someone who is able or she is sterilized, something should be done.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MrWendal

It certainly is implied that the alternative is death for her.

And my comments thus far should have answered this question of yours you now choose to focus on.

And I don't happen to believe this is either a scary plot against a woman or an intent to set any kind of scary precedent.

Actually- you could not be more wrong. Any time a court makes a ruling that has never been made before- it sets a precedent. That is what a precedent is!! Allow me to quote the legal definition....

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

This is the basis of the justice system! Even right here in America, a Court looks back to the decisions other Courts have made on similar cases and then they make a ruling that follows the precedent set by the previous court. If they make a completely different ruling it sets a new precedent! So regardless of what you believe- it is a FACT that this ruling sets a precedent for ANY future case that may be similar.

Assuming that these facts and medical and mental capacity reviews exist, I view it as people trying to save the life of a person who doesn't understand and can't make a decision.

Your comments are just getting more and more absurd by the minute. Please tell me.... I beg you to answer this question.....

Who's life is being "saved" if she is not pregnant and thus there is no current risk to her life?

*Mr Justice Cobb declared that she lacked the mental capacity to make decisions regarding contraception.*

But not between Life & Death...

Strike 1.


*He ruled authorities could take ‘necessary and proportionate steps’ to remove her from her home and take her to be sterilised.*

Dragged kicking and screaming, sedated, and her body violated because the State says so...

Strike 2.


Low IQ & Autistic Spectrum are not enough to declare her Intellectually Disabled...
& lacking from this jam packed article, is the word of the Lady in question...
So what the Woman does with her body should be her decision...

Strike 3/4/5.


Some of the arguments for are compelling, but not convincing imo.


In fact the more I look into this, the more I disagree.


Edit;
Women make that Life & Death decision in pregnancy everyday of the year, all around the Globe!!!
As is their right, supposedly!

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: MrWendal

I'm sorry but if she's not capable of supporting emotionally, physically and financially, the children she is about to bear, she is an unfit mother and no she shouldn't be able to have more kids

Whether they are just taken from her custody to be given to someone who is able or she is sterilized, something should be done.

What child she is about to bear??? SHE IS NOT PREGNANT!!! There is no child she is "about to bear".

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Rather than putting their foot in the door & forcing their way in, they've persuaded the reader to let them in for a cup of tea.

]

Yes it was well written . It had you at 50/50 .

I dont know personally if there is a right or wrong answer here . As stated i had an uncle who was very challenged so my opinion is very likely biased .

I'm sorry but I am absolutely dumbfounded by some of the responses here. It absolutely amazes me that the overall consensus here seems to be in favor of sterilizing a human being based on an imaginary scenario under the guise of protecting the life of a women who is not actually in any danger. This is not even intervention... it is PRE intervention.

At what point would you draw the line?

If a man who sold drugs has a child with a women who also sold drugs, should we just lock up that child cause he MIGHT sell drugs?

That ridiculous question I asked above is pretty much the same thing here. Sterilize a women because she MIGHT get pregnant one day in the future to protect her life, which is currently NOT in danger and to protect the life a child that currently does not exist?

Holy Twilight Zone Batman!!!

a reply to: boncho

& if one day she is emotionally, physically & financially stable?

But she's been forcibly sterilised?



Take the kids from her if that's the case, but to violate a woman's body on a court order is what I'd describe as tyrannical.


People can scream hyperbole at "tyrannical" all they like until this becomes a weekly thing considering the amount of women who choose to give birth or get pregnant despite the risks.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: MrWendal

OK i have thought about this some more . What if they Forced her to have contraceptives under supervision .

This would be an entirely different conversation with entirely different points to be made. I wouldn't want to derail this thread so I will not go into much detail to explain my view, but the short answer for me is No. I do not feel the State has any right to force a person against their will to take medication of any kind if they are not a danger to the general population.