• 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

PeteEU said:
no...the legal procedures were followed to allow this... what is the problem? It happens all the time in the US, so why on earth cant it happen in the UK as well?
Click to expand...

It does?
 
Henrin said:
I don't buy into the idea that parents have the right to remove bodily functions of their children.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. Sometimes legal guardians have to make important medical decisions on the behalf of their wards. For example, maybe their child requires an amputation after a bad accident or surgery to remove a tumor or stitches for a laceration.

It's just foolish to keep a child from receiving a beneficial medical treatment on the grounds that parents don't have some philosophical "right" to do so.
 
the_recruit said:
Sure they do. Sometimes legal guardians have to make important medical decisions on the behalf of their wards. For example, maybe their child requires an amputation after a bad accident or surgery to remove a tumor or stitches for a laceration.
Click to expand...

Yes, medical necessity is a reasonable exception to my statement. Simply removing bodily functions when nothing is wrong is uncalled for and they have no right to do such a thing.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, medical necessity is a reasonable exception to my statement. Simply removing bodily functions when nothing is wrong is uncalled for and they have no right to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

The only bodily function that was removed is that there will be no sperm in his ejaculate. You're acting like they whacked off his wang, for crying out loud.
 
DiAnna said:
The only bodily function that was removed is that there will be no sperm in his ejaculate. You're acting like they whacked off his wang, for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

That is a bodily function. :shrug:
 
Where is the utility in keeping it? He and his girlfriend have restricted access to each other, and are currently monitored whenever they are together to prevent them conceiving another child they are incapable of caring for in any way.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, medical necessity is a reasonable exception to my statement. Simply removing bodily functions when nothing is wrong is uncalled for and they have no right to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

I'll respond by repeating the part of my post that you conspicuously deleted and ignored.

It's just foolish to keep a child from receiving a beneficial medical treatment on the grounds that parents don't have some philosophical "right" to do so.
 
the_recruit said:
I'll respond by repeating the part of my post that you conspicuously deleted and ignored.

It's just foolish to keep a child from receiving a beneficial medical treatment on the grounds that parents don't have some philosophical "right" to do so.
Click to expand...

It's foolish to allow parents to act on their child's body when there is no medical need to do so or nothing to maintain(hair, nails, baths, etc).
 
Henrin said:
It's foolish to allow parents to act on their child's body when there is no medical need to do so or nothing to maintain(hair, nails, baths, etc).
Click to expand...

Since on the abortion threads you are insistent that anyone having sex is consenting to having a child unless the person is made sterile - which one then would you pick for him:
1. You want him banned from ever having sex again or
2. You want him forced to have children he doesn't want to have.

He does not understand how babies are made and he does not understand what a vasectomy is. What he told the court is:
1. He wants to have sex
2. He does not want to make babies.

Any rational court would understand that is his approval of a vasectomy in that it meets what HE wants. To have sex without the possibility of making a baby. You oppose that. So then pick which of those alternatives you want forced upon him.

In YOUR logic on the abortion board his only options are never to have sex or have children he doesn't want. Since you want him effectively banned from being sterilized, pick 1 of those 2 you want forced upon him. If he can't grasp how babies are made or what a vasectomy does, he certainly can't grasp what a condom does.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
It's foolish to allow parents to act on their child's body when there is no medical need to do so or nothing to maintain(hair, nails, baths, etc).
Click to expand...

But there is a medical need - and on his clear wishes. He wishes to never make a baby again, but wishes to have sex. Thus, a vasectomy is a medical need.

Communication is the skill of figuring out what the other person is saying. He said he does want to have sex and never wants to make a baby. How do you interpret that to meaning he said he does NOT want a vasectomy?

The newspaper article is written with language choice to try to create a scandal. NOTHING in it says he opposed the vasectomy. Nothing. However, because he is an adult it took a court to clear this for the doctor. The court heard what he WANTS - sex with no possibility of this causing a pregnancy - and the court gave a doctor permission to fulfill those wishes. The court did not order a vasectomy, it ordered the doctor may do so. The media then tried to make a scandal out of it. Some people took the media bait hook, line and sinker.
 
joko104 said:
Since on the abortion threads you are insistent that anyone having sex is consenting to having a child unless the person is made sterile - which one then would you pick for him:
Click to expand...

That is not my position in abortion threads. Try not lying through your teeth and I will answer whatever questions you have. Otherwise, I'm not answering any questions you offer.
 
Eugenics is valid, Nazis or no. You made hate it but it is a solid idea, not everyone should reproduce.
 
Henrin said:
That is not my position in abortion threads. Try not lying through your teeth and I will answer whatever questions you have. Otherwise, I'm not answering any questions you offer.
Click to expand...

I was accurate, but then forget about the abortion board messages. It still leaves the question:

Which do you pick?
Him never having sex again or have children against his wishes?
 
Spriggs05 said:
The problem people have with it is that he could have just used condoms and not made a big fuss out of the whole scenario. However since he apparently has no idea how to use them, his legal guardians could have just (awkwardly) shown him and he could have just dealt with it himself, rather than taking a case to court and wasting time for the justice system. That's my point anyway.
Click to expand...

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.
 
joko104 said:
I'm ok with it particularly with the parents consent. This also gives the man more sexual liberty without the result of likely parentless child(ren) that society has to pay for.
Click to expand...

I agree, in instances like this, but I keep stumbling on one question: where do we draw the line?
 
TiredOfLife said:
Eugenics is valid, Nazis or no. You made hate it but it is a solid idea, not everyone should reproduce.
Click to expand...

That's why Margaret Sanger created the Negro Project.
 
joko104 said:
I was accurate, but then forget about the abortion board messages. It still leaves the question:
Click to expand...

Actually you lied, but you of course already know that.

Which do you pick?
Him never having sex again or have children against his wishes?
Click to expand...

Those choices make no sense, so neither.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, medical necessity is a reasonable exception to my statement. Simply removing bodily functions when nothing is wrong is uncalled for and they have no right to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. There is a difference between life saving procedures and a family not wanting to be hassled. I cant believe dude when even try to argue that.
 
joko104 said:
Since on the abortion threads you are insistent that anyone having sex is consenting to having a child unless the person is made sterile - which one then would you pick for him:
1. You want him banned from ever having sex again or
2. You want him forced to have children he doesn't want to have.

He does not understand how babies are made and he does not understand what a vasectomy is. What he told the court is:
1. He wants to have sex
2. He does not want to make babies.

Any rational court would understand that is his approval of a vasectomy in that it meets what HE wants. To have sex without the possibility of making a baby. You oppose that. So then pick which of those alternatives you want forced upon him.

In YOUR logic on the abortion board his only options are never to have sex or have children he doesn't want. Since you want him effectively banned from being sterilized, pick 1 of those 2 you want forced upon him. If he can't grasp how babies are made or what a vasectomy does, he certainly can't grasp what a condom does.
Click to expand...

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?
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where did he say "I dont want to have a baby ever" I could have swore it said "I dont want to have a baby". What if the court said "We want you to be able to be with your girlfriend more but you cant be trusted not to make more babies" and he said "I dont want to have more babies." Do you know what was actually said and the exact context or are we all just working with little snippets released to the news?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Seems he is telling the court he doesn't want children, but isn't competent to guarantee that with traditional BC measures.

I'm not sure what the problem is here?
Click to expand...

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?
 
TiredOfLife said:
I am, but not right-wing lies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom