Australian Children To Be Sterilized Without Parental Consent Under New Eugenics Laws

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


That.s right,you are getting the bigger picture of who is diagnosed as having mental illness,also included in the new DSM-IV,(which I think is used world wide!)coming out soon and needs a thread of it's own which I can't do,I'm a newbie) they will include 'grief' symptoms!!! .Sorry,that knowledge sickens me so much,I'm off here now.
Take care people,join the dots

This is how it starts. First the dissabled, mentally and physically sick or dissabled, then the people who are in jail, then the elderly, and then the children deemmed not fit, and then YOU. Where is this world going?

Originally posted by cloaked4u
This is how it starts. First the dissabled, mentally and physically sick or dissabled, then the people who are in jail, then the elderly, and then the children deemmed not fit, and then YOU. Where is this world going?

Your post reminded me of this...

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Origins of.. "First_they_came..."

First of all, I want to say that I think most of you who have responded in this thread are NOT THINKING. You are just reacting, and your reactions are polarized to trigger words and your own ideas and concepts. Stop, take a deep breath, and THINK.

I know a lady who has Angelman syndrome. Although in her 20's, she is mentally and emotionally an infant. Literally. She is total care, nonverbal, and mostly unable to communicate in any meaningful sense. Her paperwork says she is stuck at being about 18 months old developmentally. Would you really condone her having a child? Heck, don't even think that far .. why should she have to have menses and hormonal urges? She can't understand them or respond to them appropriately. Babies should not have babies, and if her parents hadn't already gotten her a complete hysterectomy, I would sure advocate the "state" doing it.

Another lady has Cohen syndrome. In her late 30's physically, she's developmentally about 3 or 4 years old, just like her older brother. Oh yeah.. After having one kid with Cohen which made it a 50/50 chance that another child would have it, her parents still had another child. Right now she has a badly broken ankle which required surgery, and she will have to be in a "long leg cast" (up to her thigh with a 30 degree bend at the knee) for six weeks because she can't understand that her ankle is broken and keeps trying to walk on it. At the moment she is quite angry and frustrated with all of her staff and medical pros because she can't understand why she has to have a cast and thinks if we would just remove the cast she could walk. Her parents are deceased and she's a "ward of the state." She gets depo shots because, if she doesn't, she has sexual urges, gets obsessed with men, and will propose sexual activity to any man she sees, such as the cashier at Walmart. She has chronic constipation and can't understand why she needs to "poop" every so often. How do you think she would handle having menses? How do you think a pregnancy would affect her? She can't even take care of her dog (therapeutic pet), let alone a baby.

Come on people, stop reacting to trigger concepts like "eugenics" and THINK. I love this lady I work with, I really do, and I do everything I can to keep her happy, healthy, and safe. But from my perspective, THANK GOD for those depo shots and I wish she had been sterilized (hysterectomy). Without the shots she WOULD try to be sexually active without any understanding of the potential consequences .. actually, without any understanding of anything more than "it feels good" (and it's almost as pleasurable as eating). She'd be freaked out if she had a period, let alone a pregnancy. But, you know, she loves babies and if you asked her if she wanted one, she'd say yes. What a nightmare that would be, especially since the baby would have a 100% chance of being just like her.

For many, if not most, women who are severely (mentally/emotionally) disabled, pregnancy and childbirth would be an absolute nightmare, roughly equivalent to 5 or 6 months of physical "torture" during which they wouldn't be able to comprehend what is happening to them, and no one would be doing the resulting child any favors allowing it to be conceived and born. Even if you argued for the tiny chance that the child would not have mental disabilities, how would you like to be that child, with a mother who isn't potty trained and can barely feed herself, or one who is more immature than you are by the time you're 6 or 7 years old?

Allowing people with severe developmental disabilities to reproduce is not doing anyone any favors, least of all they themselves or their would-be offspring.

You think you're being all noble and compassionate and humane and shyte trying to protect their rights, but you have no clue what you think you're protecting and absolutely no understanding of these people or their real needs.

Becoming Human we have always looked after our own its only natural we are the only species that share parenting(grandma, pop, aunt, ect). There is evidence to suggest that we have been of this nature for millions of years. For someone to want to do this act is pretty darn selfish.

reply to post by zarp3333


It was not publicized. Everyone I know heard it from friends that had got emails,face book or text messages from their friends and associates and only one or two days (some that night) before the deadline to send objections! Most Aussies won't even know about it! Case of too little (is more than sterilization proposed,and not just severely disabled) and too late (to spread the word) s&f to the op

Our governments have been bought out from under us everywhere by Rothschilds,

and have been paid forward to exterminate us..

Killing us softly..

reply to post by hhott


You make very good points. Ideally we would take care of the most vulnerable of our society and have programs in place to take care of all of them from cradle to grave and ensure they never suffer from the predators among us who would endanger them. As a Christian who adheres to Jesus's word that what we do to the least among us, we do unto him, I have no qualms about my taxes going to care for our most fragile and vulnerable. But I'm a realist as well as an idealist and I am sadly aware the abuse and danger these dear people are vulnerable to in our less than ideal world. Maybe someday our reality will catch up to our ideals but we are not even close to that point. If anything we've taken many steps backward in our care for the mentally ill and severely disabled. We cut programs and threw mentally ill people out on the street in my state so a governor we had many years ago could fund his pet projects that would bear his name.

I don't know what the answer is, but the dialogue needs to continue so we can strike that balance between our ideals and implementing what works to protect the most vulnerable in our world that is currently hamstrung by a poorly run economy and full of cruel predatory people. Ideally the sociopaths would be culled and sterilized but since so many of them seem to be running things, I don't see that happening anytime soon. The middle class will be the group eliminated first at the rate things are going.

Don't mind me, I'm in a pessimistic mood today.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Ok, here's what I believe to be the section mentioned in naturalnews:

I'm unsure how the above can be taken as children being sterilized without consent, since doing such a thing carries 5 years imprisonment...

OMFG !!!!!! WTF? 5 years? Thats It!!?? im speechless