• 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

Peter Grimm said:
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Click to expand...
That's for the forum owner to decide. If you don't like Americans talking about international politics, you should PM the Admin and ask him to remove all the international political sub-forums on this website.

I'm not sure you'll like his answer, though.
 
I'm hung up on the fact that he's having physical relations while having the mental capacity of a child. The order and medical intervention are no big deal to me. I don't follow how he can be declared 1) incapable of making the decision to have a medical procedure but 2) be mentally sound enough to even have sex.

Shouldn't it stand to reason that if he can't consent to one thing thus he can't consent to the other?

Yeah - I'm believing, here, that an invalid shouldn't be having sex. I think the issue is that they are allowed to have sex together even when neither of them are capable of A) understanding, fully, what's happening. B) having a child safely. C) supporting said child and D) both making the informed-consent decisions necessary to avoid it in the future.

What kind of caregiver to a mentally handicapped individual LETS that type of situation happen when they KNOW the natural outcome of such activity? How does that even begin? "We have to support you 100% in life, but go ahead and have sex and risk a pregnancy" - how did he even come to know what sex is?

I mean - my god, what the heck is wrong with this situation?

And of course - some idiots think it's perfectly ok to put both HIM and HER through child rearing (yes - the child is being raised by others, but seriously, it should be avoided to begin with) :roll: Oh my . . . what's wrong with people. Things are bad enough when perfectly capable people have kids they don't want.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm hung up on the fact that he's having physical relations while having the mental capacity of a child. The order and medical intervention are no big deal to me. I don't follow how he can be declared 1) incapable of making the decision to have a medical procedure but 2) be mentally sound enough to even have sex.

Shouldn't it stand to reason that if he can't consent to one thing thus he can't consent to the other?

Yeah - I'm believing, here, that an invalid shouldn't be having sex. I think the issue is that they are allowed to have sex together even when neither of them are capable of A) understanding, fully, what's happening. B) having a child safely. C) supporting said child and D) both making the informed-consent decisions necessary to avoid it in the future.

What kind of caregiver to a mentally handicapped individual LETS that type of situation happen when they KNOW the natural outcome of such activity? How does that even begin? "We have to support you 100% in life, but go ahead and have sex and risk a pregnancy" - how did he even come to know what sex is?

I mean - my god, what the heck is wrong with this situation?

And of course - some idiots think it's perfectly ok to put both HIM and HER through child rearing (yes - the child is being raised by others, but seriously, it should be avoided to begin with) :roll: Oh my . . . what's wrong with people. Things are bad enough when perfectly capable people have kids they don't want.
Click to expand...

People with intellectual disabilities are sexual beings and are allowed, and should be allowed to have sexual relationships. You shouldn't throw the person into a closet just because you think it prudent.
 
Fiddytree said:
People with intellectual disabilities are sexual beings and are allowed, and should be allowed to have sexual relationships. You shouldn't throw the person into a closet just because you think it prudent.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. I'm pointing out that there's an inconsistency that needs to be addressed:

1) They're alleging he's incapable of understanding or consenting to a medical procedure.
2) But they're saying he's capable of making the consented decision to have sex.

The two don't compute - he's either capable of consenting and understanding, or he's not.

The issue seems to be that they don't know what he is capable and incapable of, honestly.

But to your point - no, I disagree. If you don't understand what sex really is and what it's meant for, you shouldn't be permitted or encouraged to have it. Come on - we hear it in abortion arguments all the time: don't have sex if you're not mature enough when you're a teen. . . etc.

Underaged children who are more mentally advanced than this man aren't allowed to consent and parents wouldn't permit them to engage (or shouldn't) - he doesn't get special treatment just because he's physically reached a certain point in his life.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
That's not my point. I'm pointing out that there's an inconsistency that needs to be addressed:

1) They're alleging he's incapable of understanding or consenting to a medical procedure.
2) But they're saying he's capable of making the consented decision to have sex.

The two don't compute - he's either capable of consenting and understanding, or he's not.

The issue seems to be that they don't know what he is capable and incapable of, honestly.

But to your point - no, I disagree. If you don't understand what sex really is and what it's meant for, you shouldn't be permitted or encouraged to have it. Come on - we hear it in abortion arguments all the time: don't have sex if you're not mature enough when you're a teen. . . etc.

Underaged children who are more mentally advanced than this man aren't allowed to consent and parents wouldn't permit them to engage (or shouldn't) - he doesn't get special treatment just because he's physically reached a certain point in his life.
Click to expand...

Even sloths and snails breed. Interesting you have enough cajones to deny this couple procreation. I think the human race can do better than that and society can help raise a kid or 2 of this guys if his parents arent willing. How many couples say "we wherent planning on having a baby! It just happened!" Then it happens to 2 retarded people and everyone makes a huge fuss.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Even sloths and snails breed. Interesting you have enough cajones to deny this couple procreation. I think the human race can do better than that and society can help raise a kid or 2 of this guys if his parents arent willing. How many couples say "we wherent planning on having a baby! It just happened!" Then it happens to 2 retarded people and everyone makes a huge fuss.
Click to expand...

So really - you're in disagreement with the court, and with the family whose already supporting adult #1 and adult #2 as well as child #1. . . you feel they should be allowed to have sex whenever and have however many kids nature permits to be conceived.

Why? That makes no sense.

What if we were talking about DRIVING a vehicle? What then? Would you believe he has a right to drive even though he obviously cannot do so safely? How are children supposed to be so 'special' and 'important' yet you hold something like driving a vehicle to a higher standard as if kids have been reduced a few levels in value all of a sudden when it comes to the topic of a mental handicap.

What you describe as cajones is me just having common sense and a lack of pc qualms.

I don't care if my view seems offensive - it makes no sense to encourage reckless behavior when the individuals involved can't even comprehend what they're really doing. . . and - no - my view does not matter if they're mentally inept, etc. I don't believe anyone who doesn't have the capacity to grasp the heft of sex should have sex. Like: young teens who just haven't lived long enough to enter into such a situation with full knowledge or the ability to cope or handle the results.

I say that type of thing all the time and often find people agree with me. . . but because he's mentally handicapped - suddenly that view is wrong? If he wasn't, and instead he was a 10 year old kid, what would your view be? Because that's what I see: a six year old having sex. I don't care if he's taller than his mother - age is just a number, is it not (yet against something else I often say)

Their care takers should have taken precautions long ago if they were letting them have sex freely. Yes? Seems very basic to me, especially since they have to 'be around' to make sure things are safe and 'adopt the kid to support it because the parents can't'
 
DiAnna said:
A vasectomy is considerably less invasive and dangerous than an abortion. It's also a permanent solution, whereas repeated pregnancies requiring repeated terminations could have severe physical effects on his "partner", who also has mental issues. It is the simplest solution, one that satisfied everyone involved, including the man himself. Beyond that, it's actually nobody else's business. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Ok, it is nobody else's business, that's what's got me annoyed, the fact that it became a major story, whilst thousands of people are being Killed in Egypt we are worrying about a man having a vasectomy.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So really - you're in disagreement with the court, and with the family whose already supporting adult #1 and adult #2 as well as child #1. . . you feel they should be allowed to have sex whenever and have however many kids nature permits to be conceived.

Why? That makes no sense.

What if we were talking about DRIVING a vehicle? What then? Would you believe he has a right to drive even though he obviously cannot do so safely? How are children supposed to be so 'special' and 'important' yet you hold something like driving a vehicle to a higher standard as if kids have been reduced a few levels in value all of a sudden when it comes to the topic of a mental handicap.

What you describe as cajones is me just having common sense and a lack of pc qualms.

I don't care if my view seems offensive - it makes no sense to encourage reckless behavior when the individuals involved can't even comprehend what they're really doing. . . and - no - my view does not matter if they're mentally inept, etc. I don't believe anyone who doesn't have the capacity to grasp the heft of sex should have sex. Like: young teens who just haven't lived long enough to enter into such a situation with full knowledge or the ability to cope or handle the results.

I say that type of thing all the time and often find people agree with me. . . but because he's mentally handicapped - suddenly that view is wrong? If he wasn't, and instead he was a 10 year old kid, what would your view be? Because that's what I see: a six year old having sex. I don't care if he's taller than his mother - age is just a number, is it not (yet against something else I often say)

Their care takers should have taken precautions long ago if they were letting them have sex freely. Yes? Seems very basic to me, especially since they have to 'be around' to make sure things are safe and 'adopt the kid to support it because the parents can't'
Click to expand...

I said 1 or 2 kids. Continuing your lineage should be very important for humans and everyone should have a chance to do it.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Continuing your lineage should be very important for humans
Click to expand...
Not if you don't know what a lineage is. 'Continuing one's lineage' is a conscious, metaphysical, mental construct that I'm pretty sure a chap of 40IQ wouldn't grasp and something which wouldn't even occur to him.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's not my point. I'm pointing out that there's an inconsistency that needs to be addressed:

1) They're alleging he's incapable of understanding or consenting to a medical procedure.
2) But they're saying he's capable of making the consented decision to have sex.
Click to expand...

How is that confusing? There is a significant difference from a social experience and a medical procedure. One has a lot more legal and health ramifications than the other. There are reasons why this continues to be a concern for guardianship, because it involves the negotiation of ensuring that the rights of the individual are not unjustifiably circumvented, while their need for services and support remains.

Furthermore, what they are stating is that legally his consent is different from his social consent. He may say he is in favor, but that does not mean that the courts would agree he actually gave legal consent. Under legal consent, he has the right to have sex without approval from the state, whereas medical procedures come under additional scrutiny (especially those with a dangerous past, like sterilization).

But to your point - no, I disagree. If you don't understand what sex really is and what it's meant for, you shouldn't be permitted or encouraged to have it. Come on - we hear it in abortion arguments all the time: don't have sex if you're not mature enough when you're a teen. . . etc.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that nowhere in the article does it suggest that this individual does not know what sex was, while having it.

Furthermore, there is a significant difference between what you are arguing from what is being argued in the abortion context. While the non-disabled adult is free to have sex as they please, with the only ramifications being once a child is produced (and even then, the conversation is usually restricted to offspring, not their ability to screw), you seem to be under the impression that you should stop those with intellectual disability from even engaging in sexual activity. What's fascinating is that you stick with the argument that legal consent is knowledge of what sex is, but somehow children without disabilities (who cannot give legal consent) are granted this knowledge of sex.

Third, we have had sexual education for individuals with intellectual disability for decades.

Underaged children who are more mentally advanced than this man aren't allowed to consent and parents wouldn't permit them to engage (or shouldn't) - he doesn't get special treatment just because he's physically reached a certain point in his life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they are children. This man is an adult. He's hardly asking for special treatment, considering the rest of his life he is considered legally inferior to that of any non-disabled or mildly-disabled adult. He had to go through a court system in order to determine if he could be sterilized, regardless if he wanted it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
What if we were talking about DRIVING a vehicle? What then? Would you believe he has a right to drive even though he obviously cannot do so safely? How are children supposed to be so 'special' and 'important' yet you hold something like driving a vehicle to a higher standard as if kids have been reduced a few levels in value all of a sudden when it comes to the topic of a mental handicap.
Click to expand...

My own sibling may possibly be able to drive a car, but as of right now, he is not ready for it. He has a job and lives semi-independently. He will be allowed to have a relationship with someone, get married, and yes, have sex. No, he would not be able to raise a child responsibly, which is why condoms and other safe sex methods would be promoted.

We don't give the guy all or nothing. It's a series of negotiations, boundaries, and attempts to do right by his own desires, like any other man.

And yes, the mental-age metaphor has been used. Some areas, his problem solving range is at an early grade school range. However, many other parts of him are not reduced to that number.

Yes, my sibling is not this man, and his condition is not the same. Nevertheless, the restrictions placed on his involvement in society in the many of the discussed areas are similar, and the orientation we use is not at all unheard of or unaccepted by medical professionals or individuals in the disability community.
 
Last edited:
I needed to edit the first post in regard to the man's knowledge of sexuality. He seemed to understand the relationship he had with his girlfriend, but was unaware of the process of pregnancy until after the fact.
 
Andalublue said:
Not if you don't know what a lineage is. 'Continuing one's lineage' is a conscious, metaphysical, mental construct that I'm pretty sure a chap of 40IQ wouldn't grasp and something which wouldn't even occur to him.
Click to expand...

...... Wow. Can I jerk off over your wife at night if shes asleep? I mean... she will never know so whats the harm? (assuming you have one)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's not my point. I'm pointing out that there's an inconsistency that needs to be addressed:

1) They're alleging he's incapable of understanding or consenting to a medical procedure.
2) But they're saying he's capable of making the consented decision to have sex.

The two don't compute - he's either capable of consenting and understanding, or he's not.
Click to expand...

One is a biological process which many animals undertake. A Medical procedure is however something else.

The man in this case has the physical ability and desires to have sex but he's not capable of raising the child produced if conception happens. He is in need of supervision by his family who took the decision to keep him and his partner separate so as to prevent more pregnancies but that has harmed the couple emotionally.
The judge took all facts into consideration and gave legal consent for sterilisation for all the reasons Mancs Skipper has already outlined. Equally - the major mental health charity that tries to protect such individuals rights agreed with the decision to sterilise based on the facts they had.
 
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...

The problem is that the article doesn't explicitly state that the man is "cognitively challenged", and the cognitively challenged of DP can't read between the lines.
 
Henrin said:
No, it's not extreme at all. Promoting the idea it's ok to remove the bodily functions of people against their will is sick. Yes, the people that were raped didn't ask for it, but that has nothing to do with your actions. Doing harm onto a person because they did harm onto someone else doesn't make your action right. It is just as twisted if not more so than the actions of those you are acting on. The old eye for an eye type of justice is just barbarianism.
Click to expand...

It is a toxic influence on the spirit, but one could dismiss such an argument as the words of someone who hasn't suffered to the point of hating someone enough to want them to be brutally punished.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure if this is true or not but I was talking to someone from Canada and they said there it is legal to nullify a newborn babies reproduction processes if it is born with retardation. She said her neighbors kid was born with down syndrome so they gave the baby a vasectomy..... If this is true I say Canada needs to change their laws or im going to congress and proposing America declares war. :p
 
Jerry said:
That's for the forum owner to decide. If you don't like Americans talking about international politics, you should PM the Admin and ask him to remove all the international political sub-forums on this website.

I'm not sure you'll like his answer, though.
Click to expand...

What part of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" was confusing to you? Let's go over it slowly so that you can understand, ok?

The forum moderators decide what you CAN do. So we have established that you CAN get yourself involved in discussions about domestic British politics, you are indeed allowed to do that.

Your own sense (or lack thereof) of decency should dictate what you SHOULD do.

Get it now? There are quite a few things that are legal to do, but still not right to do. Just because we don't legislate morality doesn't mean you should go around doing whatever the hell you feel like doing.
 
Henrin said:
As I said, we have many people that feel they have a right to remove bodily functions of other individuals due to crime or inability to understand their decisions. It's just sick.
Click to expand...

I don't get the impression he had anything forced on him.

The article makes it sound as though everyone agreed he should have the procedure done but doctors can't do it because he doesn't have the mental capacity to consent. It looks to me like he went to court specifically looking to have it done.
 
Peter Grimm said:
This is up to the British to decide. I don't know why so many Americans feel the need to chime in.

We have enough problems on our own.
Click to expand...

What does being British or American have to do with talking about something in the news?
 
Dapper Andy said:
What does being British or American have to do with talking about something in the news?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're British, you have to decide whether you want to live in a nation where this sort of sterilization is permitted. You have skin in the game, so to speak.

If you're American, you're just shooting your mouth off, pretending like you know what's best for Britons when actually we're two different cultures.
 
Peter Grimm said:
What part of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" was confusing to you? Let's go over it slowly so that you can understand, ok?

The forum moderators decide what you CAN do. So we have established that you CAN get yourself involved in discussions about domestic British politics, you are indeed allowed to do that.

Your own sense (or lack thereof) of decency should dictate what you SHOULD do.

Get it now? There are quite a few things that are legal to do, but still not right to do. Just because we don't legislate morality doesn't mean you should go around doing whatever the hell you feel like doing.
Click to expand...
Sorry but all I hear is blah blah blah blah, "Stop hating on us bro!" blah blah blah. I guess im just an asshole?
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm American, bro.
Click to expand...

Oh well then you do realize you are going off on someone that has nothing to do with you for going of on someone that has nothing to do with them right? Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Whats the point of saying "Its none of your business." When I can just say "Im interested therefore it is my business, but it isnt your business that I am interested unless you are interested in making this hoopla your business."
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Oh well then you do realize you are going off on someone that has nothing to do with you for going of on someone that has nothing to do with them right? Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Whats the point of saying "Its none of your business." When I can just say "Im interested therefore it is my business, but it isnt your business that I am interested unless you are interested in making this hoopla your business."
Click to expand...

You're overthinking this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom